NYT Op-Ed: The Billary Road to.... (I can't honestly make this my blog title... read on)

From:


This piece was merely interesting... although I hate the headline I think it is a sensationalist headline - however... I did read it... didn't I?

:-/


"January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales."

Campaign Finances 2008

Wall Street Journal Article:


"BUSINESS

Executives Display Diverse Electoral Loyalties
By GEORGE ANDERS
January 16, 2008; Page A2

Political-campaign financing is supposed to pit rival interest groups against one another. But in this year's wide-open presidential race, some interesting tugs-of-war are going on within individual companies.

Consider Time Warner Inc., whose chairman, Richard Parsons, has sent money to Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign, while Chief Executive Jeffrey Bewkes last year helped fund Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, who has since dropped out of the race. At the same time, other top officials at the media conglomerate's cable-television units have been backing Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton or former Sen. John Edwards.

Is there a discernable Time Warner point of view on the election? No way.

Playing the field even more broadly is Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the former employer of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as well as other major figures in both political parties. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington has tallied campaign donations as of Oct. 31, the most recent data available, and has posted the results on its Web site, www.opensecrets.org.
DISCUSS

[Go to forum]
Share your thoughts about how much clout corporate bosses can -- or should -- have in the political arena.

With individual donations limited to $2,300 a candidate for the primaries and another $2,300 for the general election, it would be tough for a few executives to play kingmaker. But Goldman's investment bankers have been hard at work, giving a total of more than $1 million to various candidates, according to the center. Goldman employees rank among the top five funding sources for all three of the leading Democratic candidates: Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama.

This generosity extends to Republicans, too. Goldman employees show up as top-five donors for two Republican contenders: Mr. McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

One Goldman managing director, Dean Backer, has written checks for Mrs. Clinton, Messrs. Obama, Edwards and Dodd, and another Democratic contender: Sen. Joseph Biden, who also has dropped out of the race. That's the political equivalent of investing in a Democratic Party index fund. Even if some commitments fizzle, the overall portfolio will participate