Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Rudy Giuliani & John Edwards drop out of presidential race
In the past twenty-four hours, two candidates have dropped out of the race for the White House.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, after a sound defeat in Florida's Republican primary, decided to drop out of the race. He pinned all his hopes (and money) on winning the state's delegates, however, this strategy only put him in third place, behind McCain and Romney.
Giuliani went on to endorse Senator John McCain.
Senator John Edwards, also, dropped out of the Democratic race, essentially leaving the field wide-open for Clinton and Obama, in next week's "Super Tuesday" states.
The big question now is who will Edwards' supporters lean toward in the upcoming primaries.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, after a sound defeat in Florida's Republican primary, decided to drop out of the race. He pinned all his hopes (and money) on winning the state's delegates, however, this strategy only put him in third place, behind McCain and Romney.
Giuliani went on to endorse Senator John McCain.
Senator John Edwards, also, dropped out of the Democratic race, essentially leaving the field wide-open for Clinton and Obama, in next week's "Super Tuesday" states.
The big question now is who will Edwards' supporters lean toward in the upcoming primaries.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Barack Obama plays dumb
Hillary Clinton currently is giving Barack Obama a good thrashing in Florida, but his campaign is playing off the state's voters as unimportant.
His campaign has said, "The voters of Florida do not know Obama, because Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign there."
Hmm! Does Obama really expect us to believe we are living in the 19th century again? Just because the Democratic National Committee penalized Florida's Democratic delegates, doesn't mean they also blocked television, newspapers, radio, and Internet from working there.
Let's get serious for a minute. The people of Florida, I believe completely, have been watching this election season from their homes, and checking out the candidates on the Internet, too. In essence, those voters, who just voted in the Florida Democratic primary, did so out of personal conviction and knowledge of the candidates on the ballot. (Also, Obama is the media's darling, his coverage great and flattering, so his campaign's explanation of Clinton's win is moot.)
Florida's voters are a varied cross-section of America's electorate. It's not fifty-percent African-American, like South Carolina; rather, it's a hodge-podge of the great "melting pot." Does that breed a private fear in the Obama campaign?
You bet!
Obviously, American voters--at-large--are not going to be looking at Florida and saying, "Oh, that primary does not count, because there are no delegates being seated, so I am going to ignore who won that election." Obama just pretends this election will not be important or have an impact on future voters in other states. Hillary will benefit from tonight's win in Florida.
Hillary is on to victory!
His campaign has said, "The voters of Florida do not know Obama, because Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign there."
Hmm! Does Obama really expect us to believe we are living in the 19th century again? Just because the Democratic National Committee penalized Florida's Democratic delegates, doesn't mean they also blocked television, newspapers, radio, and Internet from working there.
Let's get serious for a minute. The people of Florida, I believe completely, have been watching this election season from their homes, and checking out the candidates on the Internet, too. In essence, those voters, who just voted in the Florida Democratic primary, did so out of personal conviction and knowledge of the candidates on the ballot. (Also, Obama is the media's darling, his coverage great and flattering, so his campaign's explanation of Clinton's win is moot.)
Florida's voters are a varied cross-section of America's electorate. It's not fifty-percent African-American, like South Carolina; rather, it's a hodge-podge of the great "melting pot." Does that breed a private fear in the Obama campaign?
You bet!
Obviously, American voters--at-large--are not going to be looking at Florida and saying, "Oh, that primary does not count, because there are no delegates being seated, so I am going to ignore who won that election." Obama just pretends this election will not be important or have an impact on future voters in other states. Hillary will benefit from tonight's win in Florida.
Hillary is on to victory!
Hillary Clinton wins Florida
Although, there are no delegates available, Hillary Clinton wins Florida.
Florida is the largest state to vote so far in the Democratic contest for president. With 19% of the vote, she has over 250,000 votes (48%).
Hillary will gain much needed momentum from this win to move into the February 5th primaries!
Florida is the largest state to vote so far in the Democratic contest for president. With 19% of the vote, she has over 250,000 votes (48%).
Hillary will gain much needed momentum from this win to move into the February 5th primaries!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Bush's Finale
After tonight's State of the Union address, George W. Bush's time in the White House is numbered. He is down to less than one year in office.
The thought that Bush will never give another State of the Union is simply marvelous! It is a day I never thought I'd live to see, but it is here!
The thought that Bush will never give another State of the Union is simply marvelous! It is a day I never thought I'd live to see, but it is here!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Mitt Romney, the $63 million Republican
Back in Summer 2007, I wrote Senator John McCain's epitaph. I said it was time for him to go, because his time had come and gone. Admittedly, I was wrong.
John McCain overcame a bare-bones campaign, one that was on the verge of bankruptcy, to win in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Those two wins, subsequently, have propelled him to the forefront of the Republican field for president.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who many saw as the front-runner only a few months ago, has garnered some wins, but in recent polls he has been trailing Senator McCain. The irony is Romney has raised money for his campaign at 2-to-1 over McCain. The December 2007 quarterly report put him at $63,000,000, while McCain had a respectable $30,000,000.
Senator Hillary Clinton, however, has out-raised Romney by $30,000,000 (and $11,000,000 more than Obama). National polls still put Senator Clinton ahead of Barack Obama, despite what the voters of South Carolina and Iowa said.
John McCain overcame a bare-bones campaign, one that was on the verge of bankruptcy, to win in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Those two wins, subsequently, have propelled him to the forefront of the Republican field for president.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who many saw as the front-runner only a few months ago, has garnered some wins, but in recent polls he has been trailing Senator McCain. The irony is Romney has raised money for his campaign at 2-to-1 over McCain. The December 2007 quarterly report put him at $63,000,000, while McCain had a respectable $30,000,000.
Senator Hillary Clinton, however, has out-raised Romney by $30,000,000 (and $11,000,000 more than Obama). National polls still put Senator Clinton ahead of Barack Obama, despite what the voters of South Carolina and Iowa said.
Race, race, race...gender!
Obama says Clinton is playing the race card, Clinton says Obama is playing the race card, and the media is pretty sure it is just the Clintons who are playing the race card, because they are in love with Barack Obama.
The media says the word "race" every two seconds. Last evening, I was watching the returns from the South Carolina Democratic Primary, on CNN, and they automatically put the state in Obama's pile, without even seeing one return from a poll. Then, they immediately turned to a political correspondent to see how race played a role in the exit polls. They kept saying the word over and over. They said "black," "white," and "bi-racial." Then they said it was a hard fought battle for Obama where race should never have played a part. I turned it off!
Duh! How can you ever delete race from the race if you keep saying it and analyzing it? In the end, it is what people want to see on their televisions or they wouldn't put it on there.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns must put the divisiveness of South Carolina behind them. I think race will play a less polarizing role in the "Super Tuesday" (February 5) states.
I cannot conclude without pointing out the double-standard the media has allowed to slowly creep into this race, which is gender--but in a negative, roundabout way.
I have heard this time and time again. The media eludes to one simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a stereotypical woman, who is barefoot, in the kitchen, knocked-up, and waiting on her man to take care of everything. I am not a woman, but I find that affront to everything civil. Of course, they are referring to Bill Clinton. The media has painted him as an overbearing monster (almost an abusive husband). He is bent on standing up for his wife, and protecting her from the world, while she stands complacently behind him.
The defense of a spouse on the campaign trail is normal behavior, even for the wives of candidates, but when President Clinton does it for his wife, they assume, Hillary is making herself less of a strong, independent woman. Barack Obama did everything but carry a noose onto the stage of the Democratic Debate in South Carolina, last Monday, but the media and pundits praised him and defended his bemoaning "race, race, race!"
Let's see how race plays out in the rest of the country. (Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984, but I'm not injecting race into this campaign. No way, no how!)
The media says the word "race" every two seconds. Last evening, I was watching the returns from the South Carolina Democratic Primary, on CNN, and they automatically put the state in Obama's pile, without even seeing one return from a poll. Then, they immediately turned to a political correspondent to see how race played a role in the exit polls. They kept saying the word over and over. They said "black," "white," and "bi-racial." Then they said it was a hard fought battle for Obama where race should never have played a part. I turned it off!
Duh! How can you ever delete race from the race if you keep saying it and analyzing it? In the end, it is what people want to see on their televisions or they wouldn't put it on there.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns must put the divisiveness of South Carolina behind them. I think race will play a less polarizing role in the "Super Tuesday" (February 5) states.
I cannot conclude without pointing out the double-standard the media has allowed to slowly creep into this race, which is gender--but in a negative, roundabout way.
I have heard this time and time again. The media eludes to one simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a stereotypical woman, who is barefoot, in the kitchen, knocked-up, and waiting on her man to take care of everything. I am not a woman, but I find that affront to everything civil. Of course, they are referring to Bill Clinton. The media has painted him as an overbearing monster (almost an abusive husband). He is bent on standing up for his wife, and protecting her from the world, while she stands complacently behind him.
The defense of a spouse on the campaign trail is normal behavior, even for the wives of candidates, but when President Clinton does it for his wife, they assume, Hillary is making herself less of a strong, independent woman. Barack Obama did everything but carry a noose onto the stage of the Democratic Debate in South Carolina, last Monday, but the media and pundits praised him and defended his bemoaning "race, race, race!"
Let's see how race plays out in the rest of the country. (Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984, but I'm not injecting race into this campaign. No way, no how!)
Obama's Supporters (A Parody)
After watching this episode of Red State Update, I couldn't help but feel as if Jackie's attitude toward Barack Obama sums up how the majority of Americans--Democrats and Republicans--feel about him...right now. The "honeymoon" phase will soon be over. (The part about Bill Clinton is pretty funny, too!)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Michigan & Florida
A few weeks ago, I was thinking about how terrible it must be for the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida to know that their votes are meaningless, essentially. After moving their primaries toward the beginning of the calendar, each state was penalized by the Democratic Party by not allowing their delegates to vote in the Democratic Convention this summer.
That is certainly a form of disenfranchisement! Even though, they are voting in their respective primary, votes will not translate into delegates, which in turn, will not translate into nominating the Party's candidate for president.
