Geez! Obama has got to feel like a proverbial duck in a barrel. Everyone is taking shots at him. McCain tries to emphasis his inexperience on the Middle East. Clinton is trying to just grab a few more votes. But the real funny is the surrogates of each of the mentioned candidates.
The Clinton surrogates have nothing, so they make it up as they go and then there are the 527's. You gotta love these slimy little sh*ts! As I go around talking with people about Obama, it surprises me the people that actually believe every word of these horrible emails. Especially the one about him being a Muslim mole in the machine. I ask these people if he were a Muslim why is he a member of a supposedly "white-hating" Christian church? That is a direct violation of Islam. The funny part is I never get an answer.
The there is the "inevitable" Repub nominee, who spends more time on Obama than on his positions. But there is a reason for that, he has nothing but tired old diatribes. And it helps keep the spotlight off his flip flopping on issues like tax cuts and torture. Two things he was opposed to and now he has seen the light and he supports them. The light? The light of the presidency.
All in all this whole attack Obama thing is something that they need to be prepared for and it is something rather silly. The voter learns nothing about issues and positions and stances by this type of crap.
29 February 2008
Geez! Obama has got to feel like a proverbial duck in a barrel. Everyone is taking shots at him. McCain tries to emphasis his inexperience on the Middle East. Clinton is trying to just grab a few more votes. But the real funny is the surrogates of each of the mentioned candidates.
28 February 2008
Recently in the New Yorker magazine, a fluff piece on Chelsea Clinton written by Lloyd grove, and it was a warm and fuzzy piece on the daughter of Hil and Bill. It covered how she had become a good campaigner for her mother, that she was well informed on the issues and the positions of her mother. Not a bad piece and it was a bit informative. That is if you really wanted to know how
The author was interviewed on MSNBC's "Morning Joe". Why? I mean this piece had nothing to do with the attacks from the weekend or the upcoming debate. So why was this a story on MSNBC?
Recently MSNBC's David Schuster made an off hand remark about
Well, let us look at it. Joe Scarborough has blasted unmercifully Michelle Obama for her statement that she was finally proud the her country. He goes off on a diatribe about her being unpatriotic and similar such nonsense. What amazes me is that none of the "anchors" when they bring up this statement ever quote it properly. They seem to always leave out the adverb, "really" from her statement. Anyway my point is that Michelle Obama has been lambasted by MSNBC and no one gets whacked on the pee-pee. Why?
Appears that MSNBC is working for the
27 February 2008
A good question! Answer is not at the rate it is running now. Why? No pizzazz! Basically, what you have now are just people who want to end the war, gathering, marching and chanting. YAWN!
Step back into the 60’s and 70’s. The anti-war movement was a production there were people in Nixon masks, dressed like POWs, dressed like monks who set themselves on fire; in other words there was a theater of the absurd, a guerilla theater, within the anti-war movement. Small plays were presented during the protests that had a theme. Such subjects as number of dead soldiers, number of dead Vietnamese, capitalistic M-IC, anything that pertained to the war and its make up.
I see very little of this in today’s anti-war demonstrations. I see marchers, carrying of signs, a bit of chanting, and more boring stuff. Nothing grabs the spectators or for that matter the media. Without the media the protests will only reach a very, very small audience. If that is the case, all the protesting in the world will be as useless as a fart in the wind. To be successful in the anti-war movement, you need to attract attention. Lots of attention! Today, they are attracting a 10 second sound byte on the evening news, if that much.
Apparently few of the masters are left. If they still are around, then they are in a comfortable place and do not feel that opposition to the war is a worthy pursuance. Especially from a generation that wrote the book on civil disobedience.
Confrontation, there is the key! Going limp when arrested is not what I am talking about. I am talking about forcing the forces to over-react. That tactic is not as popular as it was back in the day. Few are willing to take one for the movement. It is just not that important anymore.
ALL protests should have those people that are trained in the arts, especially the performing arts; these people can help the message get noticed by the spectators and especially the media.
So can the anti-war movement be saved? Yes it can, but the people have got to want it to be saved. Now, war is not on the front pages as much and the attention of the people is elsewhere. The movement will lose its newsworthiness and could kill it completely.
We can only pray that it is. After 20 or was it 30, debates the people are energized to snooze. The big question last night was which Clinton would show up, the one from the last debate with her warm and fuzzy tone about Obama or the one from the weekend with the ranting and raving. Deep down, everyone wanted the latter. They wanted her to come off the ropes with a folding chair and brain Obama.
Clinton gets first question and she finds fault with it. Everyone held their breath waiting...waiting...and then..nothing! It was the same as the last debate and the one before that. Niceties were everywhere, complimentary BS was everywhere.
At first there was a bit of the snippys on health care, they went back and forth, but nothing new. Then it continued with the ping pong match on Kosovo, war, NAFTA, everybody's past votes,and support for Israel. The only part of the debate that was a bit hostile was a short piece on personal attacks. Clinton did however, almost apologize for her vote to go to Iraq. It was a around about way of saying that she may have been mistaken.
Ok, since Americans have to have a winner and a loser, I will give this debate a DRAW! Nothing new, just a rehash of every damn thing you have heard up to this point. Just a way to get the stump speeches out there. No real specifics, just the same vague generalities of what to expect if they are elected president. The real winners were those people that went to bed and got a good night's sleep. The losers were people like me that are waiting for something to happen that will make this interesting....we are still waiting.
Obama is leading in the polls, that did not change with this debate. He did get to play his little warm fuzzy for Clinton, saying what an honor it is and that she is a fine person and candidate..yada..yada...please let the voting begin.
26 February 2008
Ok, Mccain is the supposed Repub candidate and now there has been a story about his sex life (that alone sends shivers up my spine). It seems to be a good thing, he is raising money on top of money because of this perceived hatchet job. But what if, it is a plan?
OK I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but think about this....Mitt only suspended his campaign, he never stopped being a candidate, only suspended it for the time being. Got that! Mitt could be in the weeds looking for McCain to bomb out or to flame out or something similar.
McCain the height of the campaign Mitt was accused of flip flopping on issues, but yet Mccain has done the same, he now supports the tax cuts, supports torture, and seems to be in support of earmarks, all of these he opposed in the past. He is setting himself up for defeat, in my opinion.
Mitt is a shrewd person, he is playing the GOP for his chance at the presidency. He is trying to make sure it will be his turn in the barrel soon. If for some unknown reason McCain has a crash and burn moment, Mitt will be there to pick up the pieces.
If McCain was truly a man of principles, he has sold them out for the chance to run for president. Is that what you are looking for in a leader? He has pandered to ALL groups within the GOP just to win a little support for his candidacy. Is that what you look for? If so, then you have found your man!
Watch the news, will there be more McCain moments trying to bring him down? Probably, since he is not the first choice of the conservs.
25 February 2008
It is Monday and the quiz is inevitable. This is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl. But what the hell--I like it and that is pretty much the only f*cking thing that matters.
We all know the Federalist and the Federalist Papers. we know that Jefferson and Jay wrote most of the papers, but were there those who did not agree with them on the direction for government? If so, name two. And what was the movement called?
