A sad day for equality

In all of the awe that was the election of Barack Obama, let us not overlook that while one group was seeing a major milestone in their long fight for equality, another group was being pushed back. Three states voted to alter their constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I must shake my head in shame at the thought of this.

Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, discrimination must never be written into any constitution. This country has spent more than 120 years chipping away at discrimination and slowly bringing about the equality that we are so proud of. It is an ongoing struggle to make sure that no one in this country is left behind, yet the vote for Proposition 8 shows us that we still have a long way to go.

I am especially dismayed at the exit polling which showed that 70% of African-Americans that voted in California voted in favor of Proposition 8. Now the African-American turn-out was not large enough for this to be the deciding factor in the decision, but I am very disturbed that a group that has had such a long, hard fight for their own freedom and equality would so easily vote to take such things away from others.

Back in the 1960's, after the Civil Rights Bill was signed, Virginia had laws forbidding interracial marriage. It was actually against the law for a black person to marry a white person. Mainstream society now looks back on this and thinks how crazy it is that there was a time where such laws could exist. But what if such discrimination wasn't stopped? What if such laws continued and spread to other states? Would it have been just a matter of time before Virginia proposed an amendment banning interracial marriage? I am glad we didn't have to find out.

And now here we are in the middle of another battle for equality. This time it is the homosexual community that is wanting equal marriage rights. I have heard arguments that racial equality is different from homosexual equality. As soon as you start to categorize and rank equality, we all lose. Some will argue that gay couples can have civil unions. But does that not just smell an awful lot like 'separate-but-equal'? Are we not risking going down a road that we have already been down?

I am not gay, but my church, Unitarian Universalist, is proud to have gay members. I am proud to be part of a church that has gay members. And, I recognize how dangerous it is to start making laws and amendments that take away rights.

I understand that many people have strong opinions about gay marriage. I am not writing today to try and sway your opinion on that point. My only concern right now is the idea of writing such discrimination into a constitution. When you are faced with such a decision, just try to imagine yourself in 50 years time. Think how far we have come in the last 50 years and think how far we will go in the next 50. Then ask yourself if you want to be remembered as being part of the generation that wrote discrimination into a constitution for the first time ever.

And remember this. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it is a noble thing to fight for one's rights, but it is a far nobler thing to fight for someone else's.

Wow

I always knew this was going to be an historic election. I always knew that Obama was the best man to fix the problems that George W. Bush created. I always knew that this country had an opportunity to say to the world, "the last eight years do not represent who we are." I always knew these things, but I never realized how emotionally affected I would be when the results came in.

My wife and I watch the election returns with the same enthusiasm as if we were watching the Super Bowl. There were lows when the first returns came in and McCain was up 8 to 3. There were highs when Pennsylvania was called for Obama. There were moments of uncertainty when Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia became too close to call. For 3 hours we waited for some piece of meaningful news to come in. That came with the news that Ohio was being called for Obama. That was the touchdown that puts you up by 10 points midway through the 4th quarter.

At that moment we celebrated because we knew that the only way for Obama to lose would be for McCain to somehow flip California and several other states. All we needed to do is hold serve and we would win. That last hour was long. The polls in the west closed at 11pm ET. We all knew what the results would be, but until we saw the states colored blue, I was not banking anything.

As it turned out, the final verdict caught me off guard. The polls closed at 11pm and we thought there would be a delay while some votes were tallied. I was surprised when I refreshed the ABC web page and saw California, Oregon, and Washington all blue. It was over. The news then broke on TV that Barack Obama was the President. That was the final whistle. The game was over. For 4 years Heather and I have been following Barack Obama hoping he would run, hoping he would be nominated, and hoping he would win. At least we had relief.

At first, I was struck by the joy of our candidate winning. This was the first time I ever wholeheartedly backed a candidate. To have that candidate win was so exciting. It was only later that the true significance of this candidate being the first African-American President really hit me.

I was moved when I saw the crowds in Chicago and New York. I was choked up when I saw the people in Kenya watching the results. And I teared up when I heard Barack Obama speak about the 106 year old woman who voted. As he described all she had seen and experienced in her years, it really struck me how far we have come. We are not perfect, but just look what has happened in our lifetimes.

The next day, was even more emotional. Nothing struck me more than seeing a clip of Sherry on the View talking about her son and how he would have no limitations. Just typing it gets my emotions moving again. Never again will a black child have to believe that there is anything they cannot do. Never again will a black child, or a child of any race, that grows up without a father be held back because of their family structure. The most powerful man in the world is a black man. The most powerful man in the world was raised without a father present. The most powerful man in the world is an example of what anyone, and I mean ANYONE, in this country can do if you apply yourself and believe in a brighter future.

One thing I want to be clear about. Barack Obama was not elected because he was a black man. Barack Obama was not elected because the country was 'ready for a black president'. Barack Obama was elected because he was the best man for the job. His race, religion, and upbringing are simply characteristics of the man. What makes me the most proud right now is that this country was able to see him as a man and as the better man for this job and not let preconceived notions and prejudices cloud the issue.

In so many ways, our country turned a corner this week. We said we want to fix the economy. We said we want to be the respected world leader that we used to be. We said we want to continue the march towards better days. We said we want to once again be that beckon of hope to the rest of the world. We said we are able to look beyond the superficial and see the heart of the man.

Today, I have pride in my country that I have not felt since the days following 9/11. I see the world rallying around us in a way that I have not seen since the days of 9/11. We often wonder what would have happened if George W. Bush had not squandered the international goodwill that we were graced with after 9/11. We now have an opportunity to get it right.

This is a great day for the United States of America. Be proud of where you live. Be proud of how far we have come. And be hopeful for where we can go. Take some time and soak in this moment.

Take the time now because reality has a way of forcing its way back into all situations.

ACORN in my side.

A few posts back I opined whether the Ayers 'association' was all that McCain had. It now seems he had this ACORN issue. I use the term 'issue' very loosely.

The Obama campaign has contributed to about $800,000 to groups affiliated with ACORN. The purpose of this money was to fund voter registration drives. Every candidate does such things in order to increase their potential constituency.

ACORN leads a great number of these drives. They hire people to go out and register voters. In many cases, they pay these employees based on the number of completed applications they submit.

