Picking a President doesn't make you more or less Black

I find it interesting as we come upon the 2008 election to reflect on what has occurred in this year. From the surprising Democratic Primaries up til now there has been a shift in politics that will never be undone. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, and now I look forward to the fact that it will happen again and again.

Obviously I am speaking about Senator Obama, his rise in prominence, and the potential of his becoming the First Black President.

It’s a proud moment for every African American. Especially for those of us that have lived decades without the chance even being a glimmer in possibility. This in many ways is the culmination of the struggles of the 1960’s.

To bad that I won’t vote for him.

And that is the big thing. I have been slammed by associates, readers, and too many others on this one point. The non-acceptance of my decision to not vote for Obama has been a sledgehammer in my blogs and my personal life. You would think I was stabbing someone.

This has been a very personal election, unlike any other in my life. I’ve been questioned, insulted, disputed, and more often than not cursed. Were it not happening to me I’d even say it was sort of funny.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I’m not Black. That I’ve done something wrong. That writing about the issues, and noting the problems I have with Obama’s policies is somehow a disservice to my race. I’ve even been told I’m un-American. And of course there have been more than a few racists that have misused my words and thoughts for their own twisted ends.

But tonight I was just sitting back writing and listening to my MP3 (I bought my first one just this year) and James Brown’s Say It Loud came up. I listened to the lyrics several times and then read them.

Uh! With your bad self!

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

Some people say we've got a lot of malice
Some say it’s a lot of nerve
But I say we won't quit moving until we get what we deserve
We have been bucked and we have been scorned
We have been treated bad, talked about as just bones
But just as it takes two eyes to make a pair, ha
Brother we can’t quit until we get our share

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
One more time!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

I worked on jobs with my feet and my hand
But all the work I did was for the other man
Now we demand a chance to do things for ourselves
We're tired of beatin' our head against the wall
And workin' for someone else

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

We're people, we're just like the birds and the bees
We'd rather die on our feet
Than be livin' on our knees

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

I’m Black Puerto Rican and I’m Proud. I’m also insulted that I have to make such a statement because of my political beliefs.

I have worked hard, lived through fights, slurs, been denied jobs, and been homeless twice. I’ve gained an education, never been hooked on drugs, lived overseas, been part of the military, and helped more than a few on my path to where I am today. And every day I’ve lived I woke up as Black Puerto Rican as the day before. I have no illusions, and no problems with that.

But to try to discredit my lineage and birthright because of a political position is just absurd. It pisses me off.

This election is not about righting the wrongs of racism, segregation or any other race based issue past or present. Obama is not Malcolm X, Martin Luther King or any other civil rights activist. Electing Obama will not suddenly make police forces in L.A., New York, Philadelphia or anywhere in the nation treat Black, or any other racial and ethnic group, any better than the day before. And racists won’t wake up with larger minds or a better understanding of humanity.

I respect and admire Senator Obama. He’s accomplished things I wouldn’t try to do. The fear of being murdered, especially before I could enact positive change on some issues is too strong in me. He is going for it anyway and that takes balls.

But that does not mean I must follow blindly and accept his every word and policy as best because he said so. His path was no less difficult or extraordinary than my own, and that of millions of other non- and White Americans. As such he is subject to the same critique as anyone. In fact I would consider myself much less of a man, and less of a Black Puerto Rican, if I did not judge him in the same way I would anyone else.

Listen to that song. James Brown didn’t ask for any corners cut. He didn’t demand obedience to a color, in fact he demands the opposite. He demands that we empower ourselves and live by the standards we create. That everyone that meets us shows the same respect and dignity that we exemplify individually and as a group.

And when I have lived a life of just that, how dare anyone try to denigrate me for that.

Obviously I am speaking about a few people. Many have sound reasons for believing in Obama. Many never considered race and they came to a separate decision than mine. And I respect that.

But that’s not who I am talking about.

I’m talking about the people that loved me when I supported Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primaries. They also ignored my support of Fred Thompson and Senator McCain at the time. They ignored my strong Republican views. They only saw my race and that of Obama. Some where White, and some where not.