All of the Democratic candidates will be on the Florida ballot on Tuesday, however. Hillary Clinton says that the Democratic Party should reinstate these states' delegates to the convention; I agree.
Michigan was a different story, unlike Florida. Out of the Democratic candidates running for president, Hillary was the only major candidate listed on that state's ballot. I believe Florida, however, could have its delegates reinstated, because all of the candidates are represented. Barack Obama, on the other hand, believes the voters of Florida should not be afforded this civil right. (Florida, especially, has always had a troubled record with voting since 2000, which seems to be translating over into this year's campaign, also.)
Yes, these states moved their primaries, but I believe it should be within the purview of each state to determine its own voting calendar. The national parties--Republican or Democratic--should not interfere with this states' right issue. Again, I have called for a nationalized primary date for all the states, at the direction of the United States Congress. Instead of affording so much attention to a few states, why not allow the states to vote on the same day, as in the general election?
Kentucky is currently looking to move its primary to February. It currently is held on the third Tuesday in May, which makes it next to last, and its primary voters apathetic to the whole process.
If we moved every state to the same scheduled primary/caucus day, it would eliminate a lot of the bitterness we have witnessed in the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary, and Iowa and Nevada caucuses.
It makes sense to me! It lets the candidates stand on their records and their views of the issues, and then let the voters decide...together.
That is certainly a form of disenfranchisement! Even though, they are voting in their respective primary, votes will not translate into delegates, which in turn, will not translate into nominating the Party's candidate for president.
All of the Democratic candidates will be on the Florida ballot on Tuesday, however. Hillary Clinton says that the Democratic Party should reinstate these states' delegates to the convention; I agree.
Michigan was a different story, unlike Florida. Out of the Democratic candidates running for president, Hillary was the only major candidate listed on that state's ballot. I believe Florida, however, could have its delegates reinstated, because all of the candidates are represented. Barack Obama, on the other hand, believes the voters of Florida should not be afforded this civil right. (Florida, especially, has always had a troubled record with voting since 2000, which seems to be translating over into this year's campaign, also.)
Yes, these states moved their primaries, but I believe it should be within the purview of each state to determine its own voting calendar. The national parties--Republican or Democratic--should not interfere with this states' right issue. Again, I have called for a nationalized primary date for all the states, at the direction of the United States Congress. Instead of affording so much attention to a few states, why not allow the states to vote on the same day, as in the general election?
Kentucky is currently looking to move its primary to February. It currently is held on the third Tuesday in May, which makes it next to last, and its primary voters apathetic to the whole process.
If we moved every state to the same scheduled primary/caucus day, it would eliminate a lot of the bitterness we have witnessed in the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary, and Iowa and Nevada caucuses.
It makes sense to me! It lets the candidates stand on their records and their views of the issues, and then let the voters decide...together.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Who is Tony Rezko?
During the South Carolina Democratic Debate on Monday, Hillary Clinton charged that Barack Obama had a working relationship with Tony Rezko, whom she called a Chicago "slum lord."
But, just who is Rezko?
From his Wikipedia file, he was born in Syria and moved to Illinois where he received degrees in engineering and construction. He is currently facing charges of extortion, money laundering, and fraud. He is credited with raising money for several Illinois candidates, including Barack Obama.
Their relationship goes beyond financing his campaign, and into real estate. It has surfaced that Obama bought a house, in 2005, and Rezko bought the adjoining lot on the same day. Also, Obama has said that he has done no favors for Rezko, in the past, but letters have surfaced, which were written by Senator Obama "to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko." The Chicago Sun-Times has written extensively on the Obama-Rezko relationship.
But, just who is Rezko?
From his Wikipedia file, he was born in Syria and moved to Illinois where he received degrees in engineering and construction. He is currently facing charges of extortion, money laundering, and fraud. He is credited with raising money for several Illinois candidates, including Barack Obama.
Their relationship goes beyond financing his campaign, and into real estate. It has surfaced that Obama bought a house, in 2005, and Rezko bought the adjoining lot on the same day. Also, Obama has said that he has done no favors for Rezko, in the past, but letters have surfaced, which were written by Senator Obama "to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko." The Chicago Sun-Times has written extensively on the Obama-Rezko relationship.
The New York Times endorses Hillary
Yesterday, The New York Times formally endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for president. This endorsement is a large stepping stone for Clinton's nomination as the Democratic candidate for this November. Despite the cynicism that has surrounded Clinton's campaign recently, the media still understands that the Democratic Party must have a viable candidate in order to beat the Republicans in the general election.
Here's what they had to say:
"Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
"Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."
Here's what they had to say:
"Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
"Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."
Obama the Hypocrite?
After blasting Bill Clinton for his ardant support of his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has turned his own wife into the "bad cop."
Michelle Obama has hit the campaign trail to support her husband's candidacy for president. This is ironic, and hypocritical, since Obama said it was unfair of Hillary to use her husband as a spokesperson--and surrogate candidate--on her campaign.
Perhaps, Barack Obama will try to talk his way out of this one. Again, he says one thing and does something completely different. If he were true to his convictions, then his wife would have stayed out of the fray. Instead of taking the high moral road, Obama has decided to fight back the only way he knows how, which is by watching and learning.
Will Michelle Obama counteract Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? Not a chance! She's no Bill Clinton.
Michelle Obama has hit the campaign trail to support her husband's candidacy for president. This is ironic, and hypocritical, since Obama said it was unfair of Hillary to use her husband as a spokesperson--and surrogate candidate--on her campaign.
Perhaps, Barack Obama will try to talk his way out of this one. Again, he says one thing and does something completely different. If he were true to his convictions, then his wife would have stayed out of the fray. Instead of taking the high moral road, Obama has decided to fight back the only way he knows how, which is by watching and learning.
Will Michelle Obama counteract Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? Not a chance! She's no Bill Clinton.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Is Obama pissing his pants yet?
The media is a sick group of people. They blame Hillary and Bill Clinton for most of this feud that has erupted between them and Barack Obama. After all, he is the poor, defenseless "victim" in all of this, right? He's the one who came to this campaign to transform politics, but he has become transformed by politics, it would seem. He whines incessantly when someone has something negative to say about his ideas and his inconsistent statements. The media must love a hurt puppy on the side of the road.
Every day he reminds me more of George W. Bush. He simply wants to be surrounded by people who will see it his way and play by his rules...no exceptions! He wants other people to run the government while he kicks back and lives it up. He already said he would come up with "ideas" and let others run the bureaucracy. Doesn't that sound a lot like what Dick Cheney has been doing for George W. Bush for seven years?
A show on MSNBC made Hillary Clinton to be the evil one in this battle. She is the evil lawyer (what is Barack Obama? Mother Teresa with a Harvard law degree?) who is bent on slugging out this campaign by dragging Obama's seemingly good name through the mud. Let's face some facts here. Hillary was practicing law when Obama was trying to figure out if Oxy or Clearasil cleared up his acne outbreaks best.
James Carville pointed out that if Barack Obama cannot meet the standards of a presidential campaign, with some gumption, how will he ever meet the task of being president? His point was that people quarrel and cause no end of problems, both domestically and internationally. I have said it before, but will Obama call for a time-out or for someone else to come to his aid to fight off future bullies? Instead of whining, why not defend yourself with some dignity? Instead of saying, "They're ganging up on me." Or providing facts to show how they are distorting your record, instead of simply saying, "They're distorting my record." You can't simply leave an unproven statement out there and expect people to buy it face-value.
I will not!
Let's get real. Politics is brutal and dog-eat-dog. You've got to take off your bib and step into the ring with your boxing gloves on ready to face your opponent!
Every day he reminds me more of George W. Bush. He simply wants to be surrounded by people who will see it his way and play by his rules...no exceptions! He wants other people to run the government while he kicks back and lives it up. He already said he would come up with "ideas" and let others run the bureaucracy. Doesn't that sound a lot like what Dick Cheney has been doing for George W. Bush for seven years?
A show on MSNBC made Hillary Clinton to be the evil one in this battle. She is the evil lawyer (what is Barack Obama? Mother Teresa with a Harvard law degree?) who is bent on slugging out this campaign by dragging Obama's seemingly good name through the mud. Let's face some facts here. Hillary was practicing law when Obama was trying to figure out if Oxy or Clearasil cleared up his acne outbreaks best.
James Carville pointed out that if Barack Obama cannot meet the standards of a presidential campaign, with some gumption, how will he ever meet the task of being president? His point was that people quarrel and cause no end of problems, both domestically and internationally. I have said it before, but will Obama call for a time-out or for someone else to come to his aid to fight off future bullies? Instead of whining, why not defend yourself with some dignity? Instead of saying, "They're ganging up on me." Or providing facts to show how they are distorting your record, instead of simply saying, "They're distorting my record." You can't simply leave an unproven statement out there and expect people to buy it face-value.
I will not!
Let's get real. Politics is brutal and dog-eat-dog. You've got to take off your bib and step into the ring with your boxing gloves on ready to face your opponent!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson drops from Republican presidential race
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson dropped out of the Republican presidential race. I'm not sure he was ever in this race, however.
Stocks
On the heels of Friday's stock market performance (or lack thereof), today's opening saw the market drop yet again. The Federal Reserve was so concerned that they lowered interest rates prior to the American markets opening.
It clearly looks as if our economy is heading into a recession. I know that my personal stocks are taking a beating as I write this post. I talked to my financial advisor and accountant about my situation and my options, this morning. It would turn out their best, sage advice is to weather the storm, instead of entering into a frenzy of selling off stocks from my portfolio, which is precisely what the markets are doing right this second.
I believe that the market will recover, eventually; however, I am not sure how much of my financial interests will successfully weather this impending hurricane of economic woes. The markets in 2007 were some of the best in recent memory. I made great gains in my personal financial position. Now, looking at the tickers, I feel like the rug is quickly coming out from beneath me.
I'm afraid President Bush's economic relief package is way too little to stimulate the economy. It must be the primary mission of the United States Congress to craft a plan that will at least give our economy a swift, decisive kick in the rear.
