Recent Activity

• 

  What do you all think about Hillary Clintons Recent Wins?

  I think that Hillary Clinton's recent wins in Ohio and in the Texas primary are good indicators to which the rest of us would be wise to listen.

  Obama is a strong favorite among African Americans (no surprise there - did the Clinton's REALLY think that they were black, after all?).  He's also strong among people who have never before gotten involved in politics, aka African Americans and the 18-25 yr old group, mostly.  He's popular among the young people who are just entering into the adult world, with all its responsibilities and concerns.  

  Clinton is strong among people over 40.  She's also strong among women.  No surprises there, either.  

  But what does this mean?  

  First of all, Obama may just be a shooting star.  That he's engaging alot of young, first-time voters, and African Americans and other people of color is not surprising.  I suspect that there's alot of people that are voting for Obama JUST because he's black.  In fact, I personally know of several people who are doing precisely that.  Make no mistake, the black community is pretty well united in this.  "It is considered "a diss" against the black race to vote white if you have a choice to vote black."

  On the other hand, I also know a whole lot of women who are voting for Hillary Clinton JUST because she's a woman.  However, unlike Obama, who's attracting many, if not mostly, voters who have never before been engaged with the political process, Clinton attracts older, and perhaps more committed, as well as arguably wiser, constituents.

  Sometimes, less IS more. 

  What I mean by this is that while Clinton's votes are cast by relatively secure, committed voters, the same cannot necessarily be said of Obama's voting block.

  Is there any guarantee that these young voters are as well-informed as older, been-there-done-that voters?  When I was 18 all I was concerned about was getting to vote before I was 21, being able to get into bars before I was 21, and getting out of Vietnam.  I WASN'T concerned about healthcare, job security, education, trade, labor unions, etc.  Those were things only "the older folks" cared about and were concerned with.

  I don't think I'd be too far amiss to say that I doubt things are much different for today's youth.  And there's nothing wrong with that; how could one possibly expect an 18-25 yr old with virtually NO life experience to be interested and concerned with things like healthcare, mortgages, and job security?  Whatever it is that they ARE interested in, which I would guess is Iraq, like most of us - they simply do not have the life experience necessary to take things like Medicare and Social Security, into account.  

  So, do we really want a generation of 18-25 yr olds making this momentous a decision for the rest of us?  I sincerely hope not!  Should their voices be heard?  Of course!  I'm simply pointing out that this younger generation has not had enough life experience to be able to consider the bigger picture in its enormity, regardless of how wise any of them might consider themselves to be.

  Which brings me to the massive numbers of African Americans and other peoples of color.  I have to say that I think it's great, and I thank God that so many numbers of people of color are at long last getting involved in politics.  I do think it's sad that they felt they had to wait until a black man was running for president.  As a social scientist, I think that speaks volumes.

  The BIG QUESTION:  How will that new-found participation translate in the general election?  Will newly voting African Americans vote in the general election, even if Obama is the nominee?  What if he ISN'T?  

  My guess is that if Obama is on the ticket, they'll vote. If he's not, many, if not most of them, won't.  Ditto for the youngsters.

  So that begs a second question:  Do we count on these new voters to vote?  Do we take a chance on their fidelity?  Or do we count on the tried and true voters, the ones who have been voting for years, the ones who have a clearer and expanded understanding of the issues that only life experience brings?

  I have to say that I would rather put my money and hedge my bet on the latter, rather than the former.

  I don't think we should be held hostage to threats that if Obama's not the nominee, they won't vote.  What kind of mature reasoning and behavior is that?  To me, it just proves my point. 

  So, I think that Hillary Clinton is still very much in the game; I hope she wins.  I personally think a Clinton/Obama ticket is the way to go in this election - age and experience at the top, fueled by inspiration and motivation from the bottom up.  

  Obama likes to claim that change comes from the bottom up.  I well understand that, having been a part of grassroots politics for many years.  But I also have to make this observation:  Change takes a lot less time if it comes from the top, down.  Nowhere is this more evident than the changes we've seen come about in the last 7 years, under the Bush/Cheney regime.  How very quickly those draconian changes came about - and 10 years ago, my guess is that none of us would have ever imagined these changes would come at all, let alone come so quickly.