This is a google moment--so knock yourself out--
This is from an article in the Seattle times--I like it and gives people a good perspective on the candidates.
Here is the scorecard so far:
MANAGE: Obama raised the most money, spent it wisely and had a plan in place for a long fight after the Feb. 5 national primary. Clinton burned through her cash, underestimated her rival's appeal, valued loyalty over competence in her staff and had no Plan B after failing to seal the nomination on Super Tuesday. If McCain is destined to run the country the way he managed his campaign as the early front-runner, let's start drafting impeachment papers now. Advantage goes to Obama.
INSPIRE: Obama's eloquence and timely message of hope is breaking turnout records. McCain's war-hero biography and passion for causes greater than self-interest could tap the nation's service-hungry spirit. Clinton is at her best in those rare moments when she shows vulnerability; many women see themselves in her fight to shatter a glass ceiling. Big advantage to Obama.
CRISIS CONTROL: Faced with financial and political difficulties of his own making, McCain overhauled his staff, his message and his political strategy to mount an improbable comeback. Clinton recovered quickly from a thumping in Iowa, but loses marks for putting the brakes on necessary changes after a surprise victory in New Hampshire. How he responds to crises is one of the many things we don't know about Obama, a charmed politician whose rise was met with little resistance. We know that McCain (a former prisoner of war) and Clinton (a former first lady with a wayward spouse) faced hard times in their lives and careers, but what is Obama's greatest moment of crisis? "The rocky periods during my youth ... ," says Obama, who has acknowledged using drugs as a youth. Advantage: McCain in an easy call.
TEMPERMENT: Clinton is a cool customer, rarely caught off guard or out of sorts. With one exception (her response to a question about drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants), the New York senator handled the pressure-cooker debates with aplomb _ displaying both a knowledge of policy and an unbridled enthusiasm about the prospect of implementing them. Obama's self confidence crossed the line to arrogance more than once and his teeth-gritting response to criticism belied a dangerously thin skin. McCain has a notable temper, but has kept it under wraps and seems to love mixing it up with pesky voters. Advantage Clinton.
POST-PARTISAN: Obama has a solid record in Illinois of crossing party lines to get things done, and he talks about post-partisan politics in a way that convinces voters that problem-solving is possible. Clinton is one of the most divisive politicians of her generation, a fact that can't be mitigated by a few bills co-sponsored by GOP senators. McCain is a steady conservative who is willing to work with Democrats toward meaningful compromise. Advantage McCain, with credit for longevity.
AUTHENTICITY: Obama and McCain are relatively straight-shooters, but the key word is "relatively." Each has damaged their reputations. For all his talk about bold change, Obama's record has traces of politics as usual: He backtracked on a pledge to abide by spending caps, borrowed lines from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick without attribution and accepted donations from Illinois lobbyists. McCain pandered to conservatives, flip-flopped on President Bush's tax cuts and is now faces accusations that his own advisers feared he was too cozy with a lobbyist in 2000. They are both comfortable in their own skins. Exit polls suggest that voters see Clinton as almost anything other than authentic. Advantage: McCain and Obama, with the possibility of a tiebreaker in November.
INTANGIBLES: The records, the biographies, the policies, the qualities _ all of these are important, but we don't select presidents based on checklists and scorecards. Is Obama ready to be president? Will Clinton's husband, Bill, stay out of trouble? Will McCain's age catch up to him? Will terrorists strike U.S. soil again?
For all we think and hope a campaign reveals, it's the things we don't know _ and can't predict _ that will ultimately determine the fate of the next president. So you might as well go with your gut.
24 February 2008
First of all, I have been doing worthless news for about a year now. Sometimes it gets results and sometimes it is ignored. But recently, on MSNBC's Morning Joe they have a segment daily called, "The news you cannot use". I would like to believe that I somehow influenced this decision. Makes me feel like I have more readers than there really is.
That one cannot use.
2--Another tornadic activity in the South--how many trailers this time?
3--oil closed over $100 a barrel for the first time--but will it last?
4--Some dumbass has found the likeness of the Virgin Mary and baby in a pretzel--maybe I am jus a skeptic, but why?
5--Pres. Bush dances in Africa--may I suggest that a requirement to be president be that you actually have some sort of rhythm.
6--Ted Kennedy sings in Spanish--please do not let him do that again--it was horrendous!
7--more car chases, more shootings, more horrible weather, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Yet another week of totally worthless crap being fed to a gullible group by the media. and may I say a job well done.
OMG! Just how pathetic are these attacks? Clinton is trying to look like the victim here. I worked in New Hampshire and now the mean old black guy is attacking the helpless little woman. Please people!
These fliers that she is pouting about are nothing. The one on health care is a joke. Both of these candidates have similar health care plans. And if Clinton's is anything like her home organization, the DLC, then the penalty for not signing in on the program is the possible loss of one's personal tax exemptions. Obama's is similar, but I have found a penalty yet, but that is not saying there is none. Both candidates call their plans "universal" health care, but they are not totally.
Ok the next flier that Clinton is being "abused" over is the one that the Obama people have on her support for NAFTA. Obama has said about the situation, "You can't be for something and take credit for an administration . . . and then when you run for president say that you didn't really mean what you said way back then,". But the reality is that both candidates want to reform NAFTA, not eliminate it.
So when Clinton says, "shame on you, Barack Obama", it is just a political tactic for sympathy. My grand father had a saying for those looking for sympathy. He said, "grab a dictionary and look between sh*t and syphilis and you will find your sympathy".
The only "shame on you" that should be sounded , should be directed at the media for putting the voter through this bovine fecal matter.
23 February 2008
As I have said, this is gonna be an excellent year for asinine statements. From the mouths of a/holes flow the crap of nightmares.
This one is from a now defunct repub presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. You remember him? The rich guy that pissed away a lot of his personal fortune trying to be the next Reagan. HA!
"Liberals are opponents of American culture". Mitt Romney
These guys are just f*cking amazing.
This one I heard and thought that it pretty much sums up the whole Washington scene.
"politics is where greed wears the mask of morality" Insp. Jaques Clousseau
I could not have said it better if I had tried.
22 February 2008
First of all, I was mistaken, I know hard to believe, huh? Clinton did not attack! She apparently has seen the light. But she hangs on to the tired old argument that she has experience. It has not worked in the past, why continue?
How many have there been? At least CNN had the good sense to put Blitzer on the sidelines. But they for some reason they really like the applaud thing. I have a suggestion for them. They already have a feel-o-meter installed with undecided voters to check the reactions. Next they could install an applaud-o-meter. Then they would not have to pay analysts and the viewer would know immediately who won. No talk, no analysis, just statistics.
Back in 2007 I said there was little difference between Obama and Clinton positions. If you were listening last night then you saw the lack of difference. They are similar on Cuba health care, etc. Both candidates were poised and presidential looking. I give the edge to Obama here, he is more poised than he has been in the past. He handled all semi-attacks with calm reactions. The voter learned nothing new, if they have been listening in the past.