It clearly looks as if our economy is heading into a recession. I know that my personal stocks are taking a beating as I write this post. I talked to my financial advisor and accountant about my situation and my options, this morning. It would turn out their best, sage advice is to weather the storm, instead of entering into a frenzy of selling off stocks from my portfolio, which is precisely what the markets are doing right this second.
I believe that the market will recover, eventually; however, I am not sure how much of my financial interests will successfully weather this impending hurricane of economic woes. The markets in 2007 were some of the best in recent memory. I made great gains in my personal financial position. Now, looking at the tickers, I feel like the rug is quickly coming out from beneath me.
I'm afraid President Bush's economic relief package is way too little to stimulate the economy. It must be the primary mission of the United States Congress to craft a plan that will at least give our economy a swift, decisive kick in the rear.
Hillary Clinton on Universal Healthcare; Obama on Single-Payer Insurance
Unlike Obama's plan, which supposes fifteen million Americans do not want healthcare, Hillary's plan will cover every American citizen, by providing health insurance coverage that is actually affordable, while maintaining federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Senator Obama said that he was not for single-payer insurance coverage, in terms of universal healthcare, during the South Carolina Democratic debate; however, in this video you can clearly see he previously made a speech where he stated he was a proponent of the single-payer system. Barack Obama is a flip-flopper on the issues!
Senator Obama said that he was not for single-payer insurance coverage, in terms of universal healthcare, during the South Carolina Democratic debate; however, in this video you can clearly see he previously made a speech where he stated he was a proponent of the single-payer system. Barack Obama is a flip-flopper on the issues!
Obama admires Ronald Reagan
During last night's debate in South Carolina, Barack Obama attacked Senator Clinton for her criticism surrounding comments he made to a newspaper in Reno, Nevada. Obama wanted her to look at the transcript from that meeting, even after she said she had read it already. Obama was clearly on the defensive after this comment by Hillary. He was visibly frustrated, to say the least. Clinton said she had no doubt Republicans had ideas during the Reagan years, and during the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president, but she went on to say "they were bad ideas!"
You do not need a transcript to watch what he says. In this clip, Senator Obama calmly compares himself to Ronald Reagan. He wants to change America in the ways that President Reagan did from 1981-1989. The thing is, I believe, America does not want eight more years of "Reaganomics."
It is bad enough that Republicans say the name "Ronald Reagan" in every other sentence of their stump speeches, but it is sacrilegious for a Democratic candidate to do the same. If you admire a public figure, then you also admire his/her record. What was President Reagan bringing to the table as president? You can look at his record as governor of California for the answer.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was a political figure that many people admired, because he was a consummate actor on the political field. He understood how to manipulate an audience and garner their support. If Obama is genuinely comparing himself to Reagan--simply as a transformative political figure--he must accept that he was a wolf in sheeps' clothes. Is Obama saying the same about himself? What is Obama's secret agenda? His healthcare plan leaves out fifteen million people off the bat. I doubt that he would even press for any type of comprehensive healthcare coverage for Americans. After all, his hero, Ronald Reagan, didn't give a hoot about the poor.
I say, let the man stand on his record and his words...moreover, let him be judged by his friends.
You do not need a transcript to watch what he says. In this clip, Senator Obama calmly compares himself to Ronald Reagan. He wants to change America in the ways that President Reagan did from 1981-1989. The thing is, I believe, America does not want eight more years of "Reaganomics."
It is bad enough that Republicans say the name "Ronald Reagan" in every other sentence of their stump speeches, but it is sacrilegious for a Democratic candidate to do the same. If you admire a public figure, then you also admire his/her record. What was President Reagan bringing to the table as president? You can look at his record as governor of California for the answer.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was a political figure that many people admired, because he was a consummate actor on the political field. He understood how to manipulate an audience and garner their support. If Obama is genuinely comparing himself to Reagan--simply as a transformative political figure--he must accept that he was a wolf in sheeps' clothes. Is Obama saying the same about himself? What is Obama's secret agenda? His healthcare plan leaves out fifteen million people off the bat. I doubt that he would even press for any type of comprehensive healthcare coverage for Americans. After all, his hero, Ronald Reagan, didn't give a hoot about the poor.
I say, let the man stand on his record and his words...moreover, let him be judged by his friends.
South Carolina Democratic Debate
Most political pundits were amazed by the barbs thrown around during last night's debate. Although most of the excitement was between Clinton and Obama, there were some poignant moments between Obama and Edwards.
Edwards questioned Obama's voting record an the Illinois Senate, where he voted over one times "present." This part of his record, according to The Chicago Times, was motivated by political survival. He wasn't willing to vote "yes" or "no" on the big issues, because he was too worried about how his political record might look in the future. Last night, it didn't look too good, Senator Obama.
Edwards also questioned Obama's vote on limiting credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama said he thought that number was too high. Edwards pointed out that by voting against the amendment, Obama allowed credit card companies to set the limit above 30%.
Additionally, I noticed something the post-debate political pundits seldom--if ever--mention, which is Obama's debate strengths are weak.
Yes, Obama is a great speaker, when there are prepared remarks and he is speaking solo, or among friends. During debates, especially during last night's debate, he takes on a "Porky Pig" quality when he speaks. While being called out to answer for his short record, by Clinton and Edwards, he stutters and he changes his answer mid-way through his original answer often. If you look in his eyes, you can see there is a bit of fear behind them during debate formats. He looks wild-eyed even. Yes, debates are brutal and often assassination attempts against a candidate's character are made by the competition, but you should be able to weather them gracefully.
Obama looked child-like when he took on Hillary. She scolded him by telling him they both have supportive spouses and she appreciates her husband's support of her campaign. In essence, it was as if Hillary was telling him that he had whined enough about President Clinton, and he needs to grow-up. It's like the saying of President Harry S. Truman, which Hillary likes to quote, which goes, "If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen."
Edwards questioned Obama's voting record an the Illinois Senate, where he voted over one times "present." This part of his record, according to The Chicago Times, was motivated by political survival. He wasn't willing to vote "yes" or "no" on the big issues, because he was too worried about how his political record might look in the future. Last night, it didn't look too good, Senator Obama.
Edwards also questioned Obama's vote on limiting credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama said he thought that number was too high. Edwards pointed out that by voting against the amendment, Obama allowed credit card companies to set the limit above 30%.
Additionally, I noticed something the post-debate political pundits seldom--if ever--mention, which is Obama's debate strengths are weak.
Yes, Obama is a great speaker, when there are prepared remarks and he is speaking solo, or among friends. During debates, especially during last night's debate, he takes on a "Porky Pig" quality when he speaks. While being called out to answer for his short record, by Clinton and Edwards, he stutters and he changes his answer mid-way through his original answer often. If you look in his eyes, you can see there is a bit of fear behind them during debate formats. He looks wild-eyed even. Yes, debates are brutal and often assassination attempts against a candidate's character are made by the competition, but you should be able to weather them gracefully.
Obama looked child-like when he took on Hillary. She scolded him by telling him they both have supportive spouses and she appreciates her husband's support of her campaign. In essence, it was as if Hillary was telling him that he had whined enough about President Clinton, and he needs to grow-up. It's like the saying of President Harry S. Truman, which Hillary likes to quote, which goes, "If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen."
Monday, January 21, 2008
Chuck Norris promotes age discrimination as an attack on John McCain
Governor Mike Huckabee supporter and part-time bodyguard, Chuck Norris, has said that John McCain is too old to be president. He said that presidents age "3-to-1" when they are in the White House.
If that is so, let's look at beloved fellow Republican president, Ronald Reagan's "true" age, according to the Norris model, when he left the presidency. (It might answer some questions about Reagan.)
On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan was 69-years-old (two weeks shy of his 70th birthday). If you follow Chuck Norris' logic, then Reagan was too old to be president, but I digress from my original study. On January 20, 1989, after eight years in the presidency, President Reagan was 93-Chuck-Norris-years-old (instead of biologically being only 77). If president, and he serves for eight years, Senator McCain will be 95-Chuck-Norris-years-old on January 20, 2017, instead of an actual, youthful 80-years-old.
I think Chuck Norris needs to roundhouse kick some sense into his own head. That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard used to mislead someone else into not voting for a candidate. Anyone stands a chance of dying while in office. Humans, at any age, are not immortal, especially presidents. His overtly Christian principles and beliefs should have taught him that the will of God is anything but predictable. Perhaps, Chuck Norris should accept that his candidate of choice is a bit zealous in his passe beliefs when it comes to mainstream voters.
If that is so, let's look at beloved fellow Republican president, Ronald Reagan's "true" age, according to the Norris model, when he left the presidency. (It might answer some questions about Reagan.)
On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan was 69-years-old (two weeks shy of his 70th birthday). If you follow Chuck Norris' logic, then Reagan was too old to be president, but I digress from my original study. On January 20, 1989, after eight years in the presidency, President Reagan was 93-Chuck-Norris-years-old (instead of biologically being only 77). If president, and he serves for eight years, Senator McCain will be 95-Chuck-Norris-years-old on January 20, 2017, instead of an actual, youthful 80-years-old.
I think Chuck Norris needs to roundhouse kick some sense into his own head. That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard used to mislead someone else into not voting for a candidate. Anyone stands a chance of dying while in office. Humans, at any age, are not immortal, especially presidents. His overtly Christian principles and beliefs should have taught him that the will of God is anything but predictable. Perhaps, Chuck Norris should accept that his candidate of choice is a bit zealous in his passe beliefs when it comes to mainstream voters.
Hillary Endorsement: "Harlem's Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts endorses Hillary"
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Hillary is working hard to win support in the African-American community. Over the past weekend, Hillary won the endorsement of one of America's oldest African-American churches and institutions, Abyssinian Baptist Church, in Harlem.
Poor bullied Obama sitting in the corner
Barack Obama is being bullied these days. He's feeling pretty upset about it, too. Who are the culprits of this heinous chagrin? None other than Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Apparently, President Clinton is the larger of the two bullies. He picks on Obama's Iraq record. He picks on how he organized his campaign in Las Vegas, also. What is a befuddled presidential candidate, who expresses good feelings, to do?