  In a parting comment, I am concerned about a couple of things.  First, the whole Rezko - Obama thing.  I'm less concerned with whether Obama did anything illegal than I am with his apparent lack of judgment, something which he says he possesses in abundance - good judgment, that is.  I think the whole Rezko fiasco just proves to me that he is relatively inexperienced and naive.  Neither are good traits in a president, a world leader, and particularly, at THIS point in our world and national history.

  At THIS point in our national and world history, I think we need someone with more experience and less naivete.

  Second, I have to say that the Clinton campaign is its own worst enemy.  I think Hillary needs to get rid of some of her excess baggage that is hurting, rather than helping, her.  One is Wolfson, and the other, believe it or not, is Bill.  Yes, I said Bill.  Save him for the general election, MAYBE.  

  Bill has changed.  He's not as charasmatic as he used to be.  Or maybe he's just angrier than he used to be.  But he's doing things in this election that makes me question just how much he actually wants his wife to be president...things he would never have done in his own presidential campaign.

  Perhaps he's just a little too passive-aggressive?

  I think Hillary needs to give him a time-out and let Chelsea reach out to the young people on her behalf.  Hillary needs to bring some young people into her campaign, and she needs to simply point out the truth in her ads, not directly attack Obama, but his behavior.  His lack of voting on several important issues, and his vote to extend Bush's powers and funding of Iraq.

  In short, Hillary needs to expose Obama's inexperience, poor judgment, and naivete in a POSITIVE way.  She needs to alternate her good guy/bad guy statements about Obama.

  It will trip Obama up.

  Bottom line, I'm rooting for Hillary.  I don't think Obama can win against McCain.  McCain and Clinton are much more evenly pitted.  Even Hillary's voting to go to war can be used as an advantage against McCain.  McCain will openly expose Obama as a liar, as inexperienced, as naive, and as clueless.

  My God, think about who McCain's running mate might be - did you know he's actually thinking about...none other than JEB BUSH?  You don't make a deal with the devil (aka Bush's endorsement of McCain) without paying a price. 

  It's a price the American people should NOT have to pay.  I just hope mature, experienced voters will have the final say. 

  Posted 10 Mar 08

• 

  Recent News

  Well, I don't think it's any big secret that Obama's best weapon is his lofty, rhetorical speeches.  I don't think Clinton said anything amiss - she's fighting for viability and she has to say whatever is true that will make people THINK.

  McCain will shred Obama in the general election, so let's hope that Hillary wins today, especially.

   

  Posted 04 Mar 08

• 

  Which Democratic match up would be the hardest the defeat by the Rebublicans?

  My original choice was John Edwards.  I truly believe that he was the one that had the best platform.  But the media effectively blacklisted him, and virtually shaped this race by forcing him to drop out.  

  The two media darlings from the beginning were Clinton and Obama.  And if you remember, originally the media treated Clinton as if she were the virtual nominee already.  Interestingly, after Edwards suspended his campaign, the media turned on Clinton, and began to favor Obama.

  At the same time, the Republicans were given a much wider berth.  While the media focused on Obama and Clinton as if they were the only democratic candidates, it did a much better job in covering several GOP candidates, e.g., Huckabee, Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and even Paul, to a certain extent.  I found that very telling, and wanted to know why the media, and I mean most forms of the media, from newsprint to internet to tv, would narrow the democratic focus to two candidates, while allowing the republicans a much wider focus, at least three or four of their candidates got coverage.

  So I did another search/research stint on who owns the media.  Well, lo and behold, I find that media ownership is even narrower now than it was four years ago.  There are only a handful of people, because it is people that own businesses, that own most of the media outlets.  In fact, it's quite startling just how dangerously small the group of people is that own most of the newspapers, magazines, cable tv stations, etc.

  I'm skeptical by nature, and I'm not a big believer in coincidences.  I do believe that the very rich run this and other countries, because that is the logical way of things, particularly as countries/nations age.  Basically, the older a country is, the more likely it's being run by an oligarchy of wealthy elites.  

  After seeing who owns the majority of the world's media, not to mention the media in the United States, it's fairly plain to see that the media is now effectively owned and operated by a handful of Republicans and/or Republican supporters.  (I suppose most of these people would be what Bush refers to as his "base").  So, that says to me that the mainstream media in the U.S. has effectively become a sort of "propaganda" arm of the GOP.  