There were two parts that were not good. Both candidates were asked about earmarks, Obama has had 91 million and Clinton has had 342 million, but both did not address the earmarks but rather what should be done in Congress to make it more transparent. Then Clinton when she made her "change you can xerox", which referred to her campaign's accusation of plagiarism. The audience booed.
If one watched waiting for Clinton to go on the offensive and attack, you were sadly disappointed. The civility was almost nauseating at times. Clinton's best moment was her closing statement and all the illusion she gave about wounded soldiers, her life and her vision.
Obama is closing in on Clinton in Texas and the debate did not change the fact that her campaign is in trouble and the contests in Texas and Ohio could well be her swan song. The debate did not give her a boost that she was looking for.
Note: To me Clinton sounded like she is expecting to lose the race for the nomination. She seem to be conciliatory toward Obama. If she does not win big in Texas and Ohio, I look for her to throw in the towel, for her funds will dry up. Just a thought.
21 February 2008
Before I speak of this new debate I need to report that Obama won the hawaii Caucus 75% to Clinton's 24%. That makes 10 in a row. Clinton needs a good night at the debate. She is losing support in Texas and Ohio may go the same as Wisconsin.
Tonight is the debate in Austin, Texas, but what will we see? The confrontational style from January or the warm fuzzies of the last Dem debate? IMO, Clinton has got to go after Obama, she cannot afford to be warm and congenial.
She will hit him on his Congressional record. He will hit her on the same type of government if she wins. CNN will be the moderator and we will see if they also will kowtow to the Clinton machine. I also look for Clinton to use the fear card, but will disguise it in the form of Obama's inexperience with national security. Also she will thump her chest about the health care proposal, but as usual will be nothing more than vague generalities. Obama needs to stay calm and above the attacks. If he can pull it off, she will appear pathetic and desperate.
Obama will most likely have a long night. He will be hit from all sides, Clinton and CNN, if they smell blood he could be in a pickle. The media wasted no time piddling on his win in Wisconsin and I look for much the same in the context oif the debate.
I offered a list of questions to CNN and MSNBC that will educate the voter, but I do not see it working out that way. It will once again be a popularity contest with little moderation. Ratings will be more important than voter knowledge.
I take so many notes that it makes my fingers bleed (a joke, not reality). Some become posts and some just sit there and wait for more info to become a post and then there are those that just sit...and sit...and sit...and....
These are some of the thoughts that I did not turn into a massive piece of diatribes.
Clinton on her stump speeches says that she is all about solutions to the countries problems. But most of her solutions come straight out of the Democratic leadership Council playbook. Her solutions do not seem to be capturing the imagination of the voter too well.
If Clinton loses the nomination to Obama, will the acid tongue of Bill once again raise its ugly head in the media?
McCain spends $40+ million of his own money on campaign and he lets loose on Romney for spending his personal fortune on the campaign. Now he is trying to get everyone to agree to use public funds for the general...he must be broke.
Clinton people are calling her a populist. WTF? I have read her stands on issues and have yet to see any populism in her positions. also they (whoever they are) are saying that Clinton is returning to her progressive base. HUH? Have you read the positions of the DLC? There is no progressive thought in it.
Recently Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe tried to make a case for Clinton's experience. He said if you need a operation and your choice was a Dr. with 35 years experience and a Dr with 1 or 2 years of experience; you would want the most experience. Good point! But what if the more experienced Dr. is a quack? which one would you want?
Bill has said that his wife has a lot to offer the American people.....maybe so ...but the voter is looking for hope and she is not offering that.
A scenario--say Obama wins the nomination and Clinton returns to congress. Will she be a road block to Obama if he wins the general? The Clintons are a vindictive group. Will she act as a spoiler to Obama's plan for the country. She is a leader of the DLC and she could use that and the membership to spoil change.
Looks like MSNBC has caved to the Clinton's. For a couple of weeks they have been saying that Obama is getting a free ride in the press. For example, Chris Matthews asked a a Texas stAte senator what has Obama accomplished in the his stint in the Senate. The supporter did not have an answer. A big deal is being made of the answer. My problem is why now? Why was this not brought up in past interviews and debates? Still looks like they are trying to placate the Clinton campaign yet again.
Just a few things that have caught me flat footed. They were timely and I did not have a chance to write them up.
20 February 2008
With all the dynamics in the the US election cycle, I have not had much time to write on international affairs. I apologize, for it use to be my strong suit. I just cannot get enough of the happenings in this fascinating contests.
There have been a few developments in the world that deserve a post or two. One Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia. US applauds the move, Russia condemns. That alone is something, since there seems to be a revival of the old Cold war days and now the US and Russia are once again heading into a head butt on the international stage.
Across the world there is mixed emotions. Countries that are dealing with their own separatist movement are worried that it will spill over into their country and political scene. This will be worth watching to see who does what and to whom.
Yesterday the news came out that Castro resigned from the presidency and the parliment, but would remain the head of the Party. The US said nothing has changed until there is true democracy on the island. But behind the scenes, since Raul is a bit of an economic liberal, business is getting a thumper with the prospect of the opening of the country to their claws.
The embargo will remain in place. But with a little opening business will rush into the island and stake their claims to the profits that could be made from the island. we will have to watch the situation develop. Both Clinton and Obama are for keeping the embargo in place. But will that change? Only time and circumstance will dictate what will occur.
Lastly, the ruling party of Pakistan lost its ass in the recent election. there are calls for musharraf to step down--yeah right! He will hang on until he is forced to resign. The new government has said it wants talks with Islamists. If you listen real close, you may hear Bush's ass slamming shut.
All three of these situation will most likely be put on back burner until November and the general election. Things could change. Mostly likely they will not.
Holy Moly! That is 9 straight wins for Obama. And again it is by double digits. Clinton just cannot buy a win. The Clinton campaign threw all it had at him and it was not good enough. He was accused of plagiarism, his wife was called unpatriotic, he was nothing more than words, and he is inexperienced. Not one of these made a difference. Clinton lost and lost big.
Obama won the majority of white men, that would have voted for Edwards, were he a candidate. Of course he won the black vote. He won the youth vote and made in roads with blue collar workers. White women went for Hillary, but only by 3% over Obama. Seems Clinton is losing these voters as well. The elderly are still voting Clinton overwhelmingly. And she is still carry the under educated vote.
In an exit poll responders were asked about the negative ads and attacks. 53% said that Clinton was the most negative and that it had turned them off. But will this deter the Clinton machine? Probably not. The negativity is not working, but what else do they have at this point. Now one can see why the desperation is there.
On the Republican side--McCain wins the primary--GO FIGURE!
Both McCain and Obama gave speeches that were more like the general election had already begun. McCain laid out his strategy, he will hit him on foreign policy, inexperience and the war. Obama, in his speech will hit McCain as the voice of yesterday and business as usual. McCain's speech was like he was at the Elks Club pretty cut and dry to the point of boring. On the other hand, Obama's was like a rock concert....lots of energy and hope.
There was also a Caucus in Hawaii, but as of this writing I have not seen any results to report on. That will be another post for another day.