Here's my analysis:
If Obama cannot take the heat from his rival's campaign, then how is he going to take the heat from the rest of the world? I've got news for you pal the world is not a nice place! Imagine how ruthless Republicans will be when they finally take on their Democratic challenger for the White House. And look at the Middle East, too. Do you think those two feuding interests are going to take a time out because the president feels stressed out or betrayed by their actions?
Hardly!
Is Hillary Clinton being unfair by utilizing her spouse in her campaign? Of course not. It's not her fault her husband also happens to be a former president of the United States. I see Michelle Obama speaking on her husband's behalf all the time. All candidates have their spouses speak for them. The spouse is the extension of the candidate. How else can one person be in two places at once? The only candidate who is complaining about it is Barack Obama. He should be spending more time worrying about South Carolina and how he is going to win that primary on Saturday. If he doesn't win it he can bet the press will finally start writing his obituary. They may just erase the name "Hillary Clinton" in their original draft and insert "Barack Obama."
In the end, I wouldn't take on the Clintons to save my own life. It is stupid and ill-advised, to say the least. Obama, what were you thinking?
Next, he'll say Chelsea Clinton is picking on him! Poor, poor Obama.
Apparently, President Clinton is the larger of the two bullies. He picks on Obama's Iraq record. He picks on how he organized his campaign in Las Vegas, also. What is a befuddled presidential candidate, who expresses good feelings, to do?
Here's my analysis:
If Obama cannot take the heat from his rival's campaign, then how is he going to take the heat from the rest of the world? I've got news for you pal the world is not a nice place! Imagine how ruthless Republicans will be when they finally take on their Democratic challenger for the White House. And look at the Middle East, too. Do you think those two feuding interests are going to take a time out because the president feels stressed out or betrayed by their actions?
Hardly!
Is Hillary Clinton being unfair by utilizing her spouse in her campaign? Of course not. It's not her fault her husband also happens to be a former president of the United States. I see Michelle Obama speaking on her husband's behalf all the time. All candidates have their spouses speak for them. The spouse is the extension of the candidate. How else can one person be in two places at once? The only candidate who is complaining about it is Barack Obama. He should be spending more time worrying about South Carolina and how he is going to win that primary on Saturday. If he doesn't win it he can bet the press will finally start writing his obituary. They may just erase the name "Hillary Clinton" in their original draft and insert "Barack Obama."
In the end, I wouldn't take on the Clintons to save my own life. It is stupid and ill-advised, to say the least. Obama, what were you thinking?
Next, he'll say Chelsea Clinton is picking on him! Poor, poor Obama.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Communist-style suffrage
Cubans are going to the polls today in the first election since Fidel Castro disappeared from the national stage over a year-and-half ago for "intestinal" surgery.
The votes will go to fill the 614 seats of the National Assembly. Although, they expect about 90% voter turnout, each of the seats are not contested, including Fidel Castro's parliamentary seat, which means if they are breathing at the end of the election they are elected, including Fidel. The National Assembly will meet in future days to select a new president and Council of State. Some have speculated that the National Assembly will not re-elect Fidel Castro to the presidency, but instead his brother, Raul, who has been filling the presidential post since his convalescence, is seen as his successor. Fidel has previously said he will not cling to power, which might be foreshadowing to the Cuban people of a change in the top post, upon his official retirement to private life.
On a side-note, I often employ communist-style voting in my classroom. My students are always saying, "Majority rules! We want to vote." So, I say, "Sure, let's vote Soviet-style." That statement is always followed by moans, because they know what it means.
I present them with their choice, which is always my option. Then, they vote, but always reluctantly. Some say, "There's only one choice. That's not fair." I reply, "You wanted to vote and here is your choice, now vote!" Sometimes I have to employ some unscrupulous, strong-arm tactics to secure a win, but I always get 100% voter participation and support for my position, in the end.
Then, someone will always, as if on cue, whine, "Why do I have to do this?" My favorite line is: "You and the entire class voted to do it, that's why!"
I'm also fond of saying, "I'm Brezhnev and you're Czechoslovakia. Think twice before you cross me." I've only had a few students who have looked-up that veiled historical reference, however.
The votes will go to fill the 614 seats of the National Assembly. Although, they expect about 90% voter turnout, each of the seats are not contested, including Fidel Castro's parliamentary seat, which means if they are breathing at the end of the election they are elected, including Fidel. The National Assembly will meet in future days to select a new president and Council of State. Some have speculated that the National Assembly will not re-elect Fidel Castro to the presidency, but instead his brother, Raul, who has been filling the presidential post since his convalescence, is seen as his successor. Fidel has previously said he will not cling to power, which might be foreshadowing to the Cuban people of a change in the top post, upon his official retirement to private life.
On a side-note, I often employ communist-style voting in my classroom. My students are always saying, "Majority rules! We want to vote." So, I say, "Sure, let's vote Soviet-style." That statement is always followed by moans, because they know what it means.
I present them with their choice, which is always my option. Then, they vote, but always reluctantly. Some say, "There's only one choice. That's not fair." I reply, "You wanted to vote and here is your choice, now vote!" Sometimes I have to employ some unscrupulous, strong-arm tactics to secure a win, but I always get 100% voter participation and support for my position, in the end.
Then, someone will always, as if on cue, whine, "Why do I have to do this?" My favorite line is: "You and the entire class voted to do it, that's why!"
I'm also fond of saying, "I'm Brezhnev and you're Czechoslovakia. Think twice before you cross me." I've only had a few students who have looked-up that veiled historical reference, however.
900th Post
Nine hundred is such a big number. I never really thought that I would write this much, but I find it to be a very therapeutic outlet.
On to a thousand!
On to a thousand!
Culinary Union of Las Vegas disenfranchised its members?
President Bill Clinton stated that while he was visiting casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, he witnessed representatives of the culinary union publicly threatening its members who were expressing support of Hillary Clinton.
President Clinton said, "Today, when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us, telling us they didn't care what they'd been told to do, they were going to caucus for Hillary, there was a representative of the organization trotting along behind us going up to everybody who said that and said, 'If you're not going to vote for our guy we're going to give you a schedule tomorrow so you can't be there.' I hadn't seen anything like that in America for thirty-five years."
Such ploys still did not benefit Obama, after all.
President Clinton said, "Today, when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us, telling us they didn't care what they'd been told to do, they were going to caucus for Hillary, there was a representative of the organization trotting along behind us going up to everybody who said that and said, 'If you're not going to vote for our guy we're going to give you a schedule tomorrow so you can't be there.' I hadn't seen anything like that in America for thirty-five years."
Such ploys still did not benefit Obama, after all.
Hillary: "This is how the West was won!"
Senator Hillary Clinton convincingly won her second bona fide primary season election yesterday, when she defeated Barack Obama by 6-percentage points to win Nevada.
When Hillary defeated Obama in New Hampshire--against all hopes and odds--by only 2-percentage points, the media and Obama campaign dismissed it as some type of fluke, because the margin was so slim. They blamed it on her emotional appeal after she showed signs of tears during a question-and-answer session. The media's only question was, "Can she sustain her momentum?" Yesterday, in another dog-eat-dog campaign, fought with the blood, sweat and determination of a grassroots campaign, against the endorsement of the state's largest union of Senator Obama, and the decision to give those members of the culinary union an advantage by allowing them to caucus on the Vegas Strip, Hillary defeated Obama soundly!
So, the answer to the media's question is a resounded, "Yes!"
Today, the question the Obama campaign must answer is, "How can you turn out such large crowds at your rallies, win the admiration of the media, but fail to turn voters out to the election polls?"
My answer to that question is people always love to see a hero, who is Obama, but they'll always back a winner, who happens to be Hillary.
The political pundits and media continue to play the Obama game. They play him up even though he has lost every political match against Clinton since he won the single state of Iowa. If it had been Clinton who did that they would have written her political obituary, which they were ready to do after she lost Iowa. They have since put it in the top drawer after she won New Hampshire, of course. She even won where Democrats were not even competing, which was the state of Michigan.
Now it's six days until the Democratic primary in South Carolina. It remains to be seen if Obama can rally his supporters, where the Democratic electorate is fifty-percent African-American, or will Hillary clinch that from his hands also?
I stood behind Hillary after her unconvincing defeat in Iowa, when the rest of her base was ready to bolt, and I will continue to back her "until the last dog is dead." I believe, fervently, that the Democratic voters of the United States will support Hillary for the White House, despite Obama's false promises and hopes, which continue to be untested and unproven in the harsh, unforgiving field of political discourse.
When Hillary defeated Obama in New Hampshire--against all hopes and odds--by only 2-percentage points, the media and Obama campaign dismissed it as some type of fluke, because the margin was so slim. They blamed it on her emotional appeal after she showed signs of tears during a question-and-answer session. The media's only question was, "Can she sustain her momentum?" Yesterday, in another dog-eat-dog campaign, fought with the blood, sweat and determination of a grassroots campaign, against the endorsement of the state's largest union of Senator Obama, and the decision to give those members of the culinary union an advantage by allowing them to caucus on the Vegas Strip, Hillary defeated Obama soundly!
So, the answer to the media's question is a resounded, "Yes!"
Today, the question the Obama campaign must answer is, "How can you turn out such large crowds at your rallies, win the admiration of the media, but fail to turn voters out to the election polls?"
My answer to that question is people always love to see a hero, who is Obama, but they'll always back a winner, who happens to be Hillary.
The political pundits and media continue to play the Obama game. They play him up even though he has lost every political match against Clinton since he won the single state of Iowa. If it had been Clinton who did that they would have written her political obituary, which they were ready to do after she lost Iowa. They have since put it in the top drawer after she won New Hampshire, of course. She even won where Democrats were not even competing, which was the state of Michigan.
Now it's six days until the Democratic primary in South Carolina. It remains to be seen if Obama can rally his supporters, where the Democratic electorate is fifty-percent African-American, or will Hillary clinch that from his hands also?