It’s those same people that have abandoned my blogs, or attacked them since. And I have to wonder how they came to see me as any less of a man, no matter my color.

When America comes to a point where race is more important than the man or the message, the nation is in trouble. Just as the nation was falling in the late 50’s and 60’s the same threat still exists. And when that same color-focused blinders are on and any deviation is attacked we return to the same dangers that existed a mere 40 years ago.

Maybe I’ve followed this election for too many years, been too involved in trying to cover the facts that too few have the time to see. Maybe I’m up to late every night and day for you my readers. Maybe I need a vacation as my skin is getting a bit thin.

So yes I’m venting. But as that may be, I’ll get some sleep and be back at it tomorrow like I have for years now. I hope to see you all then.

2nd Presidential debate - some thoughts

Well the second Presidential debate has ended and the results will no doubt be the second most important issue in the news. I say second because I have every belief that Wednesday will be another large loss on the Dow Jones Index, as it approaches my target of 9200.

The overall impression of the debate was that it was long, and boring. There were just no moments where I thought it got lively or passionate. I took from this that the debate was calculated and overly-well prepared for by both candidates.

I believe that Senator Obama took the night, not because he was more impassioned or knowledgeable, but because he was smoother. And that includes the fact that Senator McCain offered to spend almost as much money as Senator Obama continues to plead he can justifiably spend.

Senator McCain did himself no favors in this debate. While the structure was closer to town hall meetings that he tends to dominate in, he seemed to be faltering. His missteps throughout the debate did little to quell fears based on his age. Why he was so subdued and off-pace is a mystery to me.

Senator Obama won few friends in his attempts to isolate higher taxes on corporations from the effect it will have on workers and the middle class. While he did provide some clues to the cost of his dream economy, there is no question he wants an even bigger government that McCain, even with the extra $300 billion for homeowners.

And I was not satisfied with Obama’s plans on foreign policy. As he stated, McCain painted him as a novice and his own thoughts have proven that to be true.

One thing I did notice is that Senator Obama spent a lot of time looking backwards. He isolated several events and subjects where he looked back at what had been done before he was in the Senate or in recent past. Yet he failed to look at the full causes of the issues he was troubled by. And that is a problem when the nation needs to be looking solely forward, as there are no time machines for the nation or an individual.

And McCain did himself no favors in the jibes he took at Obama. The format did not allow for that easily and the attacks fell somewhat flat.

Overall I found the debate less than helpful. Part of that is due to the moderator, who seemed more concerned about the time limits than getting full and informative answers. Perhaps it’s just me but I rather have fewer questions with complete answers and rebuttals than constantly watching the clock and trying to oversimplify and thus omitting pertain facts.

The entire debate was little more than stump speeches and television commercials put together for one night. You might better equate it with an infomercial for the Presidency. And that is sad.

Thus I say Senator Obama was able to maintain the boost he has gotten from the fears that many in the nation feel about the economy, and wrongly attribute it to the policies of just the Republicans. If nothing else this has been the biggest factor in the recent swing in poll results. Yet Senator Obama has done the least to fix the problem of all the candidates.

We live in scary times. Unless Senator McCain is able to do something amazing in the last debate, or the economy improves (it won’t), or Senator Obama makes a major mistake the result will likely be momentum that will lead Obama to the White House. And I would warn you to prepare for an economy and downturn that only President Carter might recall well in recent history.

Full Senator Obama interview from O’Reilly Factor

The following is the full interview between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama as first seen on the O’Reilly Factor. For commentary on each part of the interview please check out Black Entertainment USA

Part 1 Iraq



Part 2 The Economy



Part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright



Part 4 Alternative Energy and Domestic Drilling

Obama did not call Palin a pig - next issue perfume vs aftershave

Now some may be wondering why I haven’t commented recently on the big news item that is racing across the media right now. The comment is the rage among pundits and political commentators.



I haven’t said anything about this because it is stupid. Senator Obama was not speaking about Gov. Sarah Palin. To do so would invite women voters to jump on the McCain - Palin ticket. To do so would be a strike against women’s rights and so many other factors.