19 February 2008
looks like 2008 is gonna be a great year for candidates for the Assie Award. The stupid, moronic and anal statement s just keep flyong out of the mouths of idiots.
This one came from the mouth of Conservative talk show personality Tom Sullivan. Recently he said on the air that:
"Listening to Obama speeches is similar to listening to the speeches of Adolf Hitler".
Now here is guy that has his finger on the pulse of the American people. Dumbass!
A couple of days late, Presidents Day was a holiday and I took advantage of it. Today's quiz is about the Constitution.
There were five members of the Committee of Style and Arrangement, which was responsible for the writing of the US Constitution. The most famous members were Hamilton and Madison. The question is who were the other three members of the committee?
Take out paper and pen and you may begin. That is if there is any one out there. I doubt very seriously that anyone really gives a sh*t.
Bill Clinton has gone ballistic several times in the past. First was in South Carolina where he throws out the race card against a fellow Democrat. Then in Nevada he accuses Obama's people of trying to intimidate caucus goers. And it continues on and on, lately he has got in the face of an Obama support and verbally attacks a pro-life supporter at a stump speech. And he is still doing his damage to his wife's campaign. No one seems willing to make him shut up. The negativity from Bill and other surrogates and even Hillary, is not winning her much support. The people are weary of all the Washington negativism.
I have an idea--put together a team of noted psychologists and let them follow Bill around and listen and watch his actions and words. Then let them submit a report on his mental attitude. There are a wealth of questions on why he does and says the things he does on the stump.
Is he jealous?
Does he miss the limelight?
Is he just angry?
Does he have a personal agenda?
Does he really want wife to win?
Is he just defending wife?
There is a wealth of question that need to be asked about Bill Clinton and his effectiveness as a campaigner for his wife. Personal opinion, he is not helping his wife's case to be the presidential nominee. He is doing more harm than good. He is sabotaging her campaign, more so than the moronic statements from people like Wolfson and others.
This study could be a valuable tool to determine if spouses are really needed in a campaign for president. In this case, Bill is definately not needed, his statements are just plain dumb.
OMG! according to the Clinton campaign is accusing Obama of "plagiarism", before that it was he was "flip-flopping" on public finance and before that it was he dodged another half dozen debates and before that, he is just words not action. Now the Clinton camp is demanding that the delegates from Michigan and Florida be seated. Could her campaign's desperation be anymore overt? She still continues to harp on her "experience" and it is not working. It just highlights that she is part of the "old guard" and that is something the people are tired of in Washington.
She and her campaign specialists are harping these things trying to find something that will throw Obama off his message. They are searching hard to find a hook that will regain her standing with the voter. Her problem is that Obama seems to be two steps ahead of her and the machine.
Her handlers and advisers are the old days where in-fighting and accusations were the rule of the day. The people are sickened by the thought of a continuation of the status quo. They are looking for a new direction for the political playground.
Today is the primaries in Wisconsin and Hawaii and Clinton's chances lessen with every passing contest. She has only the Big 3 to look forward to, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. Can you hear her campaign gasping for air?
The smell of desperation permeates the air--someone needs to take a shower--or at least use some Febreze.
18 February 2008
This is usually a weekly thing on the blog, but recently Obama had a quote I had to include.
"She holds up boxing gloves, you know, saying she wants to fight," Obama said at a rally in Milwaukee, in reference to Clinton waving gloves Thursday in Ohio while declaring that the nation needs a "fighter" in the White House.
"We don't need more fighting," Obama countered. "We need some getting together, solving some problems."
Statements like this are why Obama continues to gain support. The people are tired of the in-fighting in Washington and Obama seems to be offering them another way to govern.
I have heard all the whining by this candidate or that about just how unfair the media is being to them and their campaign. But is it? Is one candidate getting a free ride? Is there less scrutiny of some candidates?
I say NO! There is no free ride. In the beginning the Clinton machine pushed her as the inevitable candidate with more Washington experience. The media did their job to point out her shortcomings and her strengths. The media also played into the inevitability thing and reported on Obama as a fresh new candidate, but a loser, in the beginning of this election cycle. The media used early polls to show that he was anything but a viable candidate.
All that began to fade once he took Iowa. He came under more scrutiny and more attention. Then the bombshell of New Hampshire and Clinton once again became the darling of the media with her amazing comeback. BAM! Obama is on a roll wth election wins and he has become the darling once again. That could change with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The point is, the media goes with the story. Obama is the story. Whining will only make the situation worse for the one in the shadows. IMO, both Democratic candidates are getting a free ride. Why? They are never made to give specifics to questions. The media, for the most part, seldom asks hard detailed questions and allows the surrogates to spout the campaign trail BS. For instance, Bill Clinton, on the stump, said that the campaign was working on a shoestring budget. The same day Clinton campaign biggie, Macauliffe said that had more than enough money to continue the campaign to the end. The interviewer never asked which was it, good or bad financially. I would have asked.
The media is playing the game it always plays. It allows the campaigns to say whatever it is the want to say and seldom challenges anything they say. Why? Access! They are all so worried that if they make one or the other campaign anger they will lose access. Sad! MSNBC recently gave an analyst, Schuster, two weeks off because he made some comment about Chelsea and the Clinton people took exception. I find that interesting because the owner of MSNBC is GE and GE is a major player in the DLC, which is a supporter of Clinton. Go figure!
By now the American people are up to their collective asses in debates and debate results. Let's see there has been about 50 separate debates and I have watched most have have yet to see a real difference in the candidates positions. I sat around a thought of a couple of questions that I thought would help the listeners learn more about the issues and the candidates.
I also have sent them to CNN and MSNBC with the hope that either or both organizations will ask them or some similar to assist the voter in their upcoming decision.
For both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.
If either of you are elected president, you have said that troops will withdrawn within the first year. the questions is with the returning troops to the US and the increased pressures on domestic services like unemployment, entitlements, and such programns. How will you, as president, deal with this increase in demand for actions?
Along the same line, how will you deal with the medical needs of returning troops? It will no doubt be a drain on the budgets of several institutions.
For Sen. Clinton:
You have stated that your health care plan will be universal. But, if people do not sign onto your plan will there be a penalty? and if so, what is that penalty?
Sen Clinton, your camp has recently stated that the Supers should vote "independently". What does that actually mean?
For Sen Clinton and Sen. Obama
Since the delegates from Michigan and Florida may not be seated at the convention, because of their defiance of the DNC and moved their primaries, what, In your opinion, should be done with the delegates from these states?
As I have said, these are the types of questions that need to be asked at debates. in the past there has been little specifics, just letting them spout more stump rhetoric. The voter needs specifics. Truthfully, past debates, to me, appeared that the candidates had prior knowledge of most of the questions.
17 February 2008
If you are not a political junkie then your media coverage really sucks..Bite me!
You cannot use
A single piece of this news.
1--Paris Hilton's new movie opened in 111 theaters and made a grand total of $25,000. Does that mean she will not get an Oscar?
2--Obama wins his second Grammy and he beats out Bill Clinton...looks like a trend starting.
