For a long time the Republicans have been saying 'drill, baby, drill' while the Democrats have been cool to the idea. I have agreed with the Democrats that we need to find alternative fuel sources. Aside from the environmental concerns, drilling for oil is not a long-term strategy because there is only so much oil to be had.
A few weeks ago, President Obama announced his new energy plan, which included increasing the amount of off shore drilling. This was to appease the Republicans and, in the interest of compromise and bi-partisanship, I had no issues with it. Let's increase our domestic oil production while we also improve on long term alternatives.
The accident in the gulf has now put both parties in an awkward situation.
The Republicans cannot complain because everyone knows that they have been wanting more off shore drilling for a long time. To make a big fuss over the environmental catastrophe that is about to take place would be the same as admitting they had been short-sighted all this time.
Since President Obama had just recently agreed to allow off shore drilling, the Democrats also lost an opportunity to say, 'I told ya so', to the Republicans. Had Obama's speech been just a few weeks later, you know the Democrats would have been all over it.
So what we have here is a rare case where an event with all the potential to have serious political consequences, is being kept very low key by both sides. Neither side can benefit from making it a big issue. Naturally the pundits will make their accusations, but few in the mainstream will take a chance that an off-hand remark will come back and bite them.
I can only hope that the lack of political advantage for either side means that energy will instead be focused on actually fixing the problem and quickly cleaning up the mess before Lake Pontchartrain looks like Prince William Sound circa March 24, 1989.
I have long been a believer that those getting their news exclusively from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and other such places are not getting the whole story.
I also know that those who only watch MSNBC and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are doing themselves a similar disservice.
These are all people who make money by delivering ratings. The commentators, in particular, deliver ratings by spouting extreme opinions on subjects. Rush does so from the right and Keith does the same thing from the left. To those that lean left or right, those opinions are entertaining, but they should not be mistaken for news.
You cannot realistically stand up in support or opposition to something unless you do your own research. To take someone else's opinion as fact is dangerous and helps no one. One side is hurt because you propagate misinformation. The other side is hurt because you do not truly understand what your position is so you cannot answer questions to support it.
As you might expect, I am currently referring to the ongoing 'debate' over Health Care Reform. I put debate in quotes because debates are generally civil and based on facts. At a minimum the facts in question are grey areas that can be interpreted differently. That is not the case here.
What we have seen over the past couple months are instead arguments with no (or little) factual basis and, in some cases, little relation to the topic in question. For the most part we have attempts by people and groups to prevent debate by occupying the microphone as long as possible. In congress this is called a filibuster.
A filibuster is when a member of congress holds the floor endlessly so that an item cannot be debated or voted on. As long as they keep talking, and they can talk about anything they want, then they hold the floor and nothing else can be done. Here we have the general public engaging in the mother of all filibusters.
This past weekend there was a heavily attended march on Washington with people protesting the Obama Administration. The march was not specifically aimed at the health care issue, but was more a protest against all things Obama. There were numerous signs claiming Obama is both a Fascist and a Socialist -- a contradiction in itself.
I found this video which had me swinging between being sad and mad.
To be fair, I am sure that the person assembling this video used only those people that would help make their video better. My problem is that the people in this video are the people that are getting the most attention and are also the ones that seem to be the least informed.
Don't just claim Obama is a Fascist. Learn what Fascism actually is and explain what, specifically, you think he has done to demonstrate Fascist tendencies. How do those actions compare to things that other Presidents have done? Would you consider them to be Fascist as well?
If you think the country is moving towards Socialism, then put together an argument listing out the specific programs that appear Socialist in nature and why you think they are wrong. Be prepared to explain why other programs that could be considered Socialist are okay -- such as Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. Of course if you think all of these programs should be abolished as well, then be prepared to discuss how you would prefer to solve the problems that they solve.
If you are upset about all of these 'Czars' that exist in the government, then do some research into who these people are. What responsibilities and powers do they have? Who created that position? How long are they in office? Who do they report to? What is their actual title? (hint: there is no government office with an official title of 'xxxxxxx Czar')
If you cannot answer even the most basic questions about your position, then you really do not have a position.
In the above video I am particularly concerned about the people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler and stating how he was a great speaker too. Hitler was a great speaker and people followed him blindly in part because he was so eloquent. The implication is that Obama is doing the same thing. That is called a scare tactic.
Isn't every politician at least a decent speaker? Doesn't everyone seeking office need to convince people that what they say is true and that you should support them instead of their opponent? Every President has to convince tens of millions of people to vote for them. Making the jump from great speaker who rallies support to Hitler is pretty substantial, but it looks good on video.
The interesting thing to me is that the world is full of great speakers. But a great speaker is nothing more than that, unless he has people that support him. People that will echo what he says. People that believe what he says without any regard for whether or not it is true. Then the question becomes, who is to be feared more, the person speaking or the people that listen and follow that person without questioning what they are saying?
Should we fear Obama for being a great speaker? If all he has are great speeches but cannot actually do anything, then do we really have much to be afraid of?