  So, if the media is owned and operated by Republicans and Republican-leaning sympathizers, then it would seem that since they focused only on two democrats from the beginning, but not only two republicans, that the GOP wants one of the two to run against their candidate.

  That makes good sense, and if I owned a sizable chunk of the country's media outlets, and some of my good buddies owned the rest, I would do the same thing.  I would sit down with them and figure out a way to shape the election so that I would be assured that things wouldn't change too much, my tax cuts would be permanent, etc.  That's human nature.

  First thing I'd do is not cover anyone who posed a threat and who might actually get elected if the people heard what they had to say.  I believe that's why the media didn't cover Edwards.  Most people today get their news from the mainstream media channels/outlets, so if someone's not covered, then that's that.  

  So, if you were the GOP, who would you want your candidate to run against?  If I were a rich, white Republican, I would want my nominee to run against Obama rather than Clinton.

  And look what the media has done - as I said, as soon as Edwards was gone, they turned on Clinton like so many ravenous dogs.  Obama is now the "golden boy" so to speak, and he will be until - and if - he gets the nomination.  And then, mark my words,  the media will turn on him, too. 

  First, Obama has more of an air of mystery about him than does Clinton.  And I say that only in the context that Obama is not as well known.  Clinton's life is by now an open book.  For example, no one could say that Clinton was an atheist, but there is the question of just what kind of church does Obama belong to and just what religion is he?  Already the rumors of him being Muslim are circulating.  And if that's not an election breaker in post-9/11 America, I don't know what would be.   

  Second, Obama is a good talker, but there's not alot of substance behind what he says.  He avoids casting controversial votes in the Senate by simply not showing up to vote, for one thing, and that will be capitalized on by the media.  He talks about bringing change (exactly what Bush said) and that he would unite Democrats & Republicans (again, exactly what Bush said), but Obama doesn't say specifically WHAT change he will bring, or HOW.  Again, just like Bush in 2000.  

  And that scares me.  Can Americans be stupid enough to fall for the same line of crap that Bush handed out in 2000?  Apparently so.  Score one for the gipper...literally.

  While I have not been a Clinton supporter, I have to say that her plans are laid out for all to see; unlike Obama, who has not said anything specific, even on his website.  He spouts lofty rhetoric, platitudes, and alludes to himself as another MLK or JFK, but he is neither.  And frankly, he offends me by pretending to be either.

  Third, Obama is, I think, rather naive.  What Clinton says really is true - Obama just doesn't have the experience that she does.  And as a former first lady, Hillary Clinton does have the unique advantage of knowing upclose and personal, just what it takes to be president.  She also has inside knowledge of the goings on behind closed doors of politics - something Obama could not have had access to.  So, in that respect, she would be more prepared on that first day, to lead the country.  

  And that brings me to another point - Clinton is a doer.  Obama is a talker.  Americans rejected Kerry because of his lofty rhetoric, but they love Obama for it?  That is illogical.  Take the media variable out of it and you'll see why.  The media crucified Kerry for the same thing they praise Obama for - but that praise won't last.  What will happen when the media turns on Obama?  He won't know how to handle it.  He won't understand why he went from the golden boy who could say nothing wrong to the underdog who can say nothing right - but that is what will happen.

  Clinton, on the other hand, will let those media attacks roll of her like water off a duck.  She's been there done that so many times that it must just be second nature to her by now.  I do have to give her credit for that.  

  I think Hillary Clinton is a stronger individual than Barack Obama is.  I think Clinton truly has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I think she's a shrewd person who knows how to get what she wants.  It's just too bad she doesn't own the media who have effectively set her up for a big fall.  

  And the voters are playing right into the GOP's hands.

  If McCain is the GOP nominee, which it is likely he will be, especially now that he's been endorsed by King George Bush, then you can take that to the bank.  

  I believe that McCain and the GOP will chew Obama up and spit him out.  I think they'd try to do that to Clinton, but they'd have a harder time.  Just about everything they could say about her has to do with her husband, and she could and would rightly say that Bill isn't running this time around.  She's not Bill, so it's all a moot point.  And what could the GOP say to that, really?

  Plus, Clinton is well-known globally for her work on human and women's rights.  What has Obama done, in that respect?  I haven't heard him saying too much about the genocide in Dafur, have you?  Have you seen or heard of him taking a stand on poverty, human rights, or anything substantial?  