What happened here was that a number of people submitted applications with names including the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys and Disney characters. It is pretty obvious to just about everyone that this was just a case of people padding their numbers so they can make more money. I mean, knowing these people were paid by the form, then it is not too much of a stretch to imagine some people submitted large numbers of bogus forms just to make some extra cash.

Are they gaming the system? Yes. Are they perpetrating a fraud? Yes. Is this a threat to the fabric of democracy? No.

That last question comes from Mr. McCain himself and is comical when you look at the details of this case. In order for this to be a threat to the fabric of democracy, two things would need to happen.

1) There would have to be an intention that these false forms would be used for people to vote more than once.

2) Someone would actually have to show up at the polls and attempt to vote using the names provided on these forms.

Let's have a look at each point.

First, what is the intent. Except for those trying to smear a political opponent, it is obvious that the intent was for a few people to make some extra cash that they did not really earn.

Consider that ACORN is required by law to submit to the board of elections each and every form that someone fills out. This is a good thing. You do not want any group collecting voter registration to make any determination as to whether your form should be submitted. Think about if a McCain canvasser showed up with a registration form. You fill it out and indicate you are a Democrat. It is nice to know that this canvasser is required by law to submit that form and cannot simply discard it based on a bias against Democrats.

So ACORN complied with the law in submitting the forms. In addition, they flagged most of the forms as questionable before they submitted them. It is hard to imply fraud when the person you are accusing makes it clear to you that something is amiss.

Secondly, is someone going to actually try to vote under the names listed on these forms. This is where things get really loony.

In order to actually commit election fraud, someone would have to try to vote using the names on these bogus forms. Even if it had not been flagged by ACORN, the board of elections would most certainly be suspicious of any voter registered under the name 'Mickey Mouse'. As such, this voter would be flagged in the system and would be required at the polling place to provide some proof of their identity. The fraud scheme would therefore have to require that the person posing as Mickey Mouse have a fake picture ID stating their name as Mickey Mouse. This alone would break a rule of any crime. Do not draw attention to yourself.

Mickey Mouse is an extreme example, but even if someone tried to vote using the name of an unknown Dallas Cowboys Offensive Lineman, they would be under scrutiny. The registration would have to have an address so they can confirm you are at the right polling place. This address would have to match what is on your fake ID. For this to work, every form you filled out would need to use a different address in the district. These addresses would have to be valid.

Then comes the question of who would actually vote. Anyone can get a fake ID, but if you show up at the same polling place with 10 or more different IDs, eventually someone will probably recognize you has having already been there. You would have to rotate through different polling places or have a large number of people willing to pose as fake voters. Sure, you could all vote absentee, but absentee ballots are subject to even more scrutiny for exactly this reason.

To pull this off it would have to be a coordinated effort with lots of people and lots of funding. The logistics of such a fraud would be enormous. Not insurmountable and not impossible, but enormous. And the risks of discovery would be very high.

According to Mr. McCain, this fraud is exactly what Obama has been scheming. It is ridiculous and saying that it, 'threatens the very fabric of democracy', just emphasizes the fact that you are trying to make this a larger issue than it is.

And by the way, the fact that this ACORN 'issue' was even made public might be a violation of election law. Federal agencies are required by law to keep such election fraud investigations under wraps until after the election. Making such things public risks affecting the election. But, then this is exactly what McCain wanted.

The Obama campaign has asked for an independent prosecutor to look into whether or not the Bush administration has colluded with the McCain campaign to release news of this investigation in an attempt to influence voters. Such collusion would be a violation of the law.

I am glad to see that Obama is not sitting idly by while McCain throws his mud. I don't want Obama to throw mud, but I do want him to protect his name.

Say it ain't so Joe

Attention Joe the plumber. You're 15 minutes have officially begun. Good for you and I hope you enjoy them.

I understand you take issue with the fact that Obama wishes to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000. You say it is a slippery slope that you do not want any part of. I can respect that. Surely no one wants to part with any of their hard earned money. You also said that it is not fair that just because someone works hard and makes a lot of money they should be taxed more than others. Really? I have a few questions for you Joe.

Are you implying that the single mother who works two jobs to support her children is not a hard worker? Is the father who just got laid off because his job was sent off shore just plain lazy? If someone is not earning more than, let's say, $50,000 are they just underachievers? I hope that is not what you were implying.

For your conversation, it sounds like you believe everyone should be taxed evenly. There should not be a 'penalty' for those that earn more. If I make $20,000 per year, I should be taxed 15%. If I make $250,000 per year, I should still be taxed 15%. If I make $10 million per year, I should still be taxed 15%.

Okay. That sounds fair. Let's do some math.
15% of $20,000 is $3,000
15% of $250,000 is $37,500
15% of $10 million is $1,500,000

Boy. From the looks of it those rich people are sure getting the short end of the stick. I mean $1.5 million in taxes is outrageous. Maybe you are on to something.

Now let's talk expenses. There are certain things that everyone needs to survive. Food, clothing, shelter, health-care.

Let's use the following conservative numbers.
$500 per month for food.
$500 per month for rent.
$417 per month for health-care. (That is how much you would get per month under McCain's plan.)
$250 per month for other things like utility bills and gas for your car and such.

That comes to $1,667 per month in expenses just to survive. That works out to $20,004 per year just to get by.

Let's see how our wage-earners will get by.

After their 15% tax, the person making $10 million per year has $8.5 million to play with. Subtract the $20,004 needed to survive and they have $8,479,996 left over. Phew!. Looks like they can still take that vacation and buy that mountain retreat they'd been looking at.

Let's see how the other folks fare.

Minus the 15% tax, the person making $250,000 per year takes home $212,500. After paying the $20,004 in food, shelter, and other expenses, they have $192,496 in their bank. Might have to scrimp on the Christmas presents this year, but they should be fine.

What about the person making $20,000 per year?

After their 15% tax, they are left with $17,000. Minus the $20,004 in expenses and they are $3,004 in the hole. Time to find a cheaper apartment. Have to eat a little less. I hope no one gets sick because we'll have to cut that extravagant health-care plan.

My point in all of this is that 15% hits different people quite differently. I have no doubt that Mr. $10 million has worked very hard for his money, assuming he is not the CEO of a bank. I also have no doubt that the person making $20,000 is also working very hard for their money.