When I first heard this comment I asked a woman I know what she thought of it. She was reminded of an old saying. She did not see any connection to Palin. And in the context of the full comment, not the polispeak edited version the media needs to drive up ratings, you can see that this opinion is the only real response.

This is not worth the time I have given it so far. It’s definitely not worth the time the pundits have dedicated to it.

What about why Gov. Palin believes drilling in ANWR is an obvious choice. How about what she believes would help our children gain an education. What about her position on the 2nd Amendment?

How about why Democrats are so busy attacking and discussing the VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, as opposed to Senator McCain. Please explain to me why the VP needs so much attention when the President is the forerunner of policy. Senator Obama isn’t up against Gov. Palin, and lucky for him as he would be losing hands down right now.

In 2 weeks the Democrats have forgotten that the VP does not make the final decision. And Senator Biden has all but disappeared – though he is the one best positioned to take on his rival. But the fact is that Democrats fear Gov. Palin. It’s not a debatable question, it’s a fact that has filled the news and blogs.

So the question is not if Obama can be taken out of context by a media looking for the next ratings grab. The question is can Obama not be distracted and address the issues that America will be voting on.

That’s why I’ve been quiet the last couple of days.

John Rich song for Senator John McCain

Music is integral to life. Whether you are young and rebellious, stressed from a hard day of work, or out with friends on Friday music is something that is ingrained as part of our lives. And in this current Presidential election cycle music has taken an unprecedented importance.

Senator Obama has had several songs and music videos made about his historic nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate (even though Bill and Hillary Clinton might dispute that). The most recent came from an unexpected source, ensconced in wording that insulted everyone that heard it – including Senator Obama. Such is a song by rapper Nas (real name Nasir Jones).

But lest you believe that the only music in the nation or appropriate for a Presidential candidate is gansta rap or hip hop, John Rich would like to prove there is alternatives.

For those unfamiliar John Rich is part of the multi-platnium country music duo Big & Rich. He can also be seen on the popular Nashville Star television program. He’s sold over 5 million albums, and was part of People magazine’s music industry ‘power’ list. In other words he’s no slouch.

John Rich is also a conservative and Republican. And after observing all the hoopla surrounding the Obama videos and the insults made by Nas, he decided to even the playing field a bit.

“If I can make them understand about where John McCain has come from and the journey he's been on, there's no way they cannot respect him for that. The more you get to know John McCain, the more you respect the fact that he's both a patriot and an independent thinker, a rebel when it means staying true to what he believes in. Hopefully my song will help those people out there who are starting to pay attention to him to realise what kind of guy he is."

Associated Press announces history making news for Senator Obama

I had to stop packing for my move and work to present this:

AP tally: Obama clinches Democratic nomination

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.

Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor discussing America

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

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

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

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

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

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

$31,850 is the new definition of rich

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes a Clinton-Obama Presidential ticket attractive

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

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

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

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

What ever you do, just get out and vote.

Why an Obama + Clinton ticket won’t win

**I want to say hello to all my new readers coming from TV One's website and it's Presidential election page.**

Here is a quick list of a few reasons why I feel the “dream Presidential ticket” means sure doom for Democrats come November. And by the way, the reasons don’t change regardless of which Presidential candidate is the lead.

• 1) Racial and religious slurs. Obviously there have been multiple attacks and rumors that have been coming from one political campaign against another. No names need to be said, but the effect has been fractioning of the party, disenfranchisement of voters, and a potential explosion at the Party convention.
  
• 2) The massive scandals that come with the Clinton’s. Do not kid yourself if you are a fan of theirs, everything they were accused of is going to come back. Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky and the rest. And add in new events like whatever is hidden in the current tax return and the records blocked by Bill.
  
• 3) Absolute lack of experience. Both candidates are novices in the political sphere, especially when compared to the long record of McCain and his military record. Which of the three really has the experience to answer the 3am call? Expect to see that commercial before the election.
  
• 4) Taxes will go higher. Pick your choice, but either way you will pay more to the government. How else will all those entitlements get paid for, like universal healthcare?
  
