Who has bigger balls, Congress or Clinton? Clinton it seems.

Sometimes you almost feel like Congress can get something right. Then you realize it’s Congress – the worst Congress ever, that has accomplished the least ever – and then you know how bad you’re screwed.

Case in point. Senator Hillary Clinton is about to become the Secretary of State. Such an abomination should never happen outside of a nightmare. But the reality is that the wicked witch of pure ambition has made it virtually through the confirmation process.

Then you notice that Senator Lugar has a problem with the conflict of interest Senator Clinton has with the Clinton Foundation. Hurray someone is paying attention. Until he says he won’t hold up her approval.

Then you get another burst of intelligence out of the collectively dim, this time from Sen. John Cornyn. He too has the inspiration to notice that the Clinton Foundation is a conflict if it continues to receive tens of millions from foreign governments while Hillary is Secretary of State.

“Transparency transcends partisan politics and the American people deserve to know more."

Then he goes on to say he won’t block the confirmation either. On top of which the true genius of the Senate, Harry Reid proclaims that he will push Clinton thru either with a voice vote or a roll call vote – which Democrats know can’t be defeated.

So all we have to provide the nation with the assurance that our Secretary of State is unquestionably looking out for the nation is her unyielding ambition for power (which got her this job in the first place) and her assurance that there will be no conflict. Because we all know that the word of a Clinton is unimpeachable.

Except when it comes to commodity trades, adultery, pardons, political backstabbing, talking to the media, establishing a position on illegal immigration, actual political influence, historical fact of work done, or promises to constituents. How could anyone doubt them?

Where are all the balls in Congress? Surely there is a Congressman or woman that is willing to say that based on the past history of the Clintons, and their campaigns, and their top aides, just taking their word is not enough to become Secretary of State. You would think someone would want to hold her up, or attempt to block her. Yet none of the Representatives and Senators of Congress has a backbone it seems. And they are the people that are strong enough to help President Obama lead the nation out of this near depression?

If this is the kind of response we can expect from the 111th Congress, I might wish for the time wasting, money spending, pork barrel loving, ineffective 110th Congress. The days of Congressional hearings seeking to find out known facts and investigate legal actions for months seems like a pleasure cruise to a Congress that is unwilling to question and halt the image of corruption.

What can we expect from them if we find that there actually becomes corruption in fact? Maybe Barney Frank looking dumb in the camera as he watches video of himself spout utter nonsense some more. This time maybe Pelosi and Reid will join him. What a tea party.

The question of the honesty of the Secretary of State, the incorruptibility of the office, is at stake here. This is massively serious. And it is being handled as if this were about parking tickets from the U.N.

If this is what an Obama Administration portends, it’s a dark 4 years coming.

When the Clinton ledger hits daylight

$492 million in 11 years. That is a heft sum of money, just under $45 million a year. Talk about an annual pay that dwarfs the imagination. And almost all of it comes from overseas. And some think that the world has stopped investing in America.

Of course this is not investments in America as in the stock market. This was not money put into real estate or any other investment. Unless you call the Presidency and top level American politics an investment. Which obviously more than a few do.

All of this has been revealed now that former President Bill Clinton has divulged the 205,000 names of those that donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation (it only took 10 years to be told). And when I say donated I mean a lot of money.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million, Amar Singh, Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, Nasser Al-Rashid, Lakshmi Mittal, Harold Snyder, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, Mala Gaonkar Haarman, Lukas Lundin, Victor Pinchuk, all gave gave $1 million to $5 million. And of course there is also Denise Rich, who gave the foundation at least $450,000. She just happens to be the wife of Marc Rich - recipient of a President Clinton pardon.

Some other names that bring up questions include Frank Giustra who gave $31.3 million following a 2-day visit by Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan that resulted in his gaining control of uranium mining in a astounding move in the mining industry.

Amar Singh is an Indian politician that has spoken with Senator Hillary Clinton recently about nuclear arms on behalf of his nation.

Suzlon Energy makes it's money in creating wind turbines, the number one energy initiative of Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who owns stock in that industry).

China Overseas Real Estate Development - which gave between $250,000 and $500,000 is interesting. Especially for those focused on how much China has bought into the U.S.

Perhaps one of the oddest donations to me is that of COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico for some $10 to $25 million dollars. COPRESIDA was created by the Dominican Republic government to fight AIDS. Considering the relatively poor nation's funds, why would they donate so much of their budget to a foundation instead of to AIDS drugs, researchers, or promotions focused on awareness and prevention?

In a similar vein a question would be the $10 to $25 million from Children's Investment Fund Foundation - a group that is dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India. Would that same money not be better spent in Africa and India on food, clothing, building secure homes, clean water and so on directly?

But looking at all the major donors, and looking back on the timing of many of the investments - excuse me, donations - the question quickly becomes if Hillary Clinton can be an objective Secretary of State. Her long term involvement in the gains of her husband, and the governments he has 'worked' with cause pause. Like how will Pakistan trust her neutrality when Indian interests provide her and Bill Clinton so much money. Or when thinking about Marc Rich the question of whether she can be bought arises.

The Secretary of State is supposed to be without agenda, beyond the message of the President. Somehow this does not appear to be within the capabilities of Senator Clinton. Something that was apparent to me throughout the Democratic Primaries.