No one wants socialism where everything is distributed evenly, but perhaps we can be smart about it and make sure those that are working hard but just aren't making enough can still afford to feed their children and get to work and have heat in the winter.

Mr. $10 million would hardly miss the $500,000 more he would pay if his taxes jumped 5%. In fact, with what he makes in one year he could lose his job and not work again for the rest of his life and still be able to cover those minimum expenses. Even Miss $250,000 could lose her job and still cover minimum expenses for close to 10 years. But to Mr. & Mrs. $20,000, every dollar is critical to their survival. There is no margin for error. No 'fun money'. Every year that goes by, they just get further and further behind. To them, the American Dream is a farce.

This isn't about socialism vs. capitalism. This is about compassion for our own. This is about making sure everyone at least has a fighting chance. This is about the richest country in the world not having any of its citizens living in 3rd world conditions.

So Joe. I respect your right to have you own opinion. I also respectfully disagree with you. I do not make anywhere near $250,000, but if I have to pay a little more from my pocket so that some mother and father do not have to put their children to bed hungry, then I will.

Good luck with your plumbing business.

Here's mud in your eye.

October is upon us. Less than a month before we find out who our next President will be. Obama is leading in the polls, but just ask John McCain, who was nearly ahead a month ago, how quickly fortunes can change. In fact, ask Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis what a difference October can make.

Tonight will be Presidential debate number 2. Most agree the first Presidential debate and the VP debate were a wash. No one screwed up so no one made any significant gains. In this day and age few are willing to offer up Reagan-esque quotes for fear they will be misunderstood and have a negative effect. That is fine. All I ask is that we stick to the issues. You hear me John McCain, stick to the issues.

This country is in economic trouble. John McCain has admitted himself that he does not understand all of this economic stuff. It is little surprise that he cannot get off the topic of the economy fast enough. But, for God's sake, can you at least talk about something productive?

William Ayers? Is that all you got? A man that may have done something bad when Obama was 8 years old. At man that was cleared of charges when Obama was 14 and lived in Hawaii. A man that has since been a law abiding citizen and a professor at the University of Illinois. A man that Obama did not meet until long after his radical past. A man that Obama barely knows even today. That is the best you can do?

While the rest of the country wants to know how they will find work and how they will pay the mortgage and how they will buy perscriptions, McCain wants to talk about some guy from the 60s that was never convicted of any crime and lives on the same street as Obama. Let's focus here.

Now, to be fair, Obama has also lauched his own handful of dirt. It was just a matter of time before the Keating Five got mentioned. I would have preferred the Obama camp said nothing or just let it leak through other sources rather than producing a 13 minute video, but what goes around comes around. Let's compare.

With William Ayers you have a man that purportedly did something wrong years before he met Obama. He was never convicted of anything and has since made a respectable life for himself. The man is outspoken yes, but having strong opinions is what the first ammendment allows. McCain's claim tries to link Obama to events that transpired long before Obama ever met the man.

With Charles Keating you have a man that was convicted several times of financial crimes and has served time in prison. While Keating was commiting those crime and while he was on trial, McCain and four other senators engaged in questionable dealings with him. McCain was found to have not done anything wrong except showing 'poor judgement'. On any other day I would say this is not even news worthy, but if you are going to draw some fuzzy line between Obama and a man that was never convicted of anything, should we now also draw a line between McCain and a man who was?

Where Obama didn't even know William Ayers while he was supposedly doing the things that he was never tried for, McCain was directly related to the man that was convicted of crimes and McCain was himself put under review for his actions. The double standard that McCain is trying to use is ludicrous.

With that mud slinging aside, can we please get back to the real issues?

Who's looking out for you?

I am getting sick to my stomach watching this country once again lean towards an unqualified Republican for president. It is as though no one is really paying attention to the issues and is just looking at the headlines and making their decisions. Or they are watching nothing but Fox News and thinking they are getting the whole story.

A poll this week indicated a complete reversal in approval from Obama to Palin among women voters. I am suspecting that these are the Hillary supporters that have decided it is better to have woman in office that does not support any women's rights issues than to have the man who beat Hillary in the primary.

A poll also indicated that Palin's support has come mainly from men. I find it sad to think that there is such a large contingent of men that would shift there approval to another party just because there is a young-looking woman on the ticket. Even on such a superficial level I could not support her. I find her voice to be screechy. I think her tone is reminiscent of Bush. And, I don't her hair.

I can sleep soundly at night though because I do not vote on such a superficial level. I look at the issues and vote based on who I think will solve them the best. In that regard I find Palin and McCain severely lacking.

All of this got me thinking about the election as a whole and trying to interpret who is really looking out for me.

I find it interesting that Obama could have chosen the easy path and picked Hillary to run with him. That would have clearly brought over her contingent and probably sealed the election. He could have brought in someone from a swing state with the hopes that they would bring him those few electoral votes that might make the difference. He could have done these things, but he didn't.

Obama brought in someone from a state that he was already going to win. A state that only has 3 electoral votes to begin with. And, with apologies to Delaware, a state that few look to as a barometer to how the country thinks. Why did he do this?

He did this because it was right. He needed experience on his ticket. He needed someone that would fight for what the middle class needs. He needed someone that shares his beliefs and will make them the most effective once they are in office. Joe Biden was that person. Obama didn't take the easy path or the political path, he took the right path.

What did McCain do?

McCain realized there were a large number of voters that supported Hillary that were stupid enough to actually vote for any woman regardless of what she stood for. He realized that there were men stupid enough to vote for the 'attractive' woman. He realized that he could not win this election based on the issues so he will have to cheat his way in through political maneuvering. So far, it is working.

Just consider this. Would you rather have the candidate that is making decisions based on what he feels is right for his party, or the candidate that is making decisions based on what he feels is right for you?

I know my answer.

I'll take Biden anyday

In my last post I stated my desire for Obama to select Wesley Clark as his running mate. That was not to be. I was at first unsure about Biden. Part of me is still unsure if he will put the ticket over the top, but I am not shedding any tears about Clark being left out. Biden is certainly more charismatic.

One thing that has been in the news over and over is how so many Hillary supporters are ticked off that he did not pick Hillary. Even to the point where many said they would vote for McCain instead of Obama. That is ridiculous. If you would vote for a Republican just because your democrat was not chosen, then you are obviously out of touch with the issues and are participating in the process for the wrong reasons.