  NO, NO, NO.  That's one of the reasons he's tried to play it safe.  By not voting against GOP bills, or for Democratic ones, and I'm talking the controversial bills, he's played it safe and not taken a stand.

  But do we want, or deserve, a president who's NEVER TAKEN A STAND?  On anything?

  No, I don't think so.  I think that after 8 years of the most selfish, corrupt, greedy, immoral, deceitful, and treasonous representation in Washington that I can remember in my lifetime (going back to Truman's tenure), Americans deserve a president who has something specific, substantive, and strong to say about the way things should be.  I don't see that person as Obama.

  The way I see it, McCain will win against Obama, Clinton would win against McCain, albeit barely.  As much as I like Edwards, I almost think at this point that a Clinton/Obama ticket could be the answer, since Democrats are so polarized at this point.  That would virtually guarantee a huge Democratic voter turnout in November, and a virtual Dream Team ticket that McCain couldn't hold a candle to, regardless of whom he picked as a running mate.  BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain picks Jeb Bush as the other half of his ticket.

  Voters, beware.  America's future is in your hands.   

  Posted 21 Feb 08

• 

  Obama will face smears and rumors what should be done to counter them?

  Nothing.

  Posted 02 Mar 08

• 

  Hillary Clinton

  I agree.  We shouldn't base our opinions on websites, so on what website did you base your opinion of Hillary's alleged emotional crying bit?  Just curious, because she didn't cry. 

  I base my support for Hillary on the fact that she has very detailed and specific plans on several issues.  They're available to peruse on her website at hillaryclinton.com.  

  When I listen to Obama, I hear alot of emotional verbiage, but not specifics or details.

  I also base my support for Hillary on the many, many bills she has sponsored and on her voting record.

  Although Obama has also sponsored many bills, his voting record lacks the same substantive commitment as Hillary's seems to evince.  I'm troubled that he doesn't vote on so many bills and issues.  I mean, what possible reason could he have to not vote to extend the Education Act of 1965?  The one that ensures Pell Grants, among other things?  

  I find Hillary to be decisive, tenacious, and committed.  

  I find Obama to be indecisive, hesitant, and naive.

  Words are nice, but there has to be something behind them.

  Obama has said that he thinks the Republicans have had some good ideas.  I believe him when he says that, because he's using the same kind of campaign strategies that G. W. Bush used in 2000.  All that stuff about change, and hope, and uniting people - that's straight out of W's mouth.

  How can you so easily forget? 

  Posted 02 Mar 08

• 

  Barack Obama

  Quite curious.  For one thing, it's hard to make sense out of your post - I'm not sure it's the grammar, the spelling, or your state of mind when you wrote it....

  Second, much ado was made of "Hillary's tears."  Well, except that...there weren't any.  Tears, I mean. 

  I found the video clip, which was all over the news at the time, and watched it several times, thinking I'd missed something.  But, no, there was no crying, not one little tear.  Not even a tiny, suppressed sob.

  What there was, in the end, was merely a heartfelt statement that expressed her sorrow if America ends up continuing down the same path we're currently on, because it means America diminishes in stature and honor day by day.

  But there was no crying, no tears.  Nope, not one. 

  Was she tired, did her voice crack slightly?  Yes, but you try keeping up with the grueling speaking schedule that she has and see what you sound like.  

  Was she emotional?  I wouldn't call it that, but I will say that it is quite refreshing to listen to a candidate express herself in such a way that you know that our issues, Americans' issues, are important to her, too.  And I understand how she feels because I have at times been nearly brought to tears myself, when I think about how I just about made it out of the financial dark hole I was in during the Clinton years.  And how I was sucked back down with no light in sight during the Bush regime.

  She's got some doggone good ideas.  And she's very specific, which is something I demand.  I want to know what I'm getting when I hire someone to do a job.  When I was an office manager, I hired people to do specific jobs.  Assessing people's skills and matching them with job skill requirements is something that comes with experience.  

  And that's her point, too.  We Americans, in essence, are in the process of interviewing job applicants for the position of President of the United States.  That person will have to possess certain people skills and certain job specific skills.  That's a very important job; we've seen what a disaster the wrong person in that job can create.

  In looking over both candidate's resumes, I see glaring omissions in Obama's.  