3--Another school shooting, more crazies, and freaky ass weather in Sou. CA.
4--$160 million art theft in Switzerland....where will they sell this sh*t?
5--Spears may have a new CA law named after her.
6--Sen. Craig is having his pee-pee spanked by the ethics committee---is he smiling?
7--OJ's girlfriend goes to hospital with a head injury--think about it! Does that sound a bit familiar?
8--7 people killed in a highway drag racing incident.....live for the moment...well not again.
16 February 2008
I have been neglecting my posts on crap happening around the world. US politics and this election cycle is just so fascinating that I get caught up in the manure spreading of the candidates. I have not seen this much crap in one place for a long time, It is GREAT!
But I had a thought about a new plan to withdraw from Iraq almost immediately.
Withdraw all troops from Iraq and leave Blackwater in place to handle the drudgery of being the back-up force for the Iraqi military and PD. This would accomplish two things, first, it would take our troops out of harm's way and leave the real security force in place. Second, this would eliminate the US from getting the blame for any crap that happens. The US could say that it is a private firm and the government had nothing to do with their actions.
Any failure would not be the fault of the President, but rather that of a corporation. The troops would be safe--the Iraqis would not--but at least the president could have acceptable deniability. This could go a long way at repairing out image in the Middle East.
As long as the US has a private army, why not use them and discard them, pretty much the way they treat the wounded vets.
With all the talk in the media about the condition of the American economy, I thought I would post a comment on the situation.
This one is from Harry Truman, president of the US.
"It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose your own."
There is a bunch of indicators that say it is not a recession, by its official name, but ask Joe Sixpack what he thinks. He has been in a recession for many years now. The media reports on what effects investment not what effects humans.
15 February 2008
Yesterday, all his troubles seemed so far way, but now they are here to stay....sorry, I could hear the Beatles in the back of my mind....Mitt Romney has officially told his delegates to vote for McCain at the convention. Now that had to be hard for Mitt, since he and McCain have no love lost between the two.
This is a cute turn of events. Mitt endorses McCain to save his standing in the GOP? Or does he truly think that McCain is the best they have? If it is the later, then the way some have called him a flip-flop agent , then they would be right. It is more that he was told to do this by the GOP to preserve the integrity of the Party. Mitt being the political whore that he is, will fall in line, so that he can have more support when he runs again. Make no mistake, he will be a candidate again and he will need the GOP machine.
The GOP is tiring of Huckabee and his persistence. They want this soap opera to be over as soon as possible. Mitt is just doing what he is ordered to do. He does give two shakes in hell about McCain's candidacy; he is worried about his political future and his chances of becoming president down the road. With the endorsement, McCain is very close to the magic number of delegates needed. It is all but over for Huckabee, but what will he do now? It will be interesting to see, since he has a paid speech in the Cayman Islands and this was announced while he was preoccupied with his trip.
This is not a surprise, Mitt will do anything to preserve his standing in the Party and to help his future political contests. As i have said that makes him a political whore.
Obama has blown Hillary out in 8 of 8 contests and it looks like there will be 2 more for Obama, Wisconsin and Hawaii. Clinton's camp is starting to look a bit desperate. They are starting to go negative, slowly at first, but it will pick up. They are trying to gain much needed key endorsements and they are trying to shame Obama into a bunch of debates. This alone looks like they are desperate to find a way to bring him down or at least slow his roll.
Clinton is hinging everything on the 04 March primaries. An interesting tactic, but if all will remember there was another attempt at this strategy, let us call it the Rudy Effect, shall we. About the only groups that Clinton still has a commanding lead in is white women and Latinos, and her support in the later is waning. She needs a boost. Will Richardson endorse Clinton? That is the $64 question.
Apparently, no one was noticed that her message of she is ready, she can win and she will bring change, is a sad message. While Obama is talking "we", thus making the voter part of the solution. This is playing well the more that his message gets out. Her experience is still taunted at every venue, but it is not playing well. She is basically applying for the job of Bush, where Obama is a way out of the rut that has been in place for 20-25 years.
Clinton's desperation just keeps growing. Now she is fighting to seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan, two states she won. But she was the only name on one ballot and the other she won on name recognition alone. This could get ugly. But keep in mind that the credentials committee is made up of people that were part of the last Clinton administration. That could make a difference.
As I have said, this is about to get even more ugly than the South Carolina primary. Look for 527s and surrogates to start putting all types of negativity out into the campaigns. Some are saying there is no substance to the programs in speeches. I agree, both candidates are about as vague as vague can get. But the idea of "real" change is in the air. The only way to stop change is through a manure spreading operation and that is about to commence. This could be one of the most ugly election seasons on record.
14 February 2008
Please, what part of this is necessary for Congress to be involved? Personally, I think they have more important things to consider, like impeachment, FISA, and such. Steroid use is not something that they need to pursue, let the Justice dept handle it. OK?
The American people need much more concern for their welfare than to worry about which overpaid athelete is injecting themselves with crap. If their head swells and explodes think of the money the owners will save.
I do not care! The american need more action and less crap from their reps.
13 February 2008
With all the US election stuff, I have neglected my posts on other news from the world. Just the american political process this cycle is just so damn fascinating and the possibilities are just amazing.
I want to speak on the news about the 6 "terrorists' that will be tried and killed in the name of justice. Ok, these guys may well be the a/holes that they are called by the US and the media. They may be murderers and rapist and child molesters, but I still believe in the due process of law. To try these people without access to lawyers and a jury is not due process. A military tribunal will be just a kangaroo court.
I am not in favor of the death penalty to begin with, and I am doubly against it in this form of justice. But what can we expect from a cowboy president with the IQ of a rotten turnip. I would hope that the American people would find this repugnant. That means disgusting, in case it eluded you.
This was a post that I was going to add to my Daily Kos page, but after watching the Potomac primaries, I think that they are already trying to do these things. Great minds think alike! Ha!
Yesterday Obama had a clean sweep of the Potomac Primary,
What can Obama do to help his case in the Big 3? Most of the Dem voters in these states are blue collar working voters with limited education, which plays into
I have few suggestions for Obama that could possibly assist him in these soon to be hard fought states. First of all will be the economy, it sucks for a working family trying to get ahead, or just to keep their heads above water, so they do not drown in debt. And then there is the war. Both candidates have similar positions on getting out of
Next I would stress that Dems like Clinton, Emmanuel, Bayh, et al are not in it for the worker. The workers are being deceived. That Clinton and other DLC cronies believe that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. They describe themselves as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups. Since the presidency of Bill Clinton these operatives have been steadily pulling the Democratic Party to the right. They are corporate candidates and not the true candidates of the working class.
Obama needs to find away to get through to the blue collar voter. He needs to show them that
Recently I heard talk show host Randi Rhodes talk about the candidates and their positions with the people. They say stuff like "I feel your pain". "I know what you are going through". Stuff like that.
The voting is over and Obama has beaten Clinton with double digit results. He got some good turnout from the young, labor, white men and his popularity is picking up with women. Clinton is beginning to worry more about delegates than votes. IMO, her strategy will be to work the remaining contests by the largest number of delegates.