I stood behind Hillary after her unconvincing defeat in Iowa, when the rest of her base was ready to bolt, and I will continue to back her "until the last dog is dead." I believe, fervently, that the Democratic voters of the United States will support Hillary for the White House, despite Obama's false promises and hopes, which continue to be untested and unproven in the harsh, unforgiving field of political discourse.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Hillary Clinton wins Nevada
With over half of Nevada's caucuses reporting, Hillary Clinton has won the majority of the state's delegates! This is yet another bet made by the media on Barack Obama that was lost.
On to South Carolina!
Go Hillary!
On to South Carolina!
Go Hillary!
The Caucus System
After watching the Iowa caucuses and now the Nevada caucuses, I have to say--next to elections held in former Soviet republics--caucuses are the most undemocratic things I've ever witnessed.
If this style of voting was held anywhere besides the United States, the United Nations would declare it violates human rights. Caucuses are limited to time-frames of around one hour. So what about those people who work during this time? (Primaries usually last for at least twelve hours [I think those are unfair to some voters who are working during this time, also].) Also, caucus-goers are required to vote in public, by standing for a candidate, which can take at least an hour. If their candidate is not viable (at least 15% of voters present) then they can be coerced to join another candidate's camp.
It just seems to me--coming from a primary state--it would be much easier to give people a much broader time-frame to vote by take a few minutes to press a button or pull a lever, then have your vote count for your candidate.
If this style of voting was held anywhere besides the United States, the United Nations would declare it violates human rights. Caucuses are limited to time-frames of around one hour. So what about those people who work during this time? (Primaries usually last for at least twelve hours [I think those are unfair to some voters who are working during this time, also].) Also, caucus-goers are required to vote in public, by standing for a candidate, which can take at least an hour. If their candidate is not viable (at least 15% of voters present) then they can be coerced to join another candidate's camp.
It just seems to me--coming from a primary state--it would be much easier to give people a much broader time-frame to vote by take a few minutes to press a button or pull a lever, then have your vote count for your candidate.
Friday, January 18, 2008
My Brother
I was talking to my seventeen-year-old brother today, and our conversation turned to politics. It turns out that he says he likes Obama for president.
I was taken aback by his comment, because he knows how much I am for Hillary Clinton. I told him he can't be for Obama, because he has to be for Hillary. Anyhow, I decided he was the perfect candidate to find out what this hold is Obama has over young people.
So, I asked him some questions.
Firstly, I wanted to know why he favored Obama. He told me that "he is cool." Okay, I can see that. He went on to say he is a good speaker. I give him credit for that, also.
Secondly, I wanted to know exactly what it is that he says that draws him to his campaign. He said, "He has a vision for the future. He has ideas to make our country better."
Naturally, I asked, "What are his ideas?"
What he said sort of stunned me. My brother said, "I don't know what his ideas are exactly, but I believe he has them. I'm not sure he knows what he will do to change our country yet. I just believe that he will do what he says. He says he is for change."
Then I wanted to know if he would trust to put a man in the White House who has no experience, beyond a few, short years in the Senate. He said that his speeches draw him into his corner, and that he believes he would change how American government operates.
Finally, I asked him about Hillary Clinton. I specifically asked him, "Why wouldn't you vote for Hillary Clinton, who has much more experience?" He said, "Hillary Clinton expects to win because she is Hillary Clinton, and her husband is Bill Clinton. Barack Obama expects to win because he is the right person for the job. Experience is meaningless if you are going to run the government the same way as before."
After I warned him about his beliefs, I decided that young people see Obama as an outsider. Young people, also, see themselves as outsiders, in our society, who seek acceptance. Perhaps, if Obama wins, then they too will have won a victory for inclusion. Either way, my brother will not be eighteen by November, so I told him that I wouldn't have to break his knee-caps for voting against Hillary.
He just laughed.
I was taken aback by his comment, because he knows how much I am for Hillary Clinton. I told him he can't be for Obama, because he has to be for Hillary. Anyhow, I decided he was the perfect candidate to find out what this hold is Obama has over young people.
So, I asked him some questions.
Firstly, I wanted to know why he favored Obama. He told me that "he is cool." Okay, I can see that. He went on to say he is a good speaker. I give him credit for that, also.
Secondly, I wanted to know exactly what it is that he says that draws him to his campaign. He said, "He has a vision for the future. He has ideas to make our country better."
Naturally, I asked, "What are his ideas?"
What he said sort of stunned me. My brother said, "I don't know what his ideas are exactly, but I believe he has them. I'm not sure he knows what he will do to change our country yet. I just believe that he will do what he says. He says he is for change."
Then I wanted to know if he would trust to put a man in the White House who has no experience, beyond a few, short years in the Senate. He said that his speeches draw him into his corner, and that he believes he would change how American government operates.
Finally, I asked him about Hillary Clinton. I specifically asked him, "Why wouldn't you vote for Hillary Clinton, who has much more experience?" He said, "Hillary Clinton expects to win because she is Hillary Clinton, and her husband is Bill Clinton. Barack Obama expects to win because he is the right person for the job. Experience is meaningless if you are going to run the government the same way as before."
After I warned him about his beliefs, I decided that young people see Obama as an outsider. Young people, also, see themselves as outsiders, in our society, who seek acceptance. Perhaps, if Obama wins, then they too will have won a victory for inclusion. Either way, my brother will not be eighteen by November, so I told him that I wouldn't have to break his knee-caps for voting against Hillary.
He just laughed.
Obama loves Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama made one of the biggest gaffes a Democratic candidate can make, he equated himself with Ronald Reagan, as if the Republican candidates are not doing it enough already!
Obama said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." If Senator Obama loves Ronald Reagan so much, then he should change his political affiliation. We all know that Reagan did not love Democrats. Does that make Obama a closeted Republican?
I do not think we want to move back into Reagan-era politics again. The 1980s were more than enough of Reagan's policies and blunders. I suppose Obama has truly run out of Democratic role models to emulate, such as John F. Kennedy, so he is going after some of the big Republican idols now. I wonder who will be next? Maybe he will praise Pat Robertson for his very personal relationship with God, in hopes of garnering the evangelical vote.
I've heard of flip-flopping on issues, but never with your political party. Even George W. Bush was smart enough to know you "don't switch horses in mid-stream." It stands to reason that Obama does not want to switch political parties in the middle of an election, or so I think.
Obama said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." If Senator Obama loves Ronald Reagan so much, then he should change his political affiliation. We all know that Reagan did not love Democrats. Does that make Obama a closeted Republican?
I do not think we want to move back into Reagan-era politics again. The 1980s were more than enough of Reagan's policies and blunders. I suppose Obama has truly run out of Democratic role models to emulate, such as John F. Kennedy, so he is going after some of the big Republican idols now. I wonder who will be next? Maybe he will praise Pat Robertson for his very personal relationship with God, in hopes of garnering the evangelical vote.
I've heard of flip-flopping on issues, but never with your political party. Even George W. Bush was smart enough to know you "don't switch horses in mid-stream." It stands to reason that Obama does not want to switch political parties in the middle of an election, or so I think.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama a 'laissez-faire' president
Senator Barack Obama said that he would be too busy inventing new ideas to run the government. I suppose that means it is "willy-nilly" for his aides to run the government, just like old George W. Bush's White House.
This type of hands-off administration is exactly what we have had for almost seven years! Isn't it time America has a president who is directly connected to the inter-workings of the government? Don't we deserve someone who is not afraid--and competent enough--to get their hands dirty from doing the work of the people?
Obama may not realize it now, but the job he really wants is that of a presidential advisor. An advisor is a person who sits around and thinks of ways to make the president's policies better. Then the president decides which ideas to implement or turn-down.
In the United States, since 2001, we have seen the devastating outcome of letting aides and advisers have the initial and final say in how our government works. President Bush has been anything but a strong leader on domestic and foreign issues, considering he was just in Saudi Arabia begging that nation's king to lower the price of crude. I suppose that is the best idea George W. Bush could come up with on his "own."
America is ready for a president who can take charge from day one and tell the government how things are going to be done, not the other way around. It is time we have a president who can take on the economy and energize it with fairer taxes and implement economic packages that will rebuild the middle class.
This type of hands-off administration is exactly what we have had for almost seven years! Isn't it time America has a president who is directly connected to the inter-workings of the government? Don't we deserve someone who is not afraid--and competent enough--to get their hands dirty from doing the work of the people?
Obama may not realize it now, but the job he really wants is that of a presidential advisor. An advisor is a person who sits around and thinks of ways to make the president's policies better. Then the president decides which ideas to implement or turn-down.
In the United States, since 2001, we have seen the devastating outcome of letting aides and advisers have the initial and final say in how our government works. President Bush has been anything but a strong leader on domestic and foreign issues, considering he was just in Saudi Arabia begging that nation's king to lower the price of crude. I suppose that is the best idea George W. Bush could come up with on his "own."
America is ready for a president who can take charge from day one and tell the government how things are going to be done, not the other way around. It is time we have a president who can take on the economy and energize it with fairer taxes and implement economic packages that will rebuild the middle class.
Recession?
After two weeks (or so) of bruising my stock portfolio is beginning to feel the punches in a most profound way. Some of my stocks have lost as much as 10% of their value in just a few short days. MasterCard lost as much as 15% of its value in three days on the report that credit card companies were writing off losses following the housing market crash.
Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the United States' economy must be stimulated immediately or feel the effects of this recent mini-economic meltdown's ripples become more profound and longer lasting.
Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the United States' economy must be stimulated immediately or feel the effects of this recent mini-economic meltdown's ripples become more profound and longer lasting.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Hillary Clinton on Martin Luther King, Jr.
Does this sound like an individual who is not understanding of minority rights?
"Time" Magazine publishes bias media
After reading an online commentary on Time magazine's web page, it is apparent the news magazine is allowing its authors--at least one of them--to publish one-sided, obviously biased reports about Senators Clinton and Obama.
The article, called "Could Race Destroy the Democrats?" by Michael Duffy, is so skewed toward Obama that it is sickening. From his prose about the "devastating rejoinder" of Clinton at the "soaring applause" at Obama events in New Hampshire (he must not have received the memo that she won that state's primary), to his analysis of Clinton and the Civil Rights Act, which included, "[t]he real problem is that Clinton seemed to put [Lyndon B. Johnson] on a pedestal higher than [Martin Luther] King's," and he attempts to critique her appearance on Meet the Press, in which she stated that she hoped race and gender would not be a part of either campaign, with "[b]y the time she said those words, it was already too late."