  For one thing, he misses far too many votes.  That's easily checked by going to http://www.senate.gov and checking up on his voting record.  One can check Hillary Clinton's record there, too, as well as any other Senator or Representative.

  It troubles me that Obama has not voted on some pretty important legislation, such as funding or not funding the Iraq war, and whether to extend the Education Act of 1965.  There seems to be a pattern there where he just doesn't like to take sides, or perhaps he doesn't like to make decisions, or maybe it's just that he doesn't want to piss off the  Republicans or the Democrats.

  Well, unfortunately, as President he would quite likely be required to do the first two, and in the process, do the third, as well.  We cannot have a president who is indecisive, who doesn't stand up to fight for anything, and who's afraid to make people angry with him for taking sides.

  THAT'S THE REAL OBAMA.

  For another thing, I don't like it that he's been chair of a senate subcommittee on foreign relations overseeing the middle east, since the beginning of 2007, and HASN'T CALLED ONE, NO NOT ONE, MEETING.  When queried about that in the last debate between himself and Sen. Clinton in Ohio, Obama's response was that he was made chair of that committee at the same time as he announced his candidacy for president, and he "just hasn't had the time to call a meeting."

  Really?  Well, what happens when it's the third year of his first term, and he has to start campaigning?  Does he just let the business of his job go?  Does he let the VP take over for him, so he can go out and make lofty, rhetorical speeches?  I hope we never find out.

  I find Obama to be disingenuous and somewhat arrogant, which is a real turn off to me.  I find his wife somewhat racist, which really rather repulses me.  Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm automatically a racist, as she insinuates in her thesis.  I would reply to her that racism runs both ways in this country, and anybody who thinks otherwise ignores the obvious.

  Classism, caused by poverty and income disparity, is the root of the evil in this country.  It is fueled by ignorance, selfishness, and greed.  We've had stellar role models for these behaviors during the past eight years.  It's time we had some new role models.

  I like Hillary Clinton for her work in human rights and women's rights all over the world.  I believe she will fight for universal healthcare; she tried the first time around but she had a Republican congress and the time just wasn't right.  The time IS right now, and I believe she will make it happen.  

  Obama, on the other hand, will cause me to pay a fine for not insuring my 21 yr old son, who is in college and lives at home.  If I can't afford to insure either one of us.  And, in fact, under Obama's plan, I will not be covered.  Under Hillary's plan, I will.  

  You know what you're getting with Hillary Clinton.  You don't know anything of the sort with Obama.  She has laid out some very specific, detailed plans.  

  You do not get specifics OR details from Obama.  What you do get is the same promises as I heard George W. Bush make in 2000.  "What we need is change, and I'll bring it."  "I'm a uniter, not a divider; and I'll work with both sides of the aisles...."  "I have hope for the future, and if you vote for me, you'll have that hope, too."

  Who does that sound like?  Obama?  Nope.  G. W. Bush.  I guess Obama really does find some Republican ideas appealing. 

  The question is:  Are Americans any smarter this time around?  Or will we "get fooled again."  How little it seems to take to pull the wool over some americans' eyes. 

  Hillary Clinton is a fighter.  She's been around the block time and again, and she knows exactly what - and who - she's up against.  I think Obama is rather naive.

  He is inspirational, I'll give him that.  He's a good orator; I'll give him that.  But I don't see alot of substance behind his words, when push comes to shove.  He can talk all he wants to about not wanting to go into Iraq, but I well remember his email to me when I wanted to know why he voted to continue to fund the war - and he said that "it wasn't the time, there wasn't enough support, and we had to take baby steps and realize what we can achieve and what we can't."

  That just doesn't give me much hope, I'm sorry.  Maybe he'd make a good vice president, but not a president.  Not at this crucial time in our history.  Hillary Clinton can and will bring plenty of change; she's been fighting for change for decades.  All you have to do is look at the bills she sponsors and her voting record.  

  She's tough.  People don't like her because "she's a woman who doesn't know her place."  Bah humbug.

  I'm tired of waiting for some zeitgeist to walk up to the plate.  It isn't going to happen; but Hillary Clinton is the next best thing, and we'd be foolish to not recognize that. 

  Apparently, by the way, you have not watched the clip of Hillary's supposed crying jag.  Here ya go:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIG1mJAdMv8    

  Posted 02 Mar 08