• 5) For those that came up with the answer, “Leave Iraq and it will pay for it all”, sorry that’s not exactly right. You are correct that with either at the helm America will lose in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Guaranteed the terrorists will be empowered. An immediate retreat from Iraq means that those left in the wake to suffer will join the propaganda that blames it all on America and attack us when old enough. Troops will need to be in Iraq to prevent total chaos (which is the real meaning of being IN Iraq for 100 years – like being in Germany for 50 now). So the money saved will go to setting up a permanent base and protecting/rebuilding from terrorist attacks.
  
• 6) Any person that is against the idea of a Black and/or woman being in charge will vote against this ticket. For all the hopes and belief that America has grown, the fact is that many in America (of both sexes and many races) still harbor bias. Proof is in the wage differences, executive placements, legal system, movies, television shows, and on and on.
  
• 7) Illegal aliens (or non-documented immigrants if you prefer – lack of a passport or green card is illegal) will gain citizenship and/or multiple rights of citizens. Possibly good for unions and Democratic voting blocks, I don’t see a benefit anywhere else.
  
• 8) The stock market classically drops at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Depending on the ability of the Democrat, the entire term can be bad for the stock market, business, ultimately the economy and investors.
  
• 9) Both supported (or refused to refute) Moveon.org and its insulting attack against General Petraeus and the Armed Forces. Obviously not good for relations with the Pentagon.
  
• 10) The Party division created by the fight for the nomination, will not be resolved so simply. The real issues, and taking for granted of core sections of the Democratic Party, will not just go away. With either candidate at the top of the ticket some will feel they were robbed and betrayed.
  
• 11) And lastly the egos of both candidates visibly and directly clash.
  

Now these are all real and valid reasons that the Democrats will lose with this combination. That is not to say that either candidate, with a different Vice-President, is unable to win. I think that the odds of winning go up dramatically for Senator Obama without the burden of Senator Clinton. I feel Senator Clinton just can’t win.

If either candidate does win, hopefully some of the issues may be resolved. Stereotypes and prejudice need to be removed. Barriers and small-mindedness needs to be broken. Others may be improved with time.

If you favor the Democratic candidates, good. I’m not decreeing the outcome. But realize that this potential ticket has baggage and problems. If you want this to win, or any candidate, get out there and vote. Only your vote will ensure that the candidate you want will win. Only with your vote, and all those of citizens, will the best choice for America be determined.

Clinton campaign paints a blacker Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

Clinton vs. Obama - is there a real difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

The Ohio Democratic Presidential debate

My initial impressions of the Democratic Presidential debate in Ohio are that this is turning out to be quite a match. So far Senator Clinton has been quite forceful in trying to make a stand on universal healthcare, and to a lesser extent Iraq. NAFTA was a sore point.

I found her whining about getting the first question on issues she has made comments on and obviously wanted to answer, and suggesting that Obama should be offered a pillow – like on Saturday Night Live – less than Presidential and weak. And for the record she has only gotten the first question 6 out of 10 times including this debate where she chose to answer the open question to both candidates.

Her seeming demand that her plan was better and that professionals thought so fell flat. She did not answer the question of what is affordable, and if she would cause penalties to come out of the paychecks of those that do not accept her plan. Obama made a good case why children need to be covered and parents will chose to be covered if given an affordable option.

I think it looked bad that Clinton would not let the issue end and had to try to get the last word in on that issue, as well as several others. I’m upset that 16 minutes were spent on universal healthcare because Senator Clinton did not agree with Senator Obama. Especially since this is not a program that exists right now, and other questions on issues that do exist were not able to be asked of either candidate.

In terms of NAFTA, her answers were weak. She had the worst answer possible about her promise to Upstate New York. In her bid to gain the Senatorship, she promised to create 200,000 jobs. What has actually happened is that 30,000 jobs left since she has been elected. That is a fact. The reason why was,

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

A leader should not promise things they cannot deliver. A leader should make clear that a plan that requires unknown probabilities is not a promise. Because I can tell you many in Binghamton NY, where I now reside, remember the promise that was made and the numerous jobs that have been lost since that time; and how the area in Central New York is suffering.

Iraq is a big issue for both candidates. I personally do not agree with either of their positions. Thus rather than addressing how they debated this point, I will simply state that they both claim plans towards leaving Iraq.