There is no mention of Obama using race during his campaign. It is always one-sided with Obama--and African-Americans--as the victim. I was always afraid that race would arise as the main factor of this presidential race. Imagine if Obama wins the Democratic nomination how it will be for him to take on the Republican nominee. Race will be the primary factor throughout the general election season. I always believed it would be about gender, but instead Obama is quite comfortable attempting to swiftboat Senator Clinton by using the race card.
The bottom line is the media seems content to paint Hillary Clinton as a belligerent, racist dowager, who is scheming to protect her dynasty, but they are unwilling to attribute any of the flack to Senator Obama. If they think her campaign is being unkind now just wait until the Republican attack machine paints Obama's picture for the rest of America.
By the way, if Barack Obama thinks his current rhetoric will win him points with conservative, white Republicans in November, then he is sorely mistaken! It just seems to me that both campaigns should focus on the issues of Iraq, the economy, and how to move this nation forward as a whole, as opposed to building bridges back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
That's my opinion.
The article, called "Could Race Destroy the Democrats?" by Michael Duffy, is so skewed toward Obama that it is sickening. From his prose about the "devastating rejoinder" of Clinton at the "soaring applause" at Obama events in New Hampshire (he must not have received the memo that she won that state's primary), to his analysis of Clinton and the Civil Rights Act, which included, "[t]he real problem is that Clinton seemed to put [Lyndon B. Johnson] on a pedestal higher than [Martin Luther] King's," and he attempts to critique her appearance on Meet the Press, in which she stated that she hoped race and gender would not be a part of either campaign, with "[b]y the time she said those words, it was already too late."
There is no mention of Obama using race during his campaign. It is always one-sided with Obama--and African-Americans--as the victim. I was always afraid that race would arise as the main factor of this presidential race. Imagine if Obama wins the Democratic nomination how it will be for him to take on the Republican nominee. Race will be the primary factor throughout the general election season. I always believed it would be about gender, but instead Obama is quite comfortable attempting to swiftboat Senator Clinton by using the race card.
The bottom line is the media seems content to paint Hillary Clinton as a belligerent, racist dowager, who is scheming to protect her dynasty, but they are unwilling to attribute any of the flack to Senator Obama. If they think her campaign is being unkind now just wait until the Republican attack machine paints Obama's picture for the rest of America.
By the way, if Barack Obama thinks his current rhetoric will win him points with conservative, white Republicans in November, then he is sorely mistaken! It just seems to me that both campaigns should focus on the issues of Iraq, the economy, and how to move this nation forward as a whole, as opposed to building bridges back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
That's my opinion.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Hillary on "Meet the Press"
American voters must now ask the question is Barack Obama trying to swiftboat Hillary Clinton with the race card? It is true that many of South Carolina's Democratic voters are African-American. The Obama campaign is playing that the Clintons are now racist pigs, who have no record of civil rights. As Hillary has been saying over-and-over, let the voters decide.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Scandal rocks America!
OMG! Someone call The National Enquirer. It has come to the attention of thousands of teenage fans--and the media--that Hannah Montana, to wit: Miley Cyrus, uses a body double during her live stage performances!
Where is the humanity?!
Puhhhhh-lease! I am sick to death of hearing and reading about this story. Who over the age of puberty cares? If that is all she has to worry about, then I'd say she is a pretty stable individual, considering the state of affairs of other teenage superstars.
So come on, cut the girl's managers, choreographers, stage managers, etc., some slack!
Where is the humanity?!
Puhhhhh-lease! I am sick to death of hearing and reading about this story. Who over the age of puberty cares? If that is all she has to worry about, then I'd say she is a pretty stable individual, considering the state of affairs of other teenage superstars.
So come on, cut the girl's managers, choreographers, stage managers, etc., some slack!
Hillary Ad: "Listen"
This ad for Hillary Clinton begins the change in her campaign. In the future, we will see a softer side to Hillary. The part of her that she showed the world when she expressed the difficulties of the campaign trail. It will be in the form of non-choreographed, impromptu speaking.
House
After ten days of living together, I am working through some of the quirks of sharing my space with someone else. The first thing, I suppose, I must overcome is the fact it is not simply my space anymore.
Earlier today, Dwight was watching a basketball game on television. I detest sports (usually). I never played them as a child. I am anything but athletic. He asked me to watch it with him. At first, I told him, "Nah, I don't care for that sort of thing." I was in the kitchen doing something before I walked back into the living room. He was sitting there all alone. I thought to myself, "Would it kill you to watch the game with him?"
I took a drink with me as a peace offering. I handed it to him and then sat down next to him. Watching the game wasn't as bad as I had originally predicted. Unlike most guys, he wanted to tell me everything that was going on in the game. Also, we talked about other things than the game. He is easily distracted!
In the post-game analysis, I entered a part of his world and spent time with him doing something he enjoys. It's not so bad...just the sports part!
Earlier today, Dwight was watching a basketball game on television. I detest sports (usually). I never played them as a child. I am anything but athletic. He asked me to watch it with him. At first, I told him, "Nah, I don't care for that sort of thing." I was in the kitchen doing something before I walked back into the living room. He was sitting there all alone. I thought to myself, "Would it kill you to watch the game with him?"
I took a drink with me as a peace offering. I handed it to him and then sat down next to him. Watching the game wasn't as bad as I had originally predicted. Unlike most guys, he wanted to tell me everything that was going on in the game. Also, we talked about other things than the game. He is easily distracted!
In the post-game analysis, I entered a part of his world and spent time with him doing something he enjoys. It's not so bad...just the sports part!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Tears
So many people are making a big issue out of Hillary's supposed tears when she talked about how much she didn't want to see the country go back on itself.
It is more than unfair to assert she won the primary election in New Hampshire on this simple fact. Pundits, however, are more unwilling to concede that they were wrong about Hillary's potential to win the support of voters. Hillary is a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Let's never forget that single fact!
Instead of being sexist, the media should be more objective about its reporting, instead of showing an inclination toward Nobama.
It is more than unfair to assert she won the primary election in New Hampshire on this simple fact. Pundits, however, are more unwilling to concede that they were wrong about Hillary's potential to win the support of voters. Hillary is a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Let's never forget that single fact!
Instead of being sexist, the media should be more objective about its reporting, instead of showing an inclination toward Nobama.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Bush gearing up for Iran war?
Ratcheting up the rhetoric--yet again--about Iran, Bush sounds like he used to when he talked about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
This week, while in the Middle East, George W. Bush called Iran a "threat to world peace." This comment comes on the heels of a potential confrontation between the navies of the United States and Iran. Although the Iranian vessels retreated, apparently they made threats of violence against the American ships.
Any general that informs Bush it would be a good idea to attack Iran should be court martialed immediately, because that idea is simply preposterous! With about 54 weeks left in office, let's hope that Bush doesn't do anything drastic, such as nuke the world.
This week, while in the Middle East, George W. Bush called Iran a "threat to world peace." This comment comes on the heels of a potential confrontation between the navies of the United States and Iran. Although the Iranian vessels retreated, apparently they made threats of violence against the American ships.
Any general that informs Bush it would be a good idea to attack Iran should be court martialed immediately, because that idea is simply preposterous! With about 54 weeks left in office, let's hope that Bush doesn't do anything drastic, such as nuke the world.
A Renewed Momentum for Hillary
After last night's upset victory in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton has proven she has the "right stuff" to win elections. In a time when all political pundits had written her off for lost, she came back and shocked the world by knocking Obama off of his pedestal!
What happened?
Most people talk about change and they like to be associated with the popular people. When you are standing in a crowd of people you may agree with the majority about their viewpoints, even if you privately disagree. In particular, I think people were temporarily awe-struck by Obama's charm and relative new arrival on the political scene; however, when people actually stepped into the voting booths, those who were going to previously vote for Obama took a minute to rethink their decision. I have done that before. I have thought long and hard (yes, in a polling booth) about my decision. The results show that the majority of New Hampshire's voters were not so willing to give their consent to an untried candidate for the nation's highest office.
Hillary's win is a testimony to collective sanity and intense soul searching among the voters of New Hampshire.
What happened?
Most people talk about change and they like to be associated with the popular people. When you are standing in a crowd of people you may agree with the majority about their viewpoints, even if you privately disagree. In particular, I think people were temporarily awe-struck by Obama's charm and relative new arrival on the political scene; however, when people actually stepped into the voting booths, those who were going to previously vote for Obama took a minute to rethink their decision. I have done that before. I have thought long and hard (yes, in a polling booth) about my decision. The results show that the majority of New Hampshire's voters were not so willing to give their consent to an untried candidate for the nation's highest office.
Hillary's win is a testimony to collective sanity and intense soul searching among the voters of New Hampshire.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Obama concedes New Hampshire
Why does Obama (hereinafter, Nobama) always sound like a minister? I think his speech is fake and forced to make him sound like a black minister (where's his handkerchief for his forehead?).
Hillary for President
America is ready for Hillary to lead!
The New Comeback Kid!
After losing in Iowa and having the New Hampshire primary delivered to Barack Obama by the media, Hillary Clinton has shown that real change is all part of experience!
Go Hillary!
Go Hillary!
AP: Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire
The AP has declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the New Hampshire primary, despite Barack Obama's alleged double digit lead in the polls from yesterday.
Hillary for President
If you're ready for change, she's ready to lead!
If you're ready for change, she's ready to lead!
My father worked in a mill...blah, blah
If I hear that tired line one more time from John Edwards I'm going to literally vomit! He has used that line far too many times! I'm not sure what he wants us to know, other than his family came from humble beginnings; however, his current socioeconomic standing hardly qualifies him for that tax bracket anymore.
John Edwards, it's time to hang your hat up and go home to North Carolina.
John Edwards, it's time to hang your hat up and go home to North Carolina.
The best laid plans of mice and media...