If this is turning into a strategy to take to the convention, where Clinton will attempt to wrestle the nomination from Obama. He has won 8 of 8 contests so far and will mostly likely win the next two, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Obama is becoming the front runner, a position he does not want and will play down.
Clinton is pulling a Rudy, she is focusing most all her effort and resources in Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Rudy tried this in Florida and he got his ass handed to him and he got to go home and chase the Mrs. around the kitchen. To me, she is now appearing to be desperate to hang on to her status in the eyes of the media. It was a terrible decision for Rudy, hopefully, Clinton's people are smarter than Rudy's.
On the Repub side of the coin, McCain won the primaries and is slowly pulling away from Huckabee. That was just how boring that race was, wish I had more to say, but allo I can add is a yawn!
The Democratic Convention in Denver is going to be the most fascinating in history, even more so than the ones of 1968 and 1972. It could very well be end of the Democratic Party as we know it or it could be united like never before. Return to the days of high drama.
12 February 2008
Yet another completely anal statement from an otherwise semi-intelligent person.
This one is from Tom DeLay, the former majority leader. He was interviewed on MSNBC, during their coverage of CPAC. When asked about global warning, oh sorry, conservs call it climate change, he actually said.
"There is no scientific proof that people are responsible for climate change". Tom DeLay
Now there is a leader of this country, gets no better than that.
With the approach of the Potomac Primaries, the Clinton lost their manager, Patty Solis Doyle, who resigned to spend more time with her family. Why do all politicos use that lame excuse? They have no intention of spending more time with anyone but the campaign.
Most news shows are reporting this as a show of the confusion in the Clinton campaign. They are changing the brain module in mid stream. But as usual I see it as something different. Yes, the Clinton campaign is having money probs and yes the campaign has lost 5 contest in a row. And yes, the March 4th primaries are not looking good for them either. And of course, Bill has been a thorn in their butts, but he has toned down his crap a bit.
In short, the media has not been kind to the Clinton campaign in the last 7 to 10 days. Reporting every little detail of their movements and such. IMO, this change at the top is little more than a political ploy, trying to gain a little wiggle room in the media. thyey are hoping that the media will focus on the new leader and that their probs will become secondary, at least for awhile.
The campaign has all but conceded every contest to Obama and are focusing on Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. (thinking...thinking...) This sounds vaguely familiar. Oh yeah, was this not the tactic of Giuliani? He was looking for a firewall and a boost in his standing. And how did that work out for him? I think he is no longer a candidate.....tee hee.
Clintons are scrambling and scrambling hard looking for a way to stop the amazing surge of Obama. They are putting all their eggs in the basket of blue collar workers, those working poor and the less educated. They seem to have a strong standing with these people.
If it works they are a genius for their tactic, but they also could find that the Giuliani effect will bite them in the butt. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a dangerous political tactic. Just ask Rudy boy.
11 February 2008
OSIM! and will probably have a very limited class, the thrill of learning is waning, oh well, I expected no less.
This week's quiz is another simple one that should give everyone (if they are out there) a feel good opinion on their knowledge of politics and such.
What is the official political definition of "subversive activity"?
Take out a pencil and paper and you may begin. Good luck and keep quiet, I am trying to sleep.
This weekend the Dems had primaries and caucuses. The news is that Obama swept all contests. It was expected because he seems to do well at a caucus. But is he now the front runner? Winning contest means didley...it is the delegates stupid! So far the delegate count is still too close to call a front runner.
Now we move on to the Potomac Primaries this Tuesday. reports are that Obama should do well in DC and Maryland and Clinton should do well in Virginia.....but all that predicting is not worth the paper it is printed on....the voters will let us all know on Tuesday who they think can best run this country.
Ok on the Repub side of the coin...Huckabee did extremely well in the contests this weekend. He won Kansas and Louisiana and is leading in Washington, but final results have been disputed. McCain is starting to look weak and Huckabee is coming on strong. Or it could be the voter just does not like the idea of their nominee being told is gonna be McCain.
All in all--this election cycle has been the most fascinating I have ever watch and I have been watching a long time. And it just keeps getting better and better.
With the Dem side of the primaries all knotted up and a true leader is difficult to find, I thought that the quote of the week should address that occurrence.
"A leader is a dealer of hope"......Napoleon
If you like that definition, then Obama seems to be the dealer of hope. Clinton is the dealer of the same things we have now.
10 February 2008
CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Convention, where the land's most conservative minds meet and discuss and listen to speeches. Everybody has been there Bush, McCain, Romney, but my favorite was Huckabee. For once, he appeared without Chuck Norris standing behind him, that was an improvement. But of all the conservative speeches, I was most amazed with the one made by Huckabee.
He has been called a great communicator and this speech lived up to that billing totally. He pandered to absolutely everyone in the conservative movement. He invoked Reagan, a good move at this event, he patted Bush on the back for his foreign policy, a good move to massage Neocons, he mentioned God, he mention Islamo-fascist, he mentioned...well pick a conservative subject and he dwelt on it in this speech. It was absolutely the best speech one could have given to this crowd, it was brilliant.
Huckabee received applause constantly with every pandering. He gave Neocons a thumper. He gave the Pentagon a thumper. He gave evangelicals a thumper, if they are allowed to have such. In other words, Huckabee massaged the genitals of absolutely every quarter of the conservative movement. I keep saying, but it was BRILLIANT!
He just made his case to stay in the Repub race for the nomination and possibly a nod for the VP position. I feel like he succeeded in gaining more support from CPAC members. Will he be successful? IMO, probably not, but he is doing well and that will give him a large say at the convention. I believe that is his sole intention, to be a king maker, for now. It will also be a boost to his political reputation for later attempts at glory.
Sorry to say, that politics leads the news cycles right now, so there is not much worthless crap to report on. Politics is the most important thing right now. But I try to find crap you cannot possibly use.
If it is news
You can use
Then open a beer
For it is not here.
1--More fires, plane and car crashes, and stuff
2--A German Airline offers nude flying, most be clothed to get on and off, but once on the clothes come off. those darn germans--always thinking.
3--More skiers lost in the mountains--thrill seekers are f*cking morons!
4--More sh*tty weather in the South on Super tuesday..thinking...Huckabee wins...maybe God was trying to tell the voters something.
5--More crappy weather in the Midwest
6--Another successful shuttle launch.
7--Cheney goes hunting this w/end--who will he shoot this time?
8--Finally, Brittney spears is still f*cking nuts!
well another week another bunch of worthless crap in the news...makes me proud of the media...NOT!
see ya next week--same bat time, same Bat channel...TTFN
Fascinating weekend for 09 Feb 08. Louisiana is in the South and a large Afro-American turn out was expected. well Obama won but the turnout was very small. Obama also won Washington state, Nebraska and the US Virgin Islands. Basically it was a clean sweep for Obama. It was expected that the Clinton campaign was gonna have a tough weekend. Sunday is the Maine Caucus and Obama is favored to win that one also. On to Tuesday's contests in DC, Maryland and Virginia, again Obama seems to have the momentum in these contests also. Clinton is looking toward Texas and Ohio for her next "big" win.