But a Democrat-led Congress, with a President that is as liberal as the Party has, and a Democratic Party still looking to smooth the ruffled feathers of 18 million of their voters, is likely to overlook almost anything. Not that this in any way is to the benefit of the nation.

Rewards and penalties for American politics

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Election promises: polispeak to win

The Presidential election is now 14 days over, and President Obama has already violated several campaign promises. Can you imagine what things will be like in 2 years? I realize that a multitude of Obama fans are getting rabid over that statement so I will make it clear that this is not an opinion, but factual.

President Obama ran his election campaign on a couple of basic concepts. While most of his promises were very vague it was clear that he promised change, and exit from Iraq, and a new style of politics in Washington D.C. Of course the first item on the list, change, was both abut as vague as you can get, and at the same time the most blitheringly stupid thing to promise since President Bush was not up for re-election.

But when it comes to change it seems that President Obama really meant reliving the past. Like much of the Democratic rhetoric over the election the point was to go backwards in time. Anything that reflected or brought back memories of the Clinton Administration was a positive. Thus he has been very busy in filling positions in his new Administration with ‘old politics’ politicians from the Clinton Administration, plus a few friends from Chicago.

How this is a new way of doing politics is beyond me. Other than perhaps the fact that since Congress is Democrat-led, and thus capable of passing almost any liberal platform it wishes, he will push his agenda forward no matter what Conservative think. Of course that is also entirely partisan, blindly following Party dogma, and violates his pledge to work in a bi-partisan manner. But maybe he meant that bi-partisan as in the Executive and Legislative branches working together. It’s a stretch, which is the closest we can get so far.

President Obama was very clear that he was against fighting in Iraq. He made it absolutely clear that he will retreat from Iraq and bring America’s soldiers home. His plan was for an organized retreat, over several months. This would allow opposition forces plenty of time to gather their strength and bide their time. This plan took hold of the Iraqi government, and is currently being debated in that nation. The deal on the table will force American combat troops out of Iraq just in time for the nomination of the next election cycle.

But what is important there is the word combat. Because the deal in hand will do what President Obama wrongly misinformed the public Senator McCain wanted to do. It will provide America with base(s) for land, sea, and air troops in Iraq for 10 years.

That wouldn’t be a big deal, except that President Obama campaigned to remove all troops from Iraq and not staying in Iraq in any form (until he was embarrassed to admit that was a bad idea). But after correcting his initial plan he campaigned with careful wording to imply he was still going to remove all the troops. And if anyone thinks that President Obama did not help shape, and is currently involved with, this Iraqi proposal they don’t understand international politics – in my opinion.

So new politics are out, as is leaving Iraq. And change was just for anyone too blinded to notice the obvious. But wait, there more.

As a bonus there is the economy. President Obama was elected on this basis more than any other factor according to polls by just about everyone. Because the economy needs help, and President Obama was going to make a change. Even though he could not be bothered to be involved in the discussions of the single largest economic policy act in over 2 generations – the mortgage bailout – without having to be called to discussions like a truant schoolboy.

But this massive issue is one that President Obama promised to be on top of. It was issue number one, alongside a new stimulus plan (cost between $300 and $500 billion in money that doesn’t exist). And how has President Obama reacted for the first goal in his Presidency? He’s avoided it.

President Obama could help calm the markets with an announcement of who he is considering for Treasury Secretary. But he hasn’t. He’s worked on several other positions, none as vital to the nation as who is going to be in charge of some $350 billion from the mortgage bailout, plus at least $25 billion for the auto industry, and who knows what else. And people wonder why the stock market is jumpy.

I have to say that this does not bode well for President Obama. Especially since he is looking to compound his Presidency with multiple problems. That would be VP Biden, and now a potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And it’s Mrs. Clinton that makes me really laugh.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that the donors to the Clinton organizations are unknown and potentially a deal-breaker. Ties to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others look bad. Not to mention favors made to people like Mark Rich. But that is being dealt with as we speak, with a couple hundred of the donors being revealed – and it’s unlikely the major news media will check to connect the dots of donations made and favorable deals happening for the donors.

The funny part is that since Senator Clinton is having such problems getting cleared for Secretary of State, how in the hell was she ok to become President? Well more on the problems of having a viper in your backyard later.

Politicians use polispeak to get elected. It happens all the time. It’s old politics. And President Obama seems to be following that path to the tee. The only questions that remain are what other campaign promises will be broken, and how will it affect America.

Obama lovers can now begin their rants, all of them avoiding the fact that President Obama is breaking from his promises.

Senator Hillary Clinton's future

I could not let this pass without comment.



The polispeak is just incredible. Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Senator Obama during the Democratic Primaries. She made claims that he was inexperienced, sexist, and merely getting votes because he is Black. Her 3am political ad highlighted how unsafe America would be in his hands.

Now she wants to flip the view and say that Obama is great. That he is perfect for our security and the economic crisis. Keep in mind that Senator Obama has done nothing to improve this crisis. He refused to work on the issue, preferring to campaign rather than secure a good deal for the public.

Senator Obama would have allowed the first version of the bailout that would have funneled the repayment to ACORN and not the citizenry. He was so uninvolved that the President had to call him to the White house to get a better deal. And all the while he defended Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – who both were asleep at the wheel on this crisis. And he was the 2nd highest paid Senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And let’s not forget that she, along with Senator Biden, stated that Senator McCain would be a better President than Obama. Or did she forget that?