I will say that on the issue of experience, which Senator Clinton claims Obama does not have, Senator Obama made a very good stand. He clearly outlined that his comments about acting against Al Quida in Pakistan back in the summer of 2007 is exactly what America recently did in killing the number 3 man in that organization.

I found the comments by Senator Clinton, butting in on the denouncement of Senator Obama to Minister Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitic comments, rude and unnecessary. It was an obvious try to try to corner Senator Obama as somehow being connected to Islam and the Nation of Islam. She attempted to embarrass Obama, asking him to reject on top of renounce Minister Farrakhan. To her annoyance, I imagine, he reiterated that he did both, renounce and reject. But what that had to do with her trying to get in that she supports Israel and Jewish people is beyond me.

In the closing statements based on the question what does your opponent need to do to win the nomination the answers were very telling. Senator Obama stated that Clinton was qualified and more worthy than Senator McCain, and took about 2 minutes in lauding her before he mentioned why he is after the nomination and why he felt he was better. Senator Clinton, by contrast opened with what made them both good candidates. She spent a minute discussing how “we are qualified” and “they both wanted the best for America” before continuing on her self-promotion.

Oh her not so subtle inclusion of gender seemed a pandering move towards women. As if she was the only one to be a history making candidate. That playing to women, almost as a fear tactic, was her battlecry. This contrasts the fact that Senator Obama never felt the need to emphasize that he is African American and that he would be making history and that this was the chance for Blacks to “change the playing field” as Senator Clinton implored.

Overall I felt Obama won the debate. He did not feel the need to press Clinton into a corner. He showed a very Presidential stance in that he took her attacks and rather than attack back he just answered the question. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to need to hammer a fight to finality.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that Clinton felt the need to be unequivocal and final in her position about how Obama dealt with Farrakhan – a point that she was not involved with at all. She closed all options and demanded a response that met her standard. Obama worked as a facilitator, having a position and willing to take the extra step to get to a conclusion that he already agreed with.

That is the potential Presidents that we see. In Senator Clinton, a President that will demand and fight to get only and exactly what she wants, at whatever cost. In Senator Obama, a President that is level headed and willing to bend as long as he is in the direction he believes is right. Considering the differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties, which do you, think will be most likely to pass laws that the candidates are basing their nominations on?

Democratic Presidential candidates tactics and behavior

I love this line,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Clinton fights for Ohio, Texas Primary wins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Obama expands lead after Wisconsin vote, Clinton in trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Obama discusses her pride

Michelle Obama is currently the focus of media attention. Considering that Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman, the comparisons to her seems inevitable to become harsh. And I find it interesting what is being said.

Michelle Obama is not a politician. She has never tried to be one. She is a hospital executive, well educated, and a mother. She is 44. She also happens to be Black.

Given those facts I have to wonder a few things. First is the thought that what does her thoughts have to do with American politics? If we assume, as the Clinton campaign claims, that being the wife of a politician is the same as having experience, then I expect her views on healthcare reform are very important (especially since she works in the industry). If sleeping with a politician is not enough, then her impact on the politics of her husband is virtually non-existent (and the claims of Senator Clinton go down the drain).

But it seems the media, the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign are giving her words significant weight. That is why her comments is being dissected. [This is the full comment and not the polispeak soundbite used by the major news media]



Now there are those that find her comments to be unpatriotic. That it was an insult to the nation. That is one way to view the words, and it is valid. But I think it does not take the meaning of the words into account.

I do feel that Michelle Obama is proud of America, but that she means that she has not had a reason to be overly and beyond the general pride we all feel every day. That there has not been any moments in her adult life that brought her special or specific feelings of pride. To be honest I think all people are proud of America in general, but not overly elated in expressing that pride every day. I mean when was the last time that you heard a politician, or anyone, just say “I feel proud of America today” without context to some event or action?

And as I discussed this with a friend, the thought came up that the fact Mrs. Obama is Black is also a factor in the comment. Specifically because

“As a Black person having to deal with the way people treat you in America, you have a very different take on America. So her statements reflect her experiences. She could have walked into places, like a store, and been treated like crap while her White friends could go in an be treated well in the same place.