In addition, Hillary did absolutely nothing to make it seem as though she wanted the VP job or to convince her supporters to back Obama. It was just like the primaries where she seemed to think it was a given and made no effort to seal the deal. As though Obama would say, 'I can't win without Hillary', and pick her by default.

While I usually cannot stand listening to her, I was very impressed with her speech at the convention. I can see that the role call vote was just an opportunity for her to get some good press during the convention. I am fine with that. I have to wonder if she would have been the VP choice if she had been giving speeches like her convention speech ever since she dropped out. She just dropped off the planet for 2 months without saying a single word of support for Obama and people are surprised she is not the VP choice?

Now on the Republican side all I can say is they continue to give me reasons I am glad I am a Democrat. Pailn? Seriously? Obama's 8 years in the state Senate and 4 years in the US Senate is not enough experience to be President, but a few years as mayor of town of 6700 in Alaska and 2 years as Governor of Alaska is? If there is logic there, then I do not know what it is.

It is painfully obvious that McCain was trying to pull in the female voters that were so infatuated with Hillary. But is this woman the best he could find? And perhaps a background check would have been in order. This has all the makings of a typical Bush Whitehouse personnel decision. Hire some unqualified buddy to fill and important position and then accuse everyone else of being crazy for questioning it. Oh yeah. McCain is all about change.

Obama/Biden 2008

Securing America's Borders

I heard through my wife that the theme for Wednesday night of the Democratic National Convention is Securing America's Borders. This would seem to indicate a foreign policy or military angle to the evening. Wednesday is also the night that the Vice-Presidential candidate gives their speech.

Now I did not reach this conclusion on my own, but I will point out that General Wesley Clark's website is www.securingamerica.com. Wesley Clark is a Democrat. Is the theme for the night just a coincidence or could this be a hint at who the VP choice will be.

Wesley Clark has not been mentioned for some time with regard to the VP list. This would seem to indicate that he is not on the short list. But then again, there are only a few people privy to the short list so no one really knows anything.

I will say that I personally prefer General Clark as a VP choice over any of the other names I have heard. With Clark you get a former 4-star general with loads of foreign policy experience. He would probably bring with him a fair number of moderate conservatives. He would mute all of the arguments about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

I have heard that he is not a great campaigner and that might hurt his chances, but I will be concerned and disappointed if the choice is someone like Evan Bayh. I just can't get excited about an unknown that will just beg for the Republican's to question the ticket's experience.

So. My vote is for Wesley Clark. I suppose we will find out soon enough.

Politics AND Religion. Oh boy!!

We were in Pet Smart the other day and had a conversation with a couple employees regarding Obama. One was a supporter and a proud Democrat, much like us. The other was an older woman who did not volunteer her affiliation other than to say she was 'confused'. As we talked I realized just how confused she was.

During the conversation, the older woman asked if we believed the stuff that was being said about Obama. Not really knowing what she was talking about, I asked her to be more specific. She said, "Like that he is Muslim and was sworn in on the Qur'an." My jaw probably dropped upon realizing there are still people that believe this rumor -- especially after all of the coverage Reverend Wright received.

We responded that the rumor was not true. Obama is a Christian and was sworn in on a bible. She then made the statement that really concerned me. She said, "Okay, because that really scares the devil out of me."

Say what?

Is this the message that the Bush Administration has perpetuated? I found myself in the awkward position of having to clear up the confusion by professing that Obama is not a Muslim, while at the same time thinking to myself, so what if he was?

Was this woman, and I presume many others, so naive that they are actually scared of all Muslims? We have had a God-fearing Christian in the White House for nearly 8 years that has done nothing but run this country into the ground and is directly responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 men and women in an unjust war in Iraq, not even counting those that have been mentally and physically disabled, yet it is the Muslims who are to be feared? I do not get it.

This type of sterotypical prejudice ticks me off. I am especially angered by the thought that most of the people saying they fear Muslims couldn't even tell you one thing about the Islam religion. To them Muslim = Terrorist and that is the end of it.

Sure, there are Muslim extremists who will use Islam as a justification for blowing up a bus in Jerusalem. There are also Christian extremeist who have attacked and even killed doctors who perform abortions in this country. In neither case should these incidents be used to paint all Muslims and Christians with the same brush.

Let us not forget that there are about 1.5 billion, yes billion, Muslims on this planet and a slightly greater number of Christians. Should the disturbing actions of a few hundred, or even thousand, be enough to imply the entire group is evil?

I am not a Muslim. I am not a Christian. I am not a Jew. I am a Unitarian Universalist. I believe that this is a great big world and there is room for people to have a lot of different beliefs. I believe that our ability to accept those with different beliefs is what defines each of us.

The next time I am asked if Obama is a Muslim, I will respond that he is not, but his religious affiliation alone should not make any difference in our opinion of the man.

Mission Accomplished ... well almost.

Fifteen months after officially announcing his candidacy, Barack Obama is now the presumptive nominee for the Democratic party. Hillary is going to be withdrawing from the race on Saturday and we can then officially turn our attention to defeating Bush, er, I mean, McCain in November. I get them confused sometimes.

After watching Obama's speech in Minnesota on Tuesday, I continue to be inspired. He is a speaker that I look forward to listening to. The word 'hope' has been overused in the campaign, but that is the best word to describe what Obama offers when he speaks.

One of the legacies of FDR was that he was a stabilizing and comforting force during the Great Depression. He calmed the nation and let it be known that we were all in it together and we would get out of it together. That is the feeling I get when I listen to Barack Obama. No matter how dire the economy is or how much I have to pay for gas, I feel that we can work through the problems and America will be a better place when it is done. That is how I want to feel when I listen to my President.

We are 15 months in and have 6 months to go. It can be argued that this was the easy part. The general election process is much different from primaries. There is no splitting of delegates in the general election. It is all or nothing. Losing 49% to 51% might as well be 0% to 100% so every vote is critical.

We have crossed one threshold and now the real fight begins.

Whatcha gotta do to get a little love around here?

Just a few primaries remain and the Democratic race is still going on. I really had hoped that Obama would close the gap a little more in Pennsylvania, but it was not to be.