Why is Senator Clinton not the Vice Presidential candidate for Senator Obama? Could it be the racial attacks the Clinton campaign made against Obama. Could it be the consistent refusal of Bill Clinton to acknowledge Obama’s worth as President. Could it be that Senator Clinton tried up to the last minute to steal the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama.

As for Hillary Clinton as the Majority Leader, that’s about the only thing that could be worse than the current Democratic leaders. Imagine a Pelosi and Clinton team. Can Congress get negative approval ratings?

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton? That would just be insanity. Considering her desire for power, just imagine the laws she would corrupt. Though it’s likely that Bill Clinton would never worry about another sexual harassment case again.

How likely is it that Senator Clinton will run again? 100%. She never completely ended her attempt to become President this time until the Democratic nomination. Actually she has been taped at meetings (supposedly to raise money for Obama) where she is talking up herself as a future President. Bill Clinton has continued to shoot down Obama. And it’s well known that they prefer him to lose so she can jump forward and say 'I told you so.'

As for

“Bloom where you are planted”

Where is Hillary from? Not New York State, and it reflects in her lies to the people of Upstate New York and the jobs she promised to bring if elected (in fact the number of jobs in Upstate have decreased by 30,000 since she has been elected).

Hillary isn’t from Arkansas either. Not that she did much for anyone there. In fact she held no political office until New York. So if she means bloom as in making astronomical returns from absurdly little money during a relatively quiet stock market or Whitewater, then I supposed she bloomed a lot.

Suffice to say, Senator Hillary Clinton is a horrendous choice for any political position. The only positive besides her not running for President now is the thought that she may be voted out of office before 2012 and never heard of politically again. Unlikely but we can hope.

Hillary Clinton at the DNC - her words and meanings

Finally the question is over. Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken at the Democratic National Convention. And she has made her position clear.

As completely expected, Senator Clinton started her speech with her stated support of Senator Obama. Not a surprise, but it’s just so telling that she has said something that her husband – Bill Clinton – refuses to do. Not that she expressed any personal belief in Senator Obama, or mention his positives. That would have been a surprise, selfless and so anti-Clinton as to make you think you were in an alternate universe.

Now as I expected Senator Hillary Clinton did not refute any of her Primary attacks on Senator Obama. She did not refute Bill Clinton’s racist remarks. She didn’t even mention Barack Obama’s name until the 4th minute, and did not give a reason to support him til the middle of the speech (11:48). This speech was about her and how good she can make herself look.

So I went over her speech, line by line. And I looked for the honesty within the polispeak. And I pulled out the facts from the spin. And I exposed the raw ambition that will do anything to win, including selling out a fellow party member for a shot down the road.



Senator Clinton started with the same old campaign polispeak ‘misquotes’ she loves. She mentioned her “35 years in the trenches” – though she only got into elected office 8 years ago, and Bill did all the work in the past (except for a couple of months failed work on a nationalized healthcare plan). I would call that a lie, but I’m not a politician.

She mentions her “fight for women’s rights”, like her efforts while she was at Wal-Mart (never a single word while she was a Board member and had the power to change things in the company).

She mentioned how hard she and Bill have worked. Now while they are multi-millionaires, politics is hard. Not as hard as construction or retail but hard. Though I have to wonder how hard she has worked since I don’t recall the last Congressional Bill she passed into law, and I have yet to see the 200,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York to get elected as Senator (in fact there has been a net decrease in jobs of 30,000 during her time in elected office). Hard work indeed.

But she continued as we hit 6 minutes about the horrors of a guy in a Marine t-shirt. The assumption was that he was a Marine (but she failed to make that clear, or why he was in need of medical help) and wanted his buddies to be taken care of. Meaning leaving Iraq, I suppose, a war she voted for and urged others to vote for based on her extensive research of the facts (look it up, she’s on video saying it).

She then went for the heartstrings in discussing a mother that had her hours cut at a minimum wage job. Now was that after or before the Democrat-led Congress raised minimum wages forcing businesses to cut hours because they can’t afford the increase?

And Clinton correctly stated that in the last couple of years things have gotten tough. Though I have to wonder if things are better or worse than when I watched the internet bubble burst and take out businesses and retirement funds, and family savings because Bill Clinton was too busy looking good, and trying to define “is” – while Hillary was ducking invisible bullets, to stop the impending carnage. How tough was that.

How tough did it get after the Clinton’s allowed Bin Laden to live and escape the crosshairs of our military, thus giving him the chance to plan and execute the 9/11 attack? Somehow I think that was a tougher time for America.

She hinted on Iraq, the war she voted for, and Iran, a country that would like to see America wiped of the face of the Earth and where Senator Obama would talk without condition. She stated that China has bought into our banks. And it is true, and troubling. But the alternative of letting our banks fail sounds worse to me. Not that a single Democrat has a better option to present – unless it’s a secret and therefore they prefer America to be in a dangerous position financially rather than tell us.

She claims that Democrats will help Americans save for college and buy homes? Now is this like her quickly dropped campaign promise to give every child $5,000 for college – paid for by some unknown source (taxes). Does this savings happen before taxes are increased, not on the rich but everyone who makes over $31,850 as she voted for this year (along with Senator Obama and Senator Biden as well as I recall)? Or is it after taxes are raised to pay for her nationalized healthcare, causing businesses to close from the cost?

She discussed the various things she wants to promote next. Promoting clean energy – which she never advocated while Bill was in office, and only mentioned after polls showed it popular.