It makes me think of Janet Jackson’s last film. In one scene they went skiing, and the wives went into town to shop. They were wearing furs, and well dressed. The clerk walks up to them and says that there is no cash in the store. The first thought was they were there to rob the store. So in reference to Mrs. McCain, they don’t have the same life experiences. The treatment is always going to be different.

American daily life, and politics, have not given her reason to be overly proud. It’s a Black and White issue. Which is why this makes a big difference from Mrs. McCain saying the same thing. It falls under the “walk a mile in my shoes” quote.”

Obviously there is a huge source of pride in the fact that while African Americans continue to not be able to catch a cab in New York City, even if they are Denzel Washington or Danny Glover, Senator Obama is winning states across the nation that have virtually no Black voters by enormous margins. Because they think he is the best candidate for President. And that is a source of pride that has not existed in the lifetime for African Americans before.

And what other moments since the 1980’s have Blacks had to be especially proud of America for? What has changed that made a dramatic difference in the average Black Americans life? Gaining Mayors in cities that never had Blacks in positions of power before? Learning that there are many trying to end Affirmative Action, without implementing something better and more fair, even though racial bias continues to exist in the nation? What event equals the momentum and potential of Senator Obama being able to gain the highest office in the nation?

Context makes a difference. Point of view makes a difference. And being the spouse of a political figure minimizes those points to a degree while amplifying the spotlight they receive. Is Mrs. Obama especially proud of America prior to the current election cycle, maybe not.

But then again what has happened that she should be? That’s the real thought that the media and America should be focused on.

Who are the Vice-Presidential candidates going to be?

With the nominees of the political parties winding down, pundits and talking heads are starting to look around and question who will be Vice-Presidential matches. While many citizens may not consider the Vice-Presidency as overly important, in political circles it’s a big deal. Considering the fact that the Democratic nominee will eventually end up being either a Black man or a woman, the Vice-Presidential candidate becomes very important in drawing voters that might otherwise avoid the name on the Presidential ticket of either party.

While rumors are beginning to build, and some older ones are resurging, there is no real clear answer on who might get the nod. So when in doubt, one of the best places to look is where the betting is going. Yes, gambling. Very often where people are willing to put their money, and the payoffs odds makers are willing provide, are early indicators of what may happen.

So looking at PaddyPower.com I’ve found the following:

On the Republican side –

Mike Huckabee leads with 6-4 odds (which I’d call 3-2 but the quote is what it is)
Charlie Christ has 5-2
Tim Pawlenty at 4-1
Mitt Romney is at 11-2
Joe Lieberman at 8-1
Condoleezza Rice at 10-1
Rudolph Giuliani at 14-1
Chuck Hagel at 16-1
Dick Cheney at 20-1

While some of the more religious conservatives may want Mike Huckabee, I feel he is too religious to be electable. Mitt Romney is more concerned with gaining the big ticket and thus I’d expect him to wait til 2012 for his shot at the prize. I expect that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the real favorite. She brings in some of the Black and women vote. And she is easily qualified for the position. I see the Democrats seriously troubled in trying to attack her on anything. My dream pick would be Colin Powell though.

On the Democratic side it’s a bit sketchier –

Hillary Clinton leads the odds at 11-10
Barack Obama follows with 5-2
John Edwards comes in at 5-1
Ted Strickland is at 7-1
Bill Richardson follows closely at 8-1
Dennis Kucinich is a ways back at 20-1 (though I like his position on Reparations and an apology)
Ted Kennedy is unlikely at 25-1
Bill Clinton is an extreme improbability at 66-1

As can be seen the Democratic ticket is very murky. While an Obama-Clinton ticket may sound good to some, I find it highly unlikely and very probably a losing ticket. The baggage and extreme dislike that Clinton brings is not worth the trouble, and virtually guarantees a Condoleezza Rice VP nod. This combination also says nothing of the dislike the candidates have for each other, nor the ego of Clinton. And if Senator Obama loses the nomination, he is better off waiting for 2012 and seeking the nomination directly.