I don't quite understand how Obama can win states like South Carolina and Alabama and Mississippi by 15-20 points and everyone just says, "Well, he was supposed to win there", and nothing more is made of it.

Yet Hillary wins Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas like she was expected to, and every one is acting like it was some huge upset on her part.

How can it be an upset if you were supposed to win in the first place?

Not to mention she won by much smaller margins than people were saying she would win by.

You can be honest, but I need you to lie about it.

Now that a week or so has passed and everyone has had a chance to chew on both Rev. Wright's comments and Obama's speech, I figured I would give my two cents.

I find it interesting how race in this country is a big white elephant. For some reason it is always an issue, but few people want to talk about it. The feeling seems to be that if we just pretend it isn't there, it will go away.

We get the occasional news piece about Obama's upbringing and some references during debates to the historical significance of his candidacy. But, generally, everyone is scared to go too far for fear of being accused of racism. So it all stays bottled up inside a pressure-cooker.

That is until a former Congresswoman makes some questionable statements and some videos surface of Obama's maverick pastor. It then explodes to the front-page of the news and for a period of time, the media can freely acknowledge that Barack Obama is black without fear that they are raising something they shouldn't have. After all, the media didn't bring it up. Geraldine Ferraro did. The media didn't expose Reverend Wright. You Tube did. The media just reported the news, as they should, and they got to do the stories that they had been wanting to report but were afraid to.

So here we are. We have a black man running for President and now the country has to officially acknowledge this and consider exactly what that means. For most people, it doesn't mean a whole lot because it really has nothing to do with his policies or how well he can lead this country. For others, it makes all of the difference and seeing the inner-workings of a black church will permanently sway their vote to Hillary.

There are people in this country that would never in their life vote for a black man. There are people in this country that would never vote for a woman. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Catholic. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Jew. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Californian. Or a Baptist. Or a Mid-westerner. Or a Floridian. And on and on and on.

While I think basing one's choices on such petty things is a shame, such is the nature of a free society. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings. Some people will just be ignorant and will never see past the superficial layer to realize that the black man they would never vote for, might just be the one that will keep their job from being shipped overseas. It is their right to think whatever they want to think and do what they want to do.

Now, Obama gave a speech last Tuesday where he talked about race in this country. He was quite candid. Many felt it was a watershed moment in this campaign. Others felt it was just an example of how poor a choice for President Mr. Obama is. I personally think the best thing about the speech was its lack of outright political posturing.

Obama did not simply make a speech designed to put race out there and then neatly shove it back in the closet lest it cause more trouble. He made a speech about race and challenged everyone to deal with it openly. He did not pander to anyone by disowning his pastor of 20 years. He acknowledged the nature of his pastor's sermons and put them in context. He then left the audience to draw their conclusions, even if those conclusions hurt his campaign. To me, this shows great respect for the American people.

He recognized that one speech is not going to change the opinions of anyone, so why try. This was not a topic to be playing around with. This was a serious moment, there were some points that needed to be raised and clarified, and I think he dealt with it exactly how he needed to.

Can we move on now?

Just don't call me a monster

In the last 2 weeks both the Obama and Clinton camps have had to deal with ill-advised comments made by their staff. How each campaign handled the situations says a lot about each--and re-enforces my feeling that Obama is the force for change while Clinton would just be George W. Bush as a Democrat.

Let's just do a quick comparison of the quotes.

Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro made this statement. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Obama's foreign policy advisor Stephanie Powers made this comment. "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,"


First of all, I ask this. Which of these 2 statements is more inflammatory?

In Ferraro's statement you have an accusation that Obama got where he is because of who he is, not what he has done. Could the same not be said about Clinton?

Would she really be Senator from New York and a viable candidate for President had Bill not already been in office? Prior to his election in 1992 she had no exposure on the national level. Prior to her election to the Senate, she had never held political office. Such arguments are tacky, however, and the Obama campaign has been wise enough to stay above such tactics.

In Powers' statement she makes an accusation that Clinton will do anything to win. In looking at the comment, it could be taken a couple ways. She could be using the term 'monster' as a derogatory term about Clinton's character. Or, she could be saying 'monster' in the sense that Clinton is a force to be reckoned with. The former is a bit over the line. The latter is strictly a valid political statement.

All in all, I think both statements were ill-conceived. The idea behind what they were trying to say was lost as a result the words they chose to use.


Now, let's look at the reaction to each statement.

For her part, Stephanie Power's was asked to resign due to the comments she made. She complied and stepped down from her position on the campaign. She passed along that Obama, "... made it absolutely clear that we just couldn't make comments like this in his campaign."

I believe this says a lot about how Obama wishes to run his campaign. This is not the first staffer that has made damaging remarks to the media about Clinton and it is not the first time he has asked them to resign because of it.


Meanwhile, Ferraro remains on the Clinton staff and Clinton dismissed the issue by saying, "... both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues — let's stay focused on that."

In response to the 'monster' issue, Clinton said, "I think Sen. Obama did the right thing, but I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors. Particularly when they are talking to foreign governments and foreign press."

So Obama reacted correctly by releasing a staffer who was not careful in choosing her words, but when a Clinton staffer does something similar, some would say worse, it is okay and we all just need to move on. This sure sounds like how George W. Bush would handle things.


I personally think that both issues got blown out of proportion. The monster comment was just a slip and there really wasn't much there. The Ferraro comment was out of line, but it was really jumped on because it had a racial tone.

The real impact for me is looking at how each campaign responded. Based on that, I am even more convinced that Obama walks the walk while Clinton is 'Just Words'**.


** This is an excerpt from a speech given by Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. I wouldn't want anyone accusing me of plagiarism.

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

Everyone knows that Hillary loves to brag about here 35 years of experience helping people and how Obama is all talk and has no detailed plans. And everyone knows that Barack has generally let this slide unchecked--far too long in my opinion. Well, after Texas and Ohio he finally made some comments that I hope get some traction.

He simply raised the question of her experience. He asked that she be vetted on this experience that she claims to have. That she offer some proof of her critical decision-making while she was in the White House. Hillary is so quick to dismiss Obama's time in the Illinois legislature and pounce on his 'present' votes, yet during all of her years of 'experience', she was never accountable to anyone. She was not elected. She did not have to vote on policy. She did not once have to stick her neck out for anyone.