She wants to promote unions, who are in the pockets of Democrats. Though she skipped her time at the union-less Wal-Mart (where like women’s rights she said nothing during her time on the Board).

And her desire to promote equal rights and stop discrimination seem hollow from a woman that can’t even stop her husband from making racial remarks, at least, in front of cameras.

She desires a “nation of immigrants”, because only she can answer yes, no, and maybe when the issue of immigration is asked of her on national televised debate – all in 2 minutes too (Michael Phelps beware her polispeak speed).

And she desires to end “private plunder”, which I think means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her efforts to promote energy alternative that increase her personal stock investments - which she does not disclose to the public - is in trouble.

Senator Clinton wants to talk about America’s efforts to end genocide. And I believe her because she has said so much about Darfur during, or since, the Primaries. Or is it only genocides in White nations?

But this Democratic National Convention is not about Senator Clinton. It’s about Senator Barack Obama, and in the middle of her speech she finally speaks about him for a moment. She makes a great question when she asks what her supporter are for. But she forgets to ask if they were voting for her because she is White, or a woman. Both were reasons she campaigned for in the Primary and I would like to know if they were reasons they are so fanatical now?

And she mentions that ‘global warming’ (an unproven yet Democratically sound concept) is a problem that America must fix alone in the world. Never mind the growing industrialization of China and India. Nor the potential fact that some Democrats are using this subject to make money while denying any other alternative including domestic drilling.

But Hillary Clinton is correct that America should not “favor few”. Like Hollywood stars and executives, or eco-fanatics that would have you use on sheet of toilet paper, or alternative energy companies, or big money fund raisers that are criminals evading the law for 15 years (Norman Hsu).

And I want to pause here because Democrats say that Senator Obama is a good choice for America. She never said he would be great. She never mentioned a single quality for Obama.

But she did ask Americans to “imagine what America will be”. Now I do remember when she was in Bill Clinton’s White House (because he was elected and the political power not her) I recall that no major promised initiative ever was passed (correct me if I am wrong). But I do recall that Bill was busy with dictionaries, and teaching America to lip-read, and her serving tea to end the conflict in Ireland, and avoiding Whitewater.

But If I were to imagine the America she envisions (and liberal Democrats as well) I suppose it would involve being overtaxed, unemployed, under terrorist attacks, without power, on lines to get medical care, isolationist, with Spanish as the main national language and without the funds to allow Americans to retire. There is Hillary’s America as she has explained it to date, and that most liberal Democrats prefer (oh, and Senator Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress, Joe Biden is 3rd).

But Hillary emphasizes that national healthcare, especially under her plan, is great for America. Though no Democrat can explain how it will be paid for. Or how it will be efficeint. Or run on budget.

But remember that under a Democrat-led Presidency, especially as Clinton envisions it, America may well be too busy running from Iraq, and Al Quida to worry about that. Watching anti-American groups gain power as we try to create new sources of power without oil, and sending even more money to the Middle East.

But not to worry because Senator Biden is a great guy, and by default she implies Obama is not. And don’t consider that a Democratic win means an Executive Office that will be split since Biden and Obama don’t agree on Iraq and other national issues. Heck, Biden – like both Clinton’s – does not even think Senator Obama is qualified or experienced enough to be President. You can imagine how smoothly that Administration would run.

But at this point Senator Clinton looked to the past. I don’t mean Senator John McCain’s age, or his 35 years of service to America. I don’t even mean the 30+ years of Congress (and thus solid stance in old politics) of Senator Biden. I mean the Carter Administration, where many of the current Democratic policies seem to have originated.

The Carter Administration stood out for its stagflation, something the Democrats definitely did before. Along with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, and having Americans taken hostage by Iran (hey, don’t they still have a beef with us? Aren’t they building weapons to kill us? Didn’t Carter talk with them – and not release a single hostage?) Don’t believe me, ask someone 40 or over.

President Carter didn’t like domestic drilling of oil either. Today oil costs 1000% more than when his Democratic Administration was in charge. President Carter and Democrats didn’t like nuclear energy, a new plant hasn’t been made in decades. And all the jobs that are involved in creating those industries, and the power they provide went up in the smoke from tankers importing oil to us from overseas.

But back in the world of today Senator Clinton misquoted the policies and ideals of Senator McCain. Her “friend and colleague”, a man she said would be a good President with experience – something she has not said about Obama – was now described as being a bad choice.

I’m confused. Is he better than Obama or not? Or is it that she just wants to look helpful without being helpful?

But the last part of the speech I want to address are the points on her mother and Harriet Tubman.

I understand that her mother could not vote and her daughter can. And I’m glad they can. But I’m reminded that my Great-grandfather’s generation could not vote. And my grandfather’s generation was blocked from voting by Jim Crow laws. My parent’s generation was beat up for voting, and sitting in the wrong spot, or asking for a good education. My generation now has a chance to see the first Black President, and Senator Clinton is trying hard to do nothing to allow it. In fact her husband has been active in trying to prevent it. So excuse me if I’m not impressed that Hillary is miffed.

Because of that reason I was upset she dared to mention Harriet Tubman. Was that supposed to make me feel better? To unify the Party with the name of a Black woman that made inroads for the rights of African Americans and inspired women of the time (if not now as well).