Looking at the results--yet again-- it would seem that Hillary is winning in Manchester and Nashua, which are two of the most populous areas in New Hampshire.
What does that say for Obama?
What does that say for Obama?
Hillary!
Despite the media's hope for Obama to win the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton has opened up with more than a "small lead." With 26% of the votes counted, she is 5% ahead of Obama. I think the media has certainly underestimated her.
President Clinton on Obama hypocrisy
Bill Clinton fielded a question about how he perceived the "free pass" the media is giving Barack Obama in regards to his record on such things as the war in Iraq. The truth is that Obama stated that he was behind George W. Bush in 2004, but now he says he is against the war. He says he never supported the war in Iraq, but in the United States Senate he voted to fund it with $300 billion! The point is you can't talk through one side of your mouth while talking from the other side too. Yes, occasionally, the right hand does find out what the left hand has been up to.
Since Obama's win in Iowa, the media has made him out to be their darling. They even compare him to John F. Kennedy, because of his charisma and vision. Anyone can have a proactive vision about how things should be in America. I can sit down and make a list of positive things I want to implement in our country, but it takes know-how and determination to wheel-and-deal in order to make those things possible. Obama's vision is nothing without that insight and talent. Obama is not going to roll into the White House in 2009 with a blank check from the Republicans to do whatever he desires. His charm will do little to save us from terrorism. It will take realism with bite to save our country from its current path of peril.
Even though she may not have the razzle-dazzle of Obama, I am still standing behind Hillary Clinton for president, because she has the experience to make her vision of change a reality for our country.
Since Obama's win in Iowa, the media has made him out to be their darling. They even compare him to John F. Kennedy, because of his charisma and vision. Anyone can have a proactive vision about how things should be in America. I can sit down and make a list of positive things I want to implement in our country, but it takes know-how and determination to wheel-and-deal in order to make those things possible. Obama's vision is nothing without that insight and talent. Obama is not going to roll into the White House in 2009 with a blank check from the Republicans to do whatever he desires. His charm will do little to save us from terrorism. It will take realism with bite to save our country from its current path of peril.
Even though she may not have the razzle-dazzle of Obama, I am still standing behind Hillary Clinton for president, because she has the experience to make her vision of change a reality for our country.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Hillary Clinton on "action"
Hillary said it beautifully when she pointed out during tonight's New Hampshire debate that it is fine and dandy to have eloquent words but they hardly translate into action! Democratic voters are getting starry-eyed when they look at Obama and listen to his message. They do not stop to think, however, about how those words will be translated into viable, reforming actions.
Al Gore, where are you?
In times like this, when the Democratic Party is screwing itself, I'd love nothing more than to see Al Gore step in and blow this presidential race apart!
If Hillary can't save us, then he might be our only hope at this point!
If Hillary can't save us, then he might be our only hope at this point!
Obama: Why?
Democrats are about to throw the entire general election!
Again, people are simply flocking to Barack Obama because he is the fresh face. His win in Iowa has garnered him some new support in New Hampshire. (This is why I once called for all primaries and caucuses to be held on the same day, just like the general election. It keeps other states from feeling as if they must follow the leader.)
A new poll released this evening in New Hampshire now shows Clinton and Obama running neck and neck. I realize this hardly puts her out of the race, but it does show that the fiercely independent people of the Granite State are following their leader, which in this case happens to be Iowa.
The bottom line is simple--and terrifying. If Democrats elect Barack Obama then they will turn over the presidency once again to a Republican. In a general election, where Republicans and Democrats have an equal voice, he is not going to win. Republicans are sharpening their claws and sabers just hoping they get to pick Barack Obama apart this summer.
Democrats must elect a leader who can stand up to Republicans when the honeymoon is over!
Again, people are simply flocking to Barack Obama because he is the fresh face. His win in Iowa has garnered him some new support in New Hampshire. (This is why I once called for all primaries and caucuses to be held on the same day, just like the general election. It keeps other states from feeling as if they must follow the leader.)
A new poll released this evening in New Hampshire now shows Clinton and Obama running neck and neck. I realize this hardly puts her out of the race, but it does show that the fiercely independent people of the Granite State are following their leader, which in this case happens to be Iowa.
The bottom line is simple--and terrifying. If Democrats elect Barack Obama then they will turn over the presidency once again to a Republican. In a general election, where Republicans and Democrats have an equal voice, he is not going to win. Republicans are sharpening their claws and sabers just hoping they get to pick Barack Obama apart this summer.
Democrats must elect a leader who can stand up to Republicans when the honeymoon is over!
Hillary for President
If you're ready for change, she's ready to lead!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Why Obama cannot win the Democratic nomination
I am going to look at this scenario from the Republican perspective on the issue. Republicans would love nothing more than for the Democratic Party to nominate Barack Obama to be their candidate for the general election in November.
Here's why Republicans want this to happen:
Here's why Republicans want this to happen:
- He's black
- His middle name is "Hussein"
- He grew up partly in an Islamic country (Did he go to a madrassa? I don't know.)
- He's an upstart senator
- You can't win general elections simply on charm factor
The first two are more than enough to sink his ship quickly. Americans in general will have a problem electing a black man to be president. Last night in Iowa, you saw who the Democratic voters--only--wanted to run for president. Now when you put him against the white, Republican candidate in November voters are going to elect the status quo. Sure, he might be a nice guy, but white Republicans and white, moderate Democrats are not going to buy what he is selling on that issue alone. Of course the majority is not going to own up to being racist, but it is real.
Next, the whole name thing. Initially some eyebrows were raised about his middle name, which ironically happens to be Hussein. The rumors have all gone into the closet for the time being. Just imagine if he is nominated by Democrats what a field day conservatives will have with that fact. I can see posters of Obama and Saddam and e-mails galore questioning how we can trust a man who's name is so similar to one of the United States most recent arch-enemies. Also, let's not forget the Obama and Osama pun. Later this year, Republicans will ask voters, "Can we really afford to take a chance and elect Barack Hussein Osama?" His name doesn't help him with how Americans view his religious convictions either. He lived part of his childhood in Indonesia, which happens to be the most populated Muslim country in the world. Others have questioned whether or not he attended a madrassa, which is a strict Islamic school.
Those are some bare bones issues that seem to be gone at the moment, but will flare up like a sudden attack of genital herpes if Republicans sense Obama's time is near.
Let's forget Hillary Clinton for the time being. Let's say it is a contest solely between Obama and John Edwards to win the nomination. Americans, from across the board, are far more likely to put their support behind white John Edwards in November. Once the Republican machine gets ride of Mike Huckabee, and either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination, then that is the time when real mudslinging will begin between the two political party candidates.
America is ready for a change, but it has to be a realistic change which at least 50% of voters can get behind and support in November!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Iowa Democratic Caucus Outcome
It looks as if my original prediction about the Iowa caucuses was incorrect. I was not surprised by Obama coming in first, but I am surprised that Edwards came in second (even though, Hillary was on his heels).
I am still satisfied that Hillary can overcome this minor setback.
On to New Hampshire!
I am still satisfied that Hillary can overcome this minor setback.
On to New Hampshire!
Red State Update: "Hillary on Obama's Drug Use"
Before Iowa's Democratic voters make their minds up tonight they should answer the following questions, according to the guys on Red State Update:
- Did Obama sell cocaine in kindergarten, at a radical Muslim school, to Oprah Winfrey?
- Should Obama's religion play a part in whether or not he was one of the original masterminds behind the 9/11 attack?
These guys are too funny sometimes!
Iowa is the place to be tonight
With only a few short hours left to go before the results of the Iowa 2008 caucuses will be known, polls show a very tight race among the top candidates in both political parties. It is certain to be a nail-biter as the hours and minutes wane this evening.
The election seems rather tight between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, but I am still putting my bets on Hillary to win the Democratic caucus, although it will not be easy. Even though some people have expressed their desire to support Obama, in the end they will be swayed by experience and determination, rather than simply grandiose ideas with no substance.
As for the Republicans, it would seem to be a tight race between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. I am predicting that Romney will narrowly defeat Huckabee, though.
The final answer, however, must come from the voters of Iowa themselves. I'm just sitting on the sidelines waiting like everyone else.
The election seems rather tight between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, but I am still putting my bets on Hillary to win the Democratic caucus, although it will not be easy. Even though some people have expressed their desire to support Obama, in the end they will be swayed by experience and determination, rather than simply grandiose ideas with no substance.
As for the Republicans, it would seem to be a tight race between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. I am predicting that Romney will narrowly defeat Huckabee, though.
The final answer, however, must come from the voters of Iowa themselves. I'm just sitting on the sidelines waiting like everyone else.
Justice Bill Clinton?
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency will she nominate former President Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court of the United States? That is a question that has some people wondering what another Clinton administration will mean for America for years to come.
I can think of worst candidates for the job! Although, he would be in a very elite club, considering only one other president has served as a member of the nation's highest court, which was William Howard Taft, who was its chief justice for almost nine years.
I can think of worst candidates for the job! Although, he would be in a very elite club, considering only one other president has served as a member of the nation's highest court, which was William Howard Taft, who was its chief justice for almost nine years.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
D-Day
Today, after much anticipation, D is going to bring his stuff to my house and officially move in with me!
I told him all he needs to bring are his clothes and himself. Everything else I have taken care of for him. (I'm a nice person.) I am really looking forward to when he finally arrives. I think that this will be a very good thing in my life. He is infinitely sweet and he worries about me a lot, which is novel for me. I am usually the one leading that role.
I just hope that he will be happy with me.
I told him all he needs to bring are his clothes and himself. Everything else I have taken care of for him. (I'm a nice person.) I am really looking forward to when he finally arrives. I think that this will be a very good thing in my life. He is infinitely sweet and he worries about me a lot, which is novel for me. I am usually the one leading that role.
I just hope that he will be happy with me.
Musharraf: Bhutto is a martyr
After nearly six days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf decided it was time to address the nation on the issue.