Meredith Vieira brought this up way back on January 2nd, but I cannot understand why Hillary is getting such a pass on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs


I am not saying Hillary is a liar, at least not on this post, but I just think that she needs to be held accountable to the claims she is making. Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet and no one has forgotten it. Alexander Haig claimed he was second in the line of succession to the Presidency and people still talk about it. How is it that Hillary can claim her role as First Lady gives her more experience than being a state legislator, but no one wants to bring it up?

Don't call it a comeback!

So Hillary won Texas and Ohio. Much of the media, and Hillary herself, is calling this a comeback and a sign that her campaign is revitalized. But there is something I am confused about.

She was up by 20 points in Texas 3 weeks ago. She was also up by 20 points in Ohio a few weeks ago. So she was a shoo-in for a victory in each state. yet she only won by 3 and 12 points respectively.

I am not sure how you can call it a come back when everyone expected you to win in the first place. In fact, I see it as a loss since her 20 point lead in Texas was only 3 by the time that the election came. And, as it turns out, Obama earned one more delegate than she did because Texas also holds a caucus, which he won handily. Obviously she won big in Ohio, but still not by nearly as much as the polls had shown a few weeks ago.

If anyone had a comeback here, it is Obama. He was polling as behind by 20 points in each and within 2 weeks he knocked 17 points off that in Texas and 8 points off that in Ohio. At the end of the day he maintained his pledged delegate advantage. Considering the hole he was in, I'd say his performance in those primaries is much more impressive.

The beat goes on...

I keep hoping that Obama will lock this thing down, but just when it seems like he will, he comes up a little short. And base don Hillary's personality, I think she plans on taking the Huckabee approach. She will stay in until Barack has passed the pledged delegate milestone.

I am encouraged by the fact that she had a 20 point lead in each state 2 weeks ago, but that was closed to 3 points in Texas and 12 points in Ohio. Ohio is the real disappointment. If he could have kept that split under 9, then I think today's discussions would be quite different.

Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week. Minor states that will decide nothing except momentum. They are really must-wins for Obama since the next primary is not until Pennsylvania on 4/22. That is a long time to wait if you lose. I expect Mississippi to be a land-slide in his favor. Wyoming will probably be more split.

I think this race comes down to Pennsylvania now. If Hillary does not have a victory on the order of her win in Ohio, then the odds of her winning drop substantially and I think there will be pressure for her to drop out.

Please just go away

With spygate rearing its head again, I need to just share my thoughts.

First of all, if the Patriots are found to have done more than they admitted to back in September, then I will be the first one to say that the punishment should be severe. But I think it should be severe for the coach, the owner, and his staff, not the players. More draft picks. Fines. Suspensions of even a full season would not be out of order. But do not punish the players or the fans by doing something like banning them from the post-season.

Secondly, I return to my original argument that even if the Patriots had video tape of signals and knew exactly what the defensive calls were, I do not see how that would help the Patriots own defense that performed so amazingly in the Super Bowl against the Rams. I also remind everyone that just knowing what someone is going to do does not mean you will be able to beat it. Tom Brady still has to make throws. David Patten still has to catch the ball. Adam Vinatieri still has to kick a 48 yard field goal. In the Super Bowl and 3 weeks earlier in a driving snow storm. No knowledge of signals caused that ball to sail through the uprights.

Finally, I offer this. We know that 5 days before the 2007 season started a memo was sent clearly stating that video taping was illegal. We know that the rule had been present since the 2006 season. What I have never heard is whether or not the rule, in any form, existing during the Super Bowl years.

It is quite easy to say that they video taped the Jets and that was bad, but to retroactively go back and say everything they did before that has been called into question is jumping the gun. While Belichick's claim that he mis-interpreted the rule from 2007 is ludicrous, if the rule was not so clear in 2001, 2003, or 2004, then let's not question those victories.

Illegal contact was not a point of emphasis until the 2004 season. The rule was there when aggressive defenses like the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers won Super Bowls. We do not now go back an diminish their accomplishments because the rule is now 'emphasized'.

I am not saying that the Patriots were not breaking the rules in the Super Bowl years. They were video taping and I am assuming that the specific rule has been unchanged since those years. However, the specifics of the rule and the importance of it may not have come to light until the last couple years. So do not cast doubts on preceding years.

It is amazing what desperation will make you do.

Hillary has lost 10 straight primaries and caucuses. She is losing her core demographics to Obama. The polls in Texas show Obama making significant gains. She has to win in a land-slide in both Texas and Ohio to have a chance. And to top it all off, the Teamsters union just endorsed Barrack Obama.

And what does Hillary do when things start going bad? She brings out the negative ads and rhetoric.

Since there is nothing she can do or say to make herself seem like the better candidate, her only recourse is to make Obama look bad. In essence, instead of letting the people know that the Democrats are the party of ideas and change, she instead says that when it comes to Democrats she is the lesser of two evils.

She has established herself, with questionable logic, as the candidate with the most experience. In doing so she cannot possibly be the candidate of change that everyone is looking for.

She has been touting her experience working on healthcare as a plus in her column. Nevermind that she was a failure at changing the healthcare system when she first tried in 1994.

She has said she is the best person to end the war in Iraq. Yet she voted for the war when Obama was standing up against it.

In short, her campaign is faltering and so she is resorting to desperate meassures and it is just making her look even worse.

These words are my own, but they used to be someone else's

Okay. So Obama supposedly 'stole' some phrases from a speech given by Deval Patrick several years ago. Deval Patrick is one of Obama's campaign co-chairs and had given permission for Barrack to use the words. Barrack did not give credit during the speech to Deval, or his speech-writer, and the Clinton administration made quite a fuss over this.

In Hillary's eyes she has only ever used words and phrases that came from her own pen--as though she does not have speech writers. And she certainly never borrows phrases from others right?

Well just check this out and you tell me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0sjnKeEH7c&feature=related

I guess the door does not swing both ways.

Is that fiscal responsibility?

So Hillary had to loan herself $5 million in order to be competitive on Super Tuesday. And the rumors are that many of her staffers had to work for free leading up to Super Tuesday. And the end result is a tie with Barack Obama.