Taking Senator Hillary Clinton’s words a bit out of context,

If you heard dogs behind you Obama, it’s Hillary trying to chase you off track. If you see torches, it’s Bill Clinton lighting the path for your competition. Don’t stop, don’t slow down.

I may not agree with Senator Obama and his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t make sure Hillary is revealed for the snake in the grass viper that her speech proved her to be. She did what I expected in her speech. Strike 2 for the DNC. Next up is Bill Clinton, what do you think he will do?

Senator Hillary Clinton at the DNC: what will she say?

Looking forward to Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight I am wondering what will be said, just like every other pundit out there. My interest is based on a simple set of facts. Senator Clinton went a long way to damage the chances of Senator Obama winning, from his inexperience to his race. And these attacks are now the fuel of political ads from the Republicans and the Mc Cain campaign.



Senator Clinton set up this attack. In fact it is almost verbatim what she said in the Primaries. The McCain campaign can’t be blamed for using the words of the Democrats to benefit himself, whether it was Hillary or Joe Biden’s words.

So what Senator Clinton says tonight will be very interesting.

Either Senator Clinton will come out with a major flip flop, essentially saying that the Clinton campaign was willing to say and do anything to win – including making comments she felt were untrue – or she will use the well known Clinton polispeak spin to obfuscate and ignore everything she has said in the past.

The speech tonight must address the comments she has made about the lack of experience of Senator Obama, and why that is now not important as opposed to just a couple of months ago. Her speech must refute if not denounce the words of her husband, former-President Bill Clinton – and explain why he has refused to say that Senator Obama is ready for the Presidency, which he has claimed for every other Democrat that ran in the Primaries. Senator Clinton must also find a way to gap the chasm created in dividing the Democratic Party along lines of race and gender. The Clinton campaign was very effective at using race and gender, and caused a lasting question of stereotypical and racist fear in the minds of many in the nation; this must be addressed.

If the speech by Senator Clinton fails to address each of these issues, if she fails to close all these doors she opened, she will leave the Democratic Party divided in a manner not seen in decades. And if I were in Las Vegas I’d bet that she won’t do it.

My instincts, and my read on the polispeak of the Clinton’s during the Primaries and after them has given me the belief that neither Clinton is really willing to help Senator Obama. They will stand by him, raise money and say the words that need to be said. But they will also leave just a bit of doubt, leave him just a bit weak on critical issues. Because then it will not be said that they weren’t team players when the next Presidential election comes up.

To this point everything the Clinton campaign has done has been part of a plan to prepare for the 2012 election, in my opinion. We have been watching the beginnings of a new campaign and Primary run since the day Senator Obama took the presumptive nomination and Hillary Clinton refused to acknowledge it.

So my ultimate thought is that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave the door open for her supporters to try to steal the nomination for her. She will leave ajar the thought that her supporters should vote for Senator McCain or just not vote at all. She will keep her option alive to say “I told you I would have won”.

Tonight Senator Hillary Clinton will rally women, and racially sensitive Democrats. That is a given. Now whether she will polispeak and spin them closer to Senator Obama or not is a question that won’t be clear until after her last words are said.

What the Democratic National Convention means to me

As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

Vice President? The choices are limited.

With all the questions floating around about which politician should be the Vice-President for the Presidential candidates, I wanted to take a stab at who I thought made sense. Now to be fair, most of the potentials being bandied about by pundits are not well known names to me. Then again I doubt that most of America is familiar with almost any of them either.

I will delve into the Democrats first. That’s only because I think that Party is the weakest, with the worst political platforms. I also disagree on most issues with them. But not least of all is the fact that I don’t know many that I think would be a good candidate – so I will just mention who I am sure it will not be.

Senator Hillary Clinton. Not even in a pipe dream. Senator Obama and the Clinton machine share no love. Senator Clinton is actively trying to stab Obama in the back right now. Former- President Bill Clinton has insulted every aspect of Obama’s campaign as well as African Americans in politics.

Beyond all that, she is the one person that every Republican would love to see on the ticket. There is so much ammunition ready based on the fiascos, lies, and corruption of the Clintons that it would be the fastest way to ensure a McCain win. Women and Black votes included.

Al Gore. Is anyone that wants this not on drugs? Yes he is popular today with his allegations that the world will end tomorrow in a boiling ball of flame. Of course he thinks he is the smartest man in the room, no matter where the room is. Including the Oval Office.

He is slightly better than Hillary as he is less hated. But he is also seen as being very weak. Internationally he may do well with scientists, but that’s about it. Say what you will but the nation was SO happy that Gore was not in charge after 9/11. And he is directly linked to most of the baggage the Clintons have because he was part of their do-nothing Administration.

John Kerry. Do I really need to say more? You might as well want John Edwards.

Colin Powell. Now this is interesting. He is respected in politics and internationally. He is a war hero. He is unquestionably patriotic. He is Black. He is intelligent. He is personable. But he is also a Republican.

Now if he were to be convinced that would be something. But I do not believe that he would take the position just because Senator Obama has made history. To my knowledge virtually all the positions that Obama has announced are opposed by Powell. Though it would be the biggest move since the Lincoln Administration (took a Republican to go with the best people regardless of political affiliation – that’s bi-partisan), I can’t see it happening. It’s a long-shot at best.

And that’s the Democrats I know and care about. All the others being spoken about I don’t know enough to make an intelligent choice on.

As for Republicans I only think there needs to me a choice of 2 people. Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney.