John Edwards is a dumb choice as he is already a loser in this position, and could not draw significant support running for President 2x now.
Ted Kennedy is just not going to happen. He’s always talked about in this role, but it doesn’t happen. His name and association are not enough. As well as his appeal on a national basis is not nearly strong enough.

Former-President Bill Clinton may be some ultra-liberal Democrats wet dream of a ticket, but that’s all it is. Add him, and it’s an instant loss.

I expect odds on Richardson to improve as he is a Governor, Hispanic, and experienced with the Executive Branch. His odds go up significantly if Hillary wins as he is an old member of former-President Bill Clinton’s administration. Hillary loves to lean on Bill and his previous actions.

So my bets, if I made them, are on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a match to Senator McCain; and Bill Richardson to go with Senator Obama, and a lock with Senator Clinton.

Considering the above, which do I think will win? Well that will be a different post.

Debating Kim Gandy of N.O.W. about Senator Hillary Clinton and sexism

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.

After sweeping the Potomac Primaries, what's next for the Presidential candidates

Voters have spoken. Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Clinton sadly weren’t the voices being called out by the najorities. In sweeping victories Senators Barack Obama and John McCain continued their momentum towards the nomination for their various political parties.

Most decisive was the victory by Senator Obama. In victories that were between 60% to 75%, there was no question that voters of every race in the Democratic Party are being drawn by the message of hope and change over the message of experience touted by Senator Clinton. So definitive was the victory that long before the outcome was reported, Senator Clinton had already left the area to travel to Texas. There she is making what may be a last line in the sand stand to claim the Democratic nomination.

On March 4th Texas and Ohio will have huge Primaries that could likely seal the delegate battle, potentially removing the need of Super Delegates to decide the Presidential nominee. Potentially because there is still the question of the Michigan and Florida Primaries.

Both Michigan and Florida were penalized for moving up their primary dates by the Democratic Party. Michigan had it’s delegates decreased and Florida received none. But now that the battle is so close the Clinton campaign is making a huge push to get those delegates validated. And a major debate is ensuing. There is a more than probable chance that legal action will wind up being involved.

There are 2 opinions on these penalized delegates. The first, which I agree with, is that both states were warned and fully aware of the cost if they chose to hold their primaries when they did. Decisions were made and the consequences were metted out. Such is the essence of life. A choice is made and we live with the results.

On the other side is the Clinton campaign, and it’s proponents, that believe the voice of the people in the respective states must be heard. They want to ignore the known consequences and take advantage of the results. It should be remembered that while all the other Presidential candidates respected the rules in place, the Clinton campaign pushed forward to try to seek an advantage.

While Democrats in Mifchigan and Florida may be upset, they were fully aware of what would happen. To claim sour grapes now is without merit and does not warrant reward.

Looking at the Republican results, Senator John McCain has finally received tallies that place him above 50%. He has also further pressured Mike Huckabee towards what is most probably a withdrawl. Given the math, it is virtually impossible, and would be unpresidented, if Huckabee were to garner enough support to overturn Senator McCain’s lead. Unless there were to be a major gaffe by McCain, and Huckabee were to win the Texas and Ohio primaries in massive landslides, there is no chance for huckabee to win the nomination.

But I do believe that his continued efforts are more politically motivated. While his chance of gaining the Vice-Presidential nod is impractical, his ability to gain other political office and generate favor is large. It has been said that Washington, DC is a zero-sum game. Meaning that all political power and influence is a finite and the only way one politician moves up is at the cost of another moving down.

By continuing his unlikely quest for the Presidential nomination Huckabee more likely seeks to improve his political standing, thus enabling him to influence and enact some of the goals his candidacy has heralded. I would strongly believe that if he is able to stay in the race, with support, long enough to gain more delegates than Mitt Romney he may well succeed in this attempt.

A similar case may be made for the continued campaigning of Ron Paul. Though in his case I believe it is the more fringe elements of the Republican and independants that are supporting him.

So as the March 4th Primaries approach the 2 sides of the objectives become clear. Democrats seek to establish dominance and a clear claim to the nomination. Whether that claim is justified by the votes of the public and existing delegate counts, or via legal machinations is yet to be see. And in the Republican side, the question is not so much who is the nominee, but what political favor can be gained.