Now the Repubs, this has been a huge weekend for Huckabee. He was favored in Louisiana and he came through with the win. He has been called the "Bible Belt" candidate, where there is a strong presence of faith based voters. If so, then that theory has been shot to hell. Huckabee also won in Nebraska and Kansas, not considered strong states for him. Huckabee is proving that he can attract voters outside the "Bible Belt" or it could mean the the Repub voters do not like being told this early who their nominee will be. Either way, Huckabee seems to be gathering more steam.
This is good for me, because it is making the Repub contest a little more intersting. I was almost ready to write it off as over. The Dem side is still an interesting contest, for it looks more and more like it will go all the way to the convention and then the real fireworks will begin.
09 February 2008
Today is Saturday, 09 Feb 08, and there will be contests in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington and Kansas and Sunday Maine will have their caucus. Obama will do well in the caucuses, he seems to have a good grass roots organization that will work well in the caucus atmosphere. Louisiana will probably go to Obama also. Clinton is putting her resources into Texas and Ohio later in the month. Delegate count is everything now. Clinton is going for the heavy populated areas trying to boost that count.
The big story will be if Obama's message is getting through to the voter or if the the Clinton machine is doing their job. The whisper campaign is picking up against Obama, there are letters about him being a Muslim and him attending a white hating church. All have been proven to be LIES, but the fear factor is already in the mind of the voter. Especially in the South, this tactic could prove to be a problem for Obama. The sad part is that some will believe these cowardly lies without checking on the validity. I even heard one guy say, "well he is black and it just makes sense". I asked if he checked out the validity of the accusations and he said that he got an email from a friend with the "facts" in it. And that his friend would not stir him wrong.
Obama will not be alone in these attacks, the closer the convention comes, I look for the same types of "mail" to start circulated about Clinton and her husband. Dirty politics is the way to discredit any opponent. They can tell lies and it will be believed. Sad.
08 February 2008
On 07 Feb 08, Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign. With all that money spent and still could catch not McCain, he made a wise choice. He said at his announcement, "if it was about me, I would go on......". Yeah right! He was spending all his wealth in the pursuit of the presidency. Somewhere someone in the family slapped him and said there will be nothing left for us.
He quit to save his political reputation. He will need it and it would not look good if he continued to lose and lose and lose. The GOP will reward him for quiting. How? Don't know, but keep an eye on the news, it will become clear by the Repub Convention. McCain will have time now to skate and work on his message to the US and the voters. He can be prepared for the fight to come.
Now I ask myself, what will Mitt fans do now? Like Joe Scarborough, Rush, Inghram, et al. Will they make nice with McCain? But will Mitt be rewarded with VP spot? NO! They will need someone from the South mostly likely. Someone who is a true conservative.
Don't cry for Mitt, he will be well cared for by the party. His days are not over, but rather just beginning. He may not be the presidential nominee, but he will play a major roll in the future.
First there are the delegates that have been selected by the states to go to the conventions and vote for the candidate that has the majority of votes in that state. You have seen them. They are the ones on the floor of the convention that are called upon to state who they support. The ones with the signs and stuff. But then there are the super Delegates.
These are the elected officials, reps, senators, governors, etc that have a say in the selection of the nominee. These public people that have come out for a candidate are gonna vote at the convention. This is where I feel that politics gets slimy. You have heard, in the past, about backroom deals. well guess what? these are the slimy little toads that make those backroom deals.
If the convention is knotted up and no clear winner has been found in the voting, then they go to the super delegates to help make the decision. This is good right? Not in my opinion. Promises are made to gain their vote, like Ambassadorships, cabinet positions, all kinds of promises. And it will work. If these guys and gals are ambitious then they will vote for who makes the best deal.
What will this mean for this election cycle? I can see, if it comes to this, that the Dem Party will split and may signal the death of the party. Let say that Clinton gets the super delegates and becomes the nominee; Obama supporters will feel that they were robbed and that half of the party is being ignored. If the candidates are tied when it comes to the convention in August, then all will have to move carefully, or the party will split and this time it may be permanent.
Howard Dean, as the head of the DNC, will have to move very carefully or he will lose the whole enchilada.
07 February 2008
Awhile back Michigan and Florida decided to move their primaries up so they could take advantage of the early days of the campaign cycle. They did so without consulting the DNC. As a retaliation, the DNC said that the delegates from the two states were not allowed and would not be seated at the Dem convention. Clinton, Obama and Edwards signed an agreement that they would not campaign in either of the two states.
Clinton won the non-existent primaries in Michigan and Florida, she did so without campaign there. We win was pretty sizeable, but mostly likely it was because of name recognition and media reports. So, Clinton wins delegates that ill not count. But she is taunting the media about her large wins in these states. A good spin is a good spin, even if it does not count.
News is breaking that Clinton and her machine are trying to cut a deal with the DNC to have the two states delegates be seated and be counted. this makes her look desperate at best. Now she and hubby are showing their true colors of win at all costs. Bill has done his part to spread a layer of bitterness and falsehoods. The "old school" tactic of destroy your opponent at any cost is just pathetic. Is this the change that the people say they are looking for? Bill has got to be in the spotlight, he cannot stand for someone else to stand there and Hillary is egging him on.
Meanwhile, back at the convention. If Clinton and her co-candidate, Bill are successful at having the delegates form Michigan and Florida seated and counted, then I look for the Obama delegates to walk out of the convention. If that truly happens, then the Clintons will have succeeded in dividing the Democratic Party. And this time there may well be no way to put the pieces back together.
Just look how long it has taken to repair the damage to the Dem party from past infighting. If Hillary does somehow get the nomination, she can be proud of the fact that she is the first woman to do so. And same time she can be proud that she, her husband and the DLC have killed the party that bills itself as the party of the people. Nosw that would be an accomplishment!
Much has been reported about the success that Obama is having at motivating people to get out and vote. He seems to appeal to a broad field of voters, but the ones that seems to embrace his message are the young, the less than 30 crowd. He is also appealing to the Gen Xers, the 31-49 group.
I want to talk about the "youth" vote. Recently, after Super Tuesday, I read about the voting habits of the Obama supporters. 58% were under 30, 43% were in the 31-49 category. So, Obama seems to be motivating the youth to get out and make the message be heard. The media is listening, but not as hard as they should. Instead they keep focusing on the gender/race thing; it makes for better copy on the evening news.
Here is a scenario for you to consider. Let's say Obama continues to inspire the youth to vote for him, but in the end, with the deal making Clinton gets the nod as the nominee. My question is: since the nominee is not the person that the youth had wanted, would they still vote in November? Since their candidate was not chosen to lead the party, why would they vote for someone they had already rejected?
I the past I had written about why the Clinton/Obama ticket would be a good ticket. Good only because they positions were very similar and it would give Obama the experience that people accuse him of not having right now. I then looked over the lists and decided that, if Clinton was the nominee she would most likely choose either Vilsack or Bayh as her running mate. Why? They are both part of the DLC, just as Clinton is and would be the logical choice.