Condoleezza Rice is the first Black woman as United States Secretary of State, and just the second African American, or woman, in the position ever (only took 220 some odd years). She is unquestionably intelligent (unless you think Stanford is a community college), experienced both before this Administration and during on international affairs. Oh, and she speaks 5 languages.

She survived the trials and tribulations of the Jim Crow laws in Birmingham yet she is relatively young, at a politically youthful 53. She is an accomplished pianist. And she was a Democrat until 1982.

Let me focus on the last sentence. Like many African Americans, Secretary Rice was raised to look at Democrats favorably. Unlike many of the youth today that believe the ultra-liberal views of Obama is the only option, Secretary Rice has seen several of the current proposals in action under President Carter. Anyone old enough to have lived through the fiasco that President Carter made of the economy at the time, and the weakness he projected of America (by being incapable of recovering our hostages from Iran) logically would never want to go back to that process.

Secretary Rice helps to pull the Black vote, as well as women. She is young, balancing well against McCain’s age. She is in excellent health. She is a success, it cannot be said enough. She has experience, which in combination to McCain severely outweighs the experience of any combination the Democrats can come up with.

The patriotism us unquestioned, and for those that care she is Presbyterian to my knowledge.

And let me step back. I mentioned 2 people, and thinking about it as I write I have changed my mind. I think she is the only real and solid choice. A McCain – Rice ticket wins in my opinion. Do the math as you wish, but Democrats have nothing to compete with this.

And the only negative I can think of is the pre-existing issue of Iraq. But we already know how Senator McCain feels about that, so it’s moot.

Well in a mere few days we will see, and then the real decisions will start to be made.

Strike 3 for DNC - will Senator Obama be out?

And here goes Strike 3 for the Democratic National Convention. The often discussed and well-rumored submission of Senator Hillary Clinton’s name for the nomination ballot has now been confirmed. The Democratic Party looks weaker and more dysfunctional by the day.

I’ve already noted the problems that will be created once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes the stage.

“But I think that having Nancy Pelosi speak is a mistake. She is the symbol of the ineffective Democrat-led Congress. She is a reminder that Democrats would prefer to allow millions of Americans to have to choose between food and/or work or paying their energy bills. She is the voice of the Democratic Party that refused to even consider having a vote on domestic drilling - effectively saying that Democrats have no intention of being bi-partisan if Senator Obama is elected.”

“Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.”

And in the recent past I noted the danger of the Clinton’s to any hopes of Senator Obama winning the Presidency:

“And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.”

But today a joint press release from Senator Obma and Senator Clinton stated that Hillary will have her name submitted for nomination consideration. Senator Clinton stated in that release

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again.”

Right. This is the same woman that

“It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes.”

And whose husband, Former President Bill Clinton, has said on her behalf





And then there is





This all says nothing of the comments made during the actual Democratic Primaries.

So when you consider that Senator Hillary Clinton has never stopped her push to be the Democratic nominee, that former-President Bill Clinton refuses to acknowledge or support Senator Obama, that the Clintons have virtually blackmailed their ‘support’ to date to the repayment of the debt they incurred campaigning against Obama, and the fact that all of this is being used to weaken Senator Obama’s chance of winning the election the DNC looks to be a way to break Democratic unity as opposed to securing it.

All in all, between the Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi the Democratic National Convention seems to be shaping up to be somewhat of a farce and a losing proposition for the chances of winning the election. But the Vice-Presidential candidate will be announced as well. Depending on who is picked it may be the base hit that Obama needs right now.

So is it 3 strikes and out or will the Democrats still be at bat?

Senator Obama should watch his back around Senator Clinton

Does anyone remember the old cartoons where a boomerang is thrown away and when it returns it hits the thrower? You may not recall the cartoon, but if you want to see it in reality all you will have to do is watch the Democratic National Convention.

The boomerang is Senator Hillary Clinton, and it looks like Senator Barack Obama is about to get hit in the head.



Senator Clinton it seems is not done with her attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama. She tried to keep fighting after Senator Obama closed the Primaries on her, failing to congratulate him on his win and requiring several prominent supporters and politicians to make her back down. She has only recently started to try to back-handedly support Senator Obama.

And former-President Bill Clinton is still finding ways to put down Senator Obama every time a microphone is put in front of him.



Note how he refuses to say that Senator Obama is ready to be President – something he has said about every Democrat that ran in the Primaries (especially his wife) except Obama. So much for healing wounds created during the Primaries.

And now we learn that both Clinton’s will be speaking at the DNC. Just as the full ballots of Florida and Michigan are included now (which was promised they would not) and the Clintons are quietly keeping their supporters hopes alive.

If this isn’t a boomerang coming back to hit you, then the only other thing I would call it is stabbing Obama in the back.

And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.

But if Hillary gets the nomination expect riots. It would be the equivalent of Rosewood in a political sense. Every African American, and more than a few people of color, in this nation will call this the single greatest act of racism in perhaps our lives. And they will be right.

And if Hillary Clinton fails to get the nomination, and continues to back-handedly support Obama, while her husband plants seeds of doubt at every media opportunity he gets – there will be no difference than if she stole the nomination. And some people think the Clinton’s were a positive force for Blacks. How positive does their treatment of Obama feel?

Senator Hillary Clinton may be a woman, but she acts more like Iago (or Jabba the Hutt for those less familiar with the classics) to me.