In his national address, he postponed parliamentary elections until February 18, in response to the violence that has erupted as a consequence of Bhutto's death. In addition, he announced the British are sending investigators from Scotland Yard to probe her assassination. Perhaps, now the world can get to the truth of the matter, unless the government of Pakistan works to impede their investigation by not being forthcoming with evidence and witness accounts. Musharraf has sent troops into Sindh province, a Bhutto stronghold, in an effort to quell the civil unrest, which has brought about more than fifty deaths and millions of dollars in damages.
The greatest concession of Musharraf's speech was when he stated that Bhutto "has been martyred by terrorists." It is a stark contrast to what I envisioned him saying about the event. The word "martyr" is a powerful symbol among Muslims. It ranks her death up there with others who have given their life in service of their country and God.
In his national address, he postponed parliamentary elections until February 18, in response to the violence that has erupted as a consequence of Bhutto's death. In addition, he announced the British are sending investigators from Scotland Yard to probe her assassination. Perhaps, now the world can get to the truth of the matter, unless the government of Pakistan works to impede their investigation by not being forthcoming with evidence and witness accounts. Musharraf has sent troops into Sindh province, a Bhutto stronghold, in an effort to quell the civil unrest, which has brought about more than fifty deaths and millions of dollars in damages.
The greatest concession of Musharraf's speech was when he stated that Bhutto "has been martyred by terrorists." It is a stark contrast to what I envisioned him saying about the event. The word "martyr" is a powerful symbol among Muslims. It ranks her death up there with others who have given their life in service of their country and God.
Television and Kids
In 1952, CBS held the conviction that it was improper for a pregnant woman to be shown on television, and it was pretty sure that you couldn't say the word "pregnant" either on the air. It created a buzz among religious leaders of the time, who tried to help the network reconcile the issue. Now fast-forward fifty-six years to 2008. Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, is pretty sure you cannot show a pregnant teen mother on the air, considering their demographic, and their fragile emotions.
Yes, I know, Jamie Lynn Spears is hardly Lucille Ball (in image or acting ability), but the dilemma is still essentially the same as it was so many years ago. I Love Lucy was the top-rated show on television in its day. Lucy was pregnant and it was beginning to show, which was causing the writers and network executives some headaches. They wanted to put the show on hiatus until after the birth, but it was a risky venture since the show brought in such a large viewing audience and so much money for the network.
In the end, the network had to decide if it was going to treat its viewing audience as "stupid" and pretend that women do not get pregnant; thereby, putting Lucille Ball out of work until she did something about their problem. Or the novel idea was to accept that people already knew where babies came from and work her pregnancy into the show. Of course, as we all know, the latter prevailed and the episode of the birth of "Little Ricky" was the most watched in television history. Also, the event made the first cover of TV Guide, in early 1953.
I'm not certain that the Spears-scandal can match Lucille Ball's delivery, but what I am sure of is kids--particularly teens--are not ignorant of where babies come from (God knows I've learned a few things from them on the subject). I know they have seen a woman who is pregnant, but whether or not they have seen a teen who is pregnant on television is another story. What is certain is people had not seen a pregnant woman on their tv sets before Lucille Ball, and CBS, took a risk.
I understand, also, the network is not afraid of pregnancy, per se, but rather the implications of showing a role model, who is their age, as pregnant. It will be interesting, however, to see how the executives of Viacom overcome this snafu.
Yes, I know, Jamie Lynn Spears is hardly Lucille Ball (in image or acting ability), but the dilemma is still essentially the same as it was so many years ago. I Love Lucy was the top-rated show on television in its day. Lucy was pregnant and it was beginning to show, which was causing the writers and network executives some headaches. They wanted to put the show on hiatus until after the birth, but it was a risky venture since the show brought in such a large viewing audience and so much money for the network.
In the end, the network had to decide if it was going to treat its viewing audience as "stupid" and pretend that women do not get pregnant; thereby, putting Lucille Ball out of work until she did something about their problem. Or the novel idea was to accept that people already knew where babies came from and work her pregnancy into the show. Of course, as we all know, the latter prevailed and the episode of the birth of "Little Ricky" was the most watched in television history. Also, the event made the first cover of TV Guide, in early 1953.
I'm not certain that the Spears-scandal can match Lucille Ball's delivery, but what I am sure of is kids--particularly teens--are not ignorant of where babies come from (God knows I've learned a few things from them on the subject). I know they have seen a woman who is pregnant, but whether or not they have seen a teen who is pregnant on television is another story. What is certain is people had not seen a pregnant woman on their tv sets before Lucille Ball, and CBS, took a risk.
I understand, also, the network is not afraid of pregnancy, per se, but rather the implications of showing a role model, who is their age, as pregnant. It will be interesting, however, to see how the executives of Viacom overcome this snafu.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Obama v. Edwards
With the Iowa caucus less than forty-eight hours away, Barack Obama and John Edwards seem to be battling each other for a second place finish.
The candidates have been bashing each other with rhetoric, including Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has called out Obama's wife on some comments she may have made about her husband's campaign.
Recent Iowa polls show Senator Clinton with a small, but healthy, lead over Obama. It stands to reason that Obama would want to steal some votes from Edwards to narrow that gap. Many pundits believe that the outcome is much too close to call; however, I am sticking with Hillary to win Iowa and the Democratic Party's nomination this summer.
The candidates have been bashing each other with rhetoric, including Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has called out Obama's wife on some comments she may have made about her husband's campaign.
Recent Iowa polls show Senator Clinton with a small, but healthy, lead over Obama. It stands to reason that Obama would want to steal some votes from Edwards to narrow that gap. Many pundits believe that the outcome is much too close to call; however, I am sticking with Hillary to win Iowa and the Democratic Party's nomination this summer.
Baby Name Angst
I read an article dealing with parents who suffer "remorse" after naming their child.
Speaking from personal experience with this subject (not as a parent, but as a teacher), I deal with many, many students who have the most grandiose and silly names. Basically, I privately ask myself, "What were they drinking when they named little so-and-so?"
Of course, it sometimes comes down a singular fact that parents want to be different or simply give their child a unique identity. I can respect that, but when the name is so overstated it causes the child nothing but heartache and ridicule by their peers it has gone beyond the cute stage.
That's another thing: parents want to give their child a cute name. The problem with that is they don't realize their child must live with this cute name for the rest of his/her life. A name that is adorable and sweet at six months may not be as such when you're forty and wondering why your name is "Bitsy Mae."
It's not ironic to find that some parents actually want to change their child's name after the birth certificate has been stamped, the court clerks have filed it away for safe keeping, and the social security card has been printed. Some parents are opting to go through the legal system to get a name change. One set of parents opted to change their daughter's name from "Emma" to "Caroline," because they found it "felt strange" when they said it. (That is a bit extreme, I think.) Ironically, Caroline, who found out her name used to be Emma, now prefers to be called Emma. There will be another petition before the court in the near future, perhaps.
Another set of parents opted to rename their four year old daughter, named Sophie, Isadora. Again it came down to a single fact, which was there were too many children her age named Sophie. (I think I'd prefer to remain named Sophie.)
Although there are some rather bizarrely named children floating among us, we mustn't forget that this is their identity. It is how they announce themselves to the world. It is a bit superficial and arrogant to presume to change that identity, especially after years have gone by. If there is a need for a name change--your life is in danger--then by all means go for it. Sometimes I wish that my parents had named me differently (and for a while I privately called myself by another name), but I resigned myself to my identity. After thinking it through, it's not so bad.
The moral of this story is simple. If you're an expectant parent think about the name you will give your child. Ask yourself one simple question, "Would I like to live the next eighty years with this name?" That's all!
Speaking from personal experience with this subject (not as a parent, but as a teacher), I deal with many, many students who have the most grandiose and silly names. Basically, I privately ask myself, "What were they drinking when they named little so-and-so?"
Of course, it sometimes comes down a singular fact that parents want to be different or simply give their child a unique identity. I can respect that, but when the name is so overstated it causes the child nothing but heartache and ridicule by their peers it has gone beyond the cute stage.
That's another thing: parents want to give their child a cute name. The problem with that is they don't realize their child must live with this cute name for the rest of his/her life. A name that is adorable and sweet at six months may not be as such when you're forty and wondering why your name is "Bitsy Mae."
It's not ironic to find that some parents actually want to change their child's name after the birth certificate has been stamped, the court clerks have filed it away for safe keeping, and the social security card has been printed. Some parents are opting to go through the legal system to get a name change. One set of parents opted to change their daughter's name from "Emma" to "Caroline," because they found it "felt strange" when they said it. (That is a bit extreme, I think.) Ironically, Caroline, who found out her name used to be Emma, now prefers to be called Emma. There will be another petition before the court in the near future, perhaps.
Another set of parents opted to rename their four year old daughter, named Sophie, Isadora. Again it came down to a single fact, which was there were too many children her age named Sophie. (I think I'd prefer to remain named Sophie.)
Although there are some rather bizarrely named children floating among us, we mustn't forget that this is their identity. It is how they announce themselves to the world. It is a bit superficial and arrogant to presume to change that identity, especially after years have gone by. If there is a need for a name change--your life is in danger--then by all means go for it. Sometimes I wish that my parents had named me differently (and for a while I privately called myself by another name), but I resigned myself to my identity. After thinking it through, it's not so bad.
The moral of this story is simple. If you're an expectant parent think about the name you will give your child. Ask yourself one simple question, "Would I like to live the next eighty years with this name?" That's all!
Pakistan Retracts Bhutto Claim
Pakistani officials issued a statement saying the government would retract its original claim that Benazir Bhutto died from a skull fracture arising from hitting her head on the latch of her car's sunroof. The doctors' report states that the former prime minister died from an "open head injury with depressed skull fracture, leading to cardiopulmonary arrest." That is certainly a far cry from simply banging your head.
They decided it would be prudent to wait for the final forensics report before making claims regarding her assassination. In addition, the Interior Ministry--speaking for the government--issued a reward to anyone who can identify those responsible in Thursday's assassination of Bhutto. And for safety reasons they will keep your identity secret.
They decided it would be prudent to wait for the final forensics report before making claims regarding her assassination. In addition, the Interior Ministry--speaking for the government--issued a reward to anyone who can identify those responsible in Thursday's assassination of Bhutto. And for safety reasons they will keep your identity secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)