So here we have a candidate that is accepting money from lobbyists and PACs and Special Interest groups and she still doesn't have enough to run her campaign. A candidate who is so broke her paid supporters had to become volunteer supporters. A candidate that is expecting the public to believe she can manage the economy of the country. When the government runs out of money, you cannot just ask the people to work for free.

Barack Obama raised more than twice as much money as she did in January. And he did not get any of it from PACs or Lobbyists or Special Interest groups. His paid staffers continue to be paid staffers. He is ready for the stretch run because he has spent wisely. That says a lot about his ability to manage this country's economy.

Do not doubt that Obama can get it done

The latest polls released today show that Obama has closed the gap on Hillary in Super Tuesday states. While Clinton is still ahead in most, the gap in many cases is within the polls margin of error.

This is encouraging and hopefully bodes well for a strong finish tomorrow.

I think this is the most important poll I have seen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

It is a comparison of who would win in the general election against each of the republican candidates.

Obama wins against all republican candidates by a wider margin than Hillary. In fact, Hillary would actually lose if she were running against John McCain, the current Republican front-runner.

Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

Back in September the Patriots were caught cheating by video taping the Jets defensive signals. The party line from the Patriots camp was that they misunderstood the rule. I think the rule read something like, under no circumstances can you film the other teams signals, but whatever.

They were caught, they were fined, they turned over the tapes, supposedly, and the league moved on. There was some discontent that the NFL did not disclose what was on the tapes. Specifically, did the Patriots video tape the Super Bowls?

A couple days before Super Bowl XLII, a former Patriots staffer comes forward and announces that he had been instructed to video tape the St. Louis Rams walk through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. Naturally the Rams former QB starts touting how he was suspicious that something was up and all Patriots haters start shouting, 'I knew it!'

Here are my feelings on 'Spygate'.

What the Patriots did was wrong and rightfully throws into question all of their success. They broke the rules and I think they got off easy. I was expecting Belichick to get suspended for at least a game or two. They brought it on themselves and it is a shame that everything they worked for will now be under a cloud of suspicion.

That being said, I think the value of having such tapes is minimal. It is perfectly legal for a team to be in possession of the opponents signals. The rule is only that you cannot use video cameras to do it. So, it is not against the rules for them to have the information. What is against the rules is how they obtained it.

Think of it like stealing a candy bar. There is nothing wrong with having a candy bar in your possession. The problem is the fact that you stole to get it. If you had paid for it, then no one can complain. If the Patriots had a person with a pen and paper making notes of the signals, there would have been no violation. Do not confuse the legal information they had, with the illegal way they obtained it.

Also, no matter what information you have, you still have to execute. Tom Brady still has to throw the ball to just the right spot. David Patten has to run a perfect route and make sure he gets down in bounds. Adam Vinatieri still has to hit that 48 yard field goal. Knowing a defensive signal will not help J.R. Redmond wisely dive for the sideline to stop the clock.

Supposedly the Rams walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI covered their red zone offense. Well, the Rams were only in the red zone twice and they scored a TD on one of those trips. And let's not forget that the Patriots only won by 3 points. Not exactly the blow you would expect if you had such a great unfair advantage.

And one final point. Just knowing what the opponent will do, is no guarantee that you can do anything about it. In Super Bowl XXXIX, the Patriots lined up for a play in Eagles territory late in the game. The Eagles defense could be heard yelling, "Screen. It's a screen.", prior to the snap. The Patriots snapped the ball and in fact ran a screen pass. The Eagles could not stop it and the Patriots picked up about 14 yards.

The Eagles knew the Patriots were going to run a screen and couldn't stop it. How did they know? They learned the Patriots signals--presumably using a legal method. Even armed with the information, they still couldn't stop it. Why? Because the players still have to execute.

So I do not dispute that the Patriots brought great dishonor upon themselves, but I do not believe for a minute that this violation contributed to any of their success.

Its not how you start, it is how you finish.

My New England Patriots started the season on a tear. They ripped through opponents who seemed to be better suited for Division 1-A college ball than the NFL. They were in a class by themselves.

As the season wore on they began to look beatable. A close finish against Philly, a near miss in Baltimore. They were even grounded by the Jets. Then came the Giants and a chance at history.

The December match-up was like watching a street brawl. The Patriots took it on the chin and the mouth and the gut and managed to get just enough of their own punches in to clinch the first ever 16-0 season. But the damage was done. While the Patriots flower began to fade and wilt, the Giants seeds of success were planted right there on the field turf of the Meadowlands.

The Giants took their growing confidence on the road and beat 3 opponents using the same techniques that worked against the Patriots. That is, punch them over and over until they succumb in the fourth quarter.

The Patriots, meanwhile, stayed home. They took a week off to revel in their success. They then scored a couple more records against the Jags, though the holes in the armor were still evident. While their victory against the Chargers was never truly in doubt, they didn't seem to be the awesome powerhouse of a couple months before.

They obviously saved their worst for last. The Giants picked up right where they left off and punched and kicked the Patriots into submission. The Patriots did not help their cause by implementing possibly the worst offensive game plan I've witnessed. In fact, it seemed to be the same game plan they barely made work the last time they faced the Giants.

The game was really decided in the first 10 minutes. The Giants drove down the field and kicked a field goal, eating up about 9 minutes in the process. That kept the Patriots 'explosive' offense off the field for nearly 30 minutes after kick-off. Then, on the Patriots first offensive snap, Brady takes a sack. The tone of the game was set and despite the Patriots going down and scoring a TD on that drive, that was all they had.

Hats off to the Giants. They played exactly how they wanted to and needed to and did what many thought was impossible. They proved the lesson that it doesn't matter if you win the first 18 games, the only one that really matters is the last one.

Pick me, pick me, pick me!!!

So Edwards has decided to call it quits. He now moves into the official roll of king-maker.

While he supposedly will not do so at his speech this afternoon, it is only a matter of time before he puts his endorsement on one of the remaining candidates. Such an endorsement will be huge as Clinton and Obama are very close. Which ever candidate can get the Edwards followers will take a lead that will be hard to overcome.

There are two questions. Who will Edwards endorse and when will he do so?

Given that he ran his campaign as the non-establishment candidate with a vision of change, it would be logical that he would endorse Barack Obama. However, nothing is certain in the political world and he may go with Clinton with the belief that she has the best chance to win in November.