Reader comments on the 2008 election

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

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

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

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

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

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

janet Felix

Janet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

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

Steve ONeill

Steve,

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

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

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


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John,

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


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

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

deb hart

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

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

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

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

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

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


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

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

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

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

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

Noway

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

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

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

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

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


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

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

Jim

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

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

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

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


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

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

George O’Neal

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

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

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

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

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

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


Remember those before us

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

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

Eddie and Chocolate

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

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


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

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

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

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

Francis,

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

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

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

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


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hillary Clinton's swan song

Well it's amazing but Senator Hillary Clinton finally realizes that Senator Obama has beaten her and is the Democratic nominee. It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes. She has come to realize that far too many people remember her promise to bring jobs to NY state - which she has not only failed to do but there has been a net loss of jobs since she was elected - and understand she would do the same to the nation.

Now I hope she learns that her strongarm tactics to wrangle the Vice Presidency will fail as well. The Democrats that voted for her are not mere pawns in a bid for her to gain more power. She is not going to blackmail Senator Obama with less than 18 million votes (her math is way off) to guarantee that Senator Obama cannot win with her on the ticket.

In all I expect that there is just one thing to say... one song to sing...

Senator Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate

With great joy I can now say that Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

As of 5:37pm the total delegates and Super Delegates reached 2123 in a surge as many formerly supporting Senator Hillary Clinton abandoned her. There is no question that comments from Senator Clinton acknowledging her interest in the Vice-Presidency helped to sway at least some of the late breaking delegates.

At the start of this long nomination cycle I stated that I believed that Senator Clinton was the probably nominee, which I was abhorrent to. While I have followed the entire process as neutral as is possible for anyone who is an American citizen (anyone following this election and claiming to not have a position is generally lying as all citizens have a vested interest and therefore a preference of some degree), I have not hidden my dislike and distrust of Clinton and her campaign. More importantly, I have provided ample reasons and examples of why she was not the best candidate for the future of America.

I must admit my surprise that Senator Obama has won. Like many pundits and bloggers in 2006 and 2007 I did not feel America was ready to have a Black President or even candidate. It would seem that I was wrong, West Virginia not withstanding.

But now is when the real issues will appear. The real questions of what are the plans that will improve America. The plans that will unify the nation. The plans that will carry the nation to the future. And these plans will be compared to those of Senator John McCain, with the best becoming President.

Race is still the predominant issue going forward. I still see that as a factor that will secretly withhold votes from Senator Obama no matter what people say publicly. I hope to be proven wrong on that, again.

We will hear about Rev. Wright yet again. There will be calls of the Muslim conspiracy, and the hidden terrorist threat circling the internet among the least intelligent people in America. Information and facts will be misquoted or re-interpreted by those with agendas less about politics and more about prejudice.

That is not to say that any debate against Senator Obama is solely racially motivated. He does have problems. He has less experience, his foreign policy comments are questionable, and his economic plans are arguably impotent. Senator Obama is a huge liberal, and the nation is very much a more central moderate conservative.

But these are questions for the near future.

Today I am simply elated that an African American has risen to be competing fro the highest office in the land, and the most powerful political position in the world. We should not be fooled into believing that this will prevent issues like Megan Williams case, Sean Bell case, unequal legal action – like in Jena – and many others from happening. We cannot think that this obscures or fixes problems like the under funding and poor teaching of students in cities, or lack of representation in corporations of Blacks in the highest corporate levels.

This is one step, both symbolically and in reality, but it cannot be the last. Nor can we allow ourselves to make our decisions based solely on the basis of skin color.

I am pleased today. But tomorrow I will continue the process of covering this election, analyzing the plans of both candidates, and offering my opinion on who seems to bode best for the nations future potential.

Good bye Senator Clinton, Congratulations Democratic Presidential nominee Senator Obama.

(now if he can just make sure she doesn’t wrangle herself into the Vice-Presidency it will be a really good race indeed.)

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

Does anyone find it interesting that Senator Hillary Clinton, via husband former-President Bill Clinton, now claim that they have the most votes any Democrat has ever received before? The timing is almost laughable.

First the Clinton machine claimed that they would win with little trouble. The pundits agreed. Then in November 2007 Senator Obama gathered some steam and Senator Clinton got caught playing all sides of an issue (whether she supposed giving illegal aliens driver’s liscences in New York State – she answered yes, no and maybe in less than 2 minutesin a national debate which I have posted on).

Then the issue became the fact that Senator Obama was just playing race and was a minor character because he won in South Carolina. Race was a major issue, and gender was a common back drop. Both were reasons the Clinton campaign believed they would prevail.

Then as Clinton lost states 2 to 1, the argument became that she was leading the Super Delegate vote. She pressed that Super Delegates would know that she was the better candidate and she would win.

Then when she lost the Super delegates she now claims she has the majority of vote. Of course to get that math right you have to give her every vote in Florida (ignoring the votes that Senator Obama received) and all the votes that were in Michigan (ignoring that she was the only name on the ballot and the fact that 40% of Michigan picked uncommitted rather than vote for her).

Is it interesting that she now claims that the voters in Florida and Michigan need to have their votes counted, when a year ago she agreed and pledged to penalize them – when she thought she didn’t need the votes? Does this sound desperate at all? Isn’t the ship sinking, and not only is the captain going down, she is trying to take the crew and passengers too.