We do if people blissfully follow him and believe everything he says and raise him to the point of a supreme authority, then he will have the clout to implement changes that perhaps no one wants. I would say our government is strong enough to resist such ambitions, but the point is that nothing will happen if you cannot rally support to your cause.
Now let's consider this.
What about Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly? They are all great speakers. They have large numbers of people that listen. They have a lot of people that take what they say as fact without questioning it. I saw more than a few Glenn Beck for President signs at the rally. I am sure they were sarcastic, but it demostrates that the person believes and trusts Glenn Beck more than they do President Obama. Should we fear these people?
Should we fear the people that listen to them and do not question what they say? Maybe we should worry that so many people are content to have information spoon fed to them without gathering the information themselves.
Maybe we should be afraid that so many people will go to a rally in Washington DC armed only with a talking point and use that as justification for overthrowing the government.
I will end with this.
If you have an opinion on a topic and have researched it to where it is your own and you truly believe it, then I will respect that even if I disagree. But if you simply take what someone else tells you as fact and do not question it or investigate it, then do not bother me with your thoughts because they are not yours anyway so what does it matter.
If you want to see what actually happens in the government, then I recommend going to cspan.org and watching it unfold in real time or even taped. Form your own opinions about what is going on. Then, when the time comes, you can shout 'You lie' at Rush or Keith or Bill or Rachel or Sean.
I saw a commentary the other day from a Republican strategist. He said that Obama will be a one term president and that the Democrats will lose many seats at the mid-term elections, and possibly even lose control of one or more house.
Say what?
When last I looked, Obama had been in office for about 60 days. That is 2 months of a 48 month term. And the Republicans are already calling his presidency a failure? They already predict major swings in congress?
The president has approval ratings in the 60s. In the last couple weeks there has actually been good news coming from the economic circles. I am curious what makes them think the country has turned on Obama.
I understand that they are the opposing party and therefore it is their place to disagree. I understand that they think the President is spending too much money that we do not have. I understand that they think the way out of this financial crisis is not what the President is doing. That is their right and I would expect any opposing party to do the same. I also think that as long as the debate remains at an philosophical level and does not devolve to petty bickering, then such disagreement is a healthy way reach a compromise on legislation.
But riddle me this.
What exactly would they do differently? It is fair to point out when you think a solution is wrong. But, you need to have a better solution readily available. If you say, "I don't think we should do this", then the next question you will be asked is, "Okay, then what should be do instead?" The problem right now is that the Republicans cannot answer that question. Their answer is to just keep doing what we have been doing. Because that worked out so well.
I am not saying that everything President has done is golden. I also have reservations about some of the things being pushed through Congress, but I am not going to dismiss them as failures before they even get off the ground.
If you ask me, I think it is the Republicans who have to be very careful of their comments and actions at this juncture. We are in a recession. By definition, it will end. When that happens, it will not matter if the President drops trou in the middle of the state of the union, he will have been the President during the economic recovery and will be re-elected. Meanwhile, the Republicans who opposed all of his plans and offered none of their own will be left on the sidelines fighting for their jobs.
To all Republicans. If you have a better solution, then I suggest you get with your peers and get the word out the American people. If all you are going to do is hope the President fails, and criticize his plans, and make unfounded predictions for the future, then you are doing your party a disservice and you are not being part of the solution.
After a grueling 2 year campaign and what seemed like an eternity between Election Day and Inauguration Day, Barack Obama is now the President of the United States. I still get choked up when I see other people getting choked up.
It is not that we haven't had Presidents that appealed to the younger generation or Presidents that were outsiders who promised change in the way we do Government. I mean Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and even Ronald Reagan were all met with enthusiasm at that level. But when you throw in the significance of Barack Obama being the first African-American President, it just becomes overwhelming.
I was especially moved by the pictures from overseas where they showed people watching the inauguration and then talking about how great America is. It was like the days immediately after 9/11. The world once again has hope in America.
Of course, nothing in politics is without controversy. The oath could have gone maybe a little smoother. Would it have killed Justice Roberts to just jot it down? I mean, I know he has a Harvard education in Constitutional law and is the Chief Justice of the United States, but I would not have thought any less of him if he had to read the oath from a piece of paper. I do however think just a little less of him for botching such a significant moment in history.
Leave it to Fox News's Chris Wallace to actually imply that Obama is not really President and that this may, "end up in the courts". What? Come on. Even if we concede that the oath was not verbatim as written in the constitution and therefore was not valid, why would it have to go to the courts? Wouldn't giving Obama the oath again, as they did, resolve the issue? Did Chris Wallace think that Obama would refuse take the oath again or something.
While Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are right wing nut jobs, I generally try to believe that the actual news being reported on Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced', but when one of their anchors makes such statements I have to shake my head a little bit.
That aside, Obama is now the President of the United States. I have put a lot of faith in his abilities. He shows a lot of promise. He has a lot of support. No pressure or anything, but he better not let me down.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fifteen months after officially announcing his candidacy, BarackObama 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 BarackObama. 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.
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.
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 BarackObama 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I am a die hard New England Patriots fan, Java programmer, web designer, music video maker, and Solaris system administrator. I think that about sums it up.