If he were to endorse Obama, then it is critical that he do it before the end of this week. That needs to be the headline over the weekend leading into Super Tuesday. The word must get out before the country votes. If he endorses Clinton, then it does not matter as much because she already has a lead in many key states and his endorsement would not be as critical.

There is always the possibility that he strikes up a deal with Obama or Clinton to be their running mate if he endorses them and they get the nomination. I find it unlikely that he would be the VP candidate again, but it would be an interesting play on his part considering he does not have to endorse anyone and the threat of endorsing the other candidate might be too much.

He may have dropped out, but he has a very interesting role to play in this campaign.

Have terrorists infiltrated the government?

The Oxford dictionary defines terrorism as the following.

The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

So terrorism is causing fear so that you can achieve a political end. Obviously bombing a crowded market or a bus or hijacking a plane would fall into this category. But I offer this.

If you tell someone that they should be afraid and that their risk of danger is increased unless you vote for them or their party, is that not the same thing? Are you not instilling fear to achieve a political end?

Isn't telling the population that terrorists are coming and we need to be afraid playing exactly into the hands of what terrorism is all about? The terrorists want us to be afraid. If we admit that we are, then they have won.

I am not saying that anyone in the government is planning to bomb a market or hijack an airplane. I am just saying that the tactics used by the President and some members of Congress to scare up votes sure seem to be playing on the same emotions that the terrorists are aiming for.

By doing so, they are admitting that the terrorists have won and using the same tactics as those they say they will protect you from.

Did Rudy even run a campaign?

I had not been terribly interested in the Republican side of the primaries, but I am perplexed by the situation with Rudy Guliani.

While Romney and McCain were fighting over New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina, word was that Guliani was skipping all the preliminaries and focusing on Florida and Super Tuesday. Yet, when Florida rolled around he finished fourth and promptly went home. Other than the debates, it was like he wasn't even in this race.

Either he has the worst campaign strategist ever or he just thought people would just rise up and carry him into the Oval Office based only on his name. While he did clean up New York city, his whole campaing was based on the fact that he happened to be the Mayor of New York City on 9/11. He subscribed to the same fear-mongering that Bush does and that was really all he had.

I am not surprised that he dropped out. I am just surprised that he bothered to run.

If I look away it is like she isn't even there

So Hillary came over to shake hands with Ted Kennedy and/or Barack Obama after the State of the Union address. As Ted reached out and shook hands, Barack kept clapping and turned away almost refusing to make eye contact.

Here is a woman who just spent two weeks bad mouthing Obama and dragging his name through the mud simply to try to win a state that her husband later said was not very important. And this snub is surprising why? I am sure she went home afterwards and had a good cry for being neglected.

Who am I kidding? She only cries when the cameras are rolling and there are a few votes on the line.

I am much more concerned about who Barack did shake hands with. One George W. Bush shook his hand and they even exchanged some words after the speech.

That has bad juju written all over it.

Another 2 for 1 sale

When Bill ran he joked that, if elected, we would get two for the price of one. He was referring, of course, to he loud-mouthed, opinionated wife.

I seem to recall an awful lot of Who Elected Her bumper-stickers shortly after the election was over.

We now have the reverse. Hillary running and Bill voicing his opinions and making quite a ruckus. Whenever Bill makes a controversial statement, Hillary plays all sweet and remarks that Bill is just being Bill.

I see two possibilities here, neither of which I particularly like.

1) Bill is a rogue element in her campaign that she cannot control. If that is the case, what will happen if she is elected. Will Bill get a desk in the Oval Office? If she cannot control her husband, then how can she run the country?

2) Bill is doing exactly what her campaign is asking him to do. In this case Hillary is just a slimy politician and is doing exactly the kind of thing that Obama wants to get rid of when he talks about change.

If you thought Bush was Cheney's puppet, imagine the Hillary and Bill show part II.

Tell the Republicans I found their playbook?

As a registered democrat it pains me to see all of the negative campaigning coming from the Clinton camp. When it comes down to it, we are all on the same team and it just makes Democrats look bad at this stage. Save it for the Republicans.

No doubt Obama has thrown a few shots back, but it sure seems to me that he is doing so more out of defense for what is being thrown his way. Until Hillary lost Iowa it was a fairly clean campaign and despite being an Obama supporter, I would have been happy for Hillary to win. But her campaign has sunk to the lowest levels of late and it is exactly what I do not like in Washington.

She likes to question Obama's relationship with a shady land owner. That is fine. But if we want to talk shady land deals, can anyone say 'Whitewater'?

You can tell me that they were found to not have committed any wrong-doing. Thus far I have not seen any evidence that Obama did anything wrong with his client either, so why bring it up?

That is called mud-slinging. Make the opponent look bad to take the focus off your own indiscretions and poor judgment. Then criticize the opponent as being political when they try to set the record straight.

Hmm. This sounds familiar.

What is her experience exactly?

Super Tuesday is nearly upon us. Clinton just picked up another victory in a state where she was the only one to campaign. Interesting that the only two states that she has handily beat Obama are the two states that he did not campaign in.

I get so aggravated whenever someone brings up her 'experience' as a deciding factor over Obama. What experience is that? Four more years in the senate than Barack - during which time she voted to allow the President to go to war in Iraq. Is that supposed to make me feel good?

I suppose she counts her time as the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States. I think Chris Rock put it best when describing that. Who would you rather have flying the plane, the pilot or the pilot's wife?

She criticizes Obama for lack of experience and how he voted 'present' while in the state senate on a number of issues. I ask you this. During her extensive experience as the First Lady, how exactly was she held accountable? Can someone point me to some of her tough policy decisions she had to make. She never had to put her name to a vote on anything and never had any more pull than a common citizen to get anything accomplished. While Obama was a state senator in Illinois making tough decisions for his state, Hillary was dressing pretty and putting on a good face for the country. I do not think the latter trumps the former.

And let's not forget that no one heard of Hillary Clinton until Bill ran for President. And I seem to recall a fair number of people being quite upset whenever she got involved in the political game. She would have never been senator of New York had Bill not been President. She would certainly not be in a position to run for President had Bill not been President.

I will take Obama's actual legislative experience over Hillary's imagined experience any day.