After much thought, I have revised my opinion yet again. The youth vote is amazing and if the Dems want to keep their interest and their support, then if Clinton is the chosen nominee, she will need to put Obama on the ticket if she wants to win. Without Obama, I do not think she can beat McCain in the fall. For the first time in a long time, the youth vote could very well be the difference in a win or a humiliating loss. Just a thought.
Two days of rest and reflection and now the candidates will hit the campaign trail again. Now it is not so much a popularity contest aimed at the voters, now the candidates are wooing the Super delegates...there is the real power in the process, especially the closer we get to the convention.
But the question to ask is: will the will of the voter be the defining item in who the delegates select to support? We should hope it is, but I feel that it will be more of what deal was made with these delegates to warrant their support at the convention. Since the Super delegates are made up of elected officials, party leaders and just flipping' rich people, where would you think the vote will go?
Since the Dem candidates are very similar in their messages to the people, where would the winner come from? The DLC has gained the upper hand in the party and it is controlled by corporate interests; my vote goes to Clinton , at this point. But that could change, if the wave of true "change" agents win in a landslide in the remaining contests. I do not see this happening. I pray it will, but I believe it will be a knotted convention and deals WILL have to be made and Clinton will come out as the nominee.
I know, not what some want to hear. But reality bites!
06 February 2008
Good question. On the Repub side it taught us that Romney is not a likable candidate. His message did not get thru to the American conservative voter. Huckabee is still alive. well at least in the South and will go on awhile longer. McCain is now the undisputed front runner, regardless of how bad pundits do not want it. Mitt's choices are if he continues he must pick his battles well or to save his reputation he will slide out of the race and wait for the next political challenge.
Now the Dems--absolutely nothing has been decided. Clinton won some of the larger states and Obama chipped away at the smaller ones. But the real telling thing will be the delegate count, which will mostly likely be sometime this afternoon. Clinton will spin her victories in the larger states for the Super delegates, trying to win support. Obama will spin the fact that he is winning all over the US and is helping to turn out a record amount of voters. There is no front runner for the Dems right now. So this will continue on to places like Texas, Virginia, DC, on and on...delegates will be the trophy that both Obama and Clinton will be playing for.
The drama for the Repubs is just about over, but the Dems can go on and on--all the way to the convention and then the deals will fly. Will the voter get the best candidate? Not necessarily, but rather the best deal maker.
05 February 2008
OMG! a couple of weeks ago, I became ill with the use of the word "change". I thought that it could not get any worse than everyone and his handler was on the bandwagon for change in Washington. The strange part was there was gonna be change in Washington no matter who won. But the only change was going to be the face of the President. Other than that--don't count on it!
But wait! just when it was safe to listen to the candidates again--there has been a change! From day one is the new buzz phrase. Absolutely EVERYONE will be ready to be president "from day one". Please stop!
They might want to lay off the buzz crap and address specifics of their platforms. "From day one" is oh so cute, but it addresses NOTHING! I realize I am dreaming that we actually get specifics, but that is what I am looking for in my candidate. Bumper stickers, slogans and buzz words do nothing to tell the people where the change will come or just what they will be doing on "day one".
If the voter is easily impressed with mindless crap like this thing, then they deserve the incompetent bozos that will be elected.
OMG! What a crock of steaming manure! The media is billed the Democratic race on Super Tuesday as a free for all. I wish I could see it. To me, a free for all is when there are multiple contests and they all go at it to be the winner. On the Dem side there are two candidates. And there is not much difference between them, only race and gender separates the two candidates. Where is the free for all?
The media has done its very best to eliminate the multiple candidates and have it down to the two. So again, where is the free for all? The media has wanted a race/gender war from the beginning. That way issues are secondary; the people will go to the polls and vote in a popularity contest. Or at best a beauty contest.
History will be made when the nominee is selected. But the only history will be that of a woman or a black man wins the nomination. As far as history goes and especially the change; if I were you I would not hold my breath. At what point was a two person contest ever a free for all? As usual the media is doing all it can to make your decisions for you. That is not the horrible part. The horrible part is--you are allowing them to do so.
Enjoy your decision while you can, for it will not be long lasting.
I apologize for being late with my assessment of the Congress this month. There has been so much crap flying around that it was on the back burner.
My scorecard is done monthly and the scoring is a positive step for the Congress will be forward, negative will be a backwards step and then if there is nothing really to report it will be a no step. January was a short month thanks to the holidays.
Last year the Congress took 4 steps backwards. Not exactly what they were sent to Washington to accomplish. We can only hope that '08 will be a better year or will it?
Scorecard for Jan '08
1--Work on steroid abuse--backward--a waste of time people
2--Pelosi gets house cafeteria menu changed--no step--yet another waste of time
3--Health care veto on hold--backward
4--Response to The missing CIA tapes--forward
5--the FISA Bill--backward
6--the move on the economic stimilus plan--forward--only because that they are working together to try an help the American people.
That is about all they did in the month of January and if you are counting, the congress took 2 steps backwards. And it looks like the trend will continue for '08. God help us!
- Ready! Aim! Fire!
- Chelsea: Continuation Of The Clinton Birthright?
- Can The Anti-War Movement Be Saved?
- The Last Democratic Debate?
- A New Republican Scenario
- Professor's Classroom
- Scorecard For The Next President
- Weekly News UpDate
- Whining On The Campaign Trail
- Worldpress.org - World in Cartoons
- Political Quote Of The Week
- CNN Democratic Debate In Texas
- Democratic Debate Tonite
- Random Political Thoughts
- Internationally Speaking
- The Wisconsin Primary
- Professor's Classroom
- CHUQ-ian Observation
- Is That Desperation I smell?
- Political Quote Of The Day
- Is There A Media Double Standard?
- Questions For The Next Debates
- Weekly News UpDate
- An Iraqi Withdrawal Plan
- Worldpress.org - World in Cartoons
- Political Quote Of The Week
- Mitt Endorses McCain
- A New Clinton Strategy?
- Steroid Scandal
- Gitmo Executions?
- Suggestions For Obama
- The Potomac Primaries
- New Clinton Tactic?
- Professor's Classroom
- The Game Is A Foot
- Worldpress.org - World in Cartoons
- Weekly Political Quote
- Huckabee At CPAC
- Weekly News UpDate
- This Week's Results In Politics
- More Contests Today But What Will They Mean?
- The Mitt-ster Is Gone!
- Who Are Super Delegates?
- Clinton Looks Desperate
- To Be Young And To Vote
- Now The Race Is On
- What Did Super Tuesday Teach Us?
- Some Results Of The Primaries
- From Day One
- A Democratic Free For All
- Professor's Congressional Scorecard
- Let The Voting Begin
- The Storm Approaches
- Professor's Classroom
- The Assie Award
- Weekly News UpDate
- The Fall of the House of Clinton - HUMAN EVENTS
- Worldpress.org - World in Cartoons
- Political Quote Of The week
- Latest Democratic Debate
- ▼ February (63)
- ► 2007 (632)