The Democratic Presidential nomination has be filled with racism, gender bias, polispeak politics on vote rules, religious fear and hatred, and desperation all centered or initiated by Senator Clinton and her campaign. Can any Democrat truly say this is the kind of President they want? That you would ignore all the negatives and vote for her anyway?

The more this race has gone forward the more I have to wonder how the Democratic Party will survive, and if it should. When the best that the Party can offer is Clinton and her tactics (which currently seem like poisoning the well because if she can’t win no Democrat should), or Senator Obama who has no real plan stated, but has snippets of ideas that are protectionist/isolationist and failed policies of the past?

I really have to wonder is any Democrat now available really going to lead the nation to a better place considering the issues that face America. And I don’t care about the “Bush is bad”, “Bush has ruined America” crap that some toss about. President Bush is leaving office, thus that is the end of his policies. America is still free, and there has not been another attack on our soil. He may not be a great President, or overly smart, but he did what was needed at the time (and some of what wasn’t too). Instead of looking backwards, look ahead and tell me what can the Democrats do to improve the situation.

And the Kentucky Primary underwhelms

So Senator Obama has lost Kentucky. Big deal. Yes I realize the numbers work out to a 35% or 250,000 vote defeat. And I still don’t find it as an important loss. Let me explain why.

First is the fact that Oregon has yet to be counted into today’s results. Indications at this time are that he will win there by 10 to 15%. Even not looking at that win, he took more than enough delegates at this point to have a majority that cannot be overtaken. And let us not forget that Senator Obama has won more states (by 2 – 1) overall. Thus the majority of Democrats across the nation find him to be the better candidate, even with the media fed Rev. Wright issue and his loopy position on direct Presidential-level discussions with nations like Iran, Cuba, and others that would kill every American as soon as speak with us.

Second are the questions about Kentucky itself. Let’s not forget that Kentucky is the most socially and culturally diverse state (if you happen to be White and Protestant, to a lesser degree if you are Christian). It’s not just that Kentucky is part of the South, with its long history of racial conflict, it’s that this state is a stronghold of the Clinton’s. And we have seen how really inclusive the Clinton’s want to be in this election. Not like they haven’t told everyone enough times since November 2007.

But I’m not angry with Kentucky. I’m not even surprised. But I would have hoped they would be able to pay attention to details just a bit more. It seems that most Democrats in Kentucky would prefer a White woman that has lied to the American public – multiple times just since January – and will do anything to win over an African American candidate that has none of the baggage or the need for playing on gender and racial division that the Clinton campaign has made their last stand on.

Senator Obama has won more states, gotten more votes, won more delegates, gained more Super Delegates, and told more truth. If that is not enough, if the fact he is not White is too ‘scary’, that most Democrats in Kentucky cannot accept him as the majority of Democrats in America have, I’m just happy I don’t live there.

It’s not that I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate. It’s not that I would vote for him – Black or White. But it is about what is the best choice for America, and anyone that would stand in front of the nation and lie, promote racial divisions, and jump on any bandwagon that polls well regardless of the actual benefits or negatives of that bandwagon – well I cannot understand how that person can be America’s best choice.

But then again I’m not from Kentucky.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK

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

Enjoy, and may the force be with you.

Senator Clinton Win’s – Sorry I Misspoke

I almost feel bad for Hillary Clinton, almost but not quite. And I say this because in the Indiana primary Hillary holds a lead of 4 percentage points over Senator Obama with 88% of the votes counted at the time of this post. It’s sad because Hillary was expected to have a double digit win, no less than 10 points, over Senator Obama according to polls Monday.

The fact that Senator Obama has gone through 8 weeks of dealing with the media driven Reverend Wright issue, 2 press conferences by Reverend Wright and Senator Clinton’s preposterous patronizing call for the public to vote for her to save 18 cents on their gasoline cost have all culminated in one of the slimiest victories in this Democratic nomination process yet. It’s just embarrassing, but there is one fact in these numbers that no one has accounted for yet. In fact today was the first time I heard any suggestion of polls revealing this fact. Republicans voted for Hillary.

Rush Limbaugh, back in March as I recall, asked Republicans to vote for Hillary to exacerbate the nomination process. Tonight reports have stated that Republicans indeed did vote for Hillary and accounted for potentially 7% of the total. If that is correct then as of the writing of this post Hillary would in fact have lost by 3%. This takes the embarrassment of her projected 10-point win and makes it a landslide of disappointment.

I am happy that Senator Obama took the high road in reference to the gas tax 'holiday'. I’m even more greatly pleased to know that 16% of the voters in North Carolina realized the obvious polispeak trickery that Senator Clinton was trying to employ; given the Republicans voting for Senator Clinton its reassuring to know that the majority of voters in North Carolina and Indiana saw through the Clinton campaign's desperate plea to buy votes by any means necessary.

With all this said we can only hope that the Clinton campaign has used up all of its tools in its bag of tricks and its manipulitive power by now so that they can not coerse the Super Delegates into stealing the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama. Of course Senator Obama will not win the Presidency most likely because of the massive damage Hillary and Bill Clinton had inflicted on his reputation and experience. But at the very least there is something to be said for justice and equality in America with him winning the Democratic nomination.

For those states still waiting their turn to vote I suggest you listen carefully to the Clinton campaign, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary as they slash and burn their way to the convention.

I’m not saying that I guarantee there will be more “misspoken” statements (lies) but I wouldn’t go to Vegas and make a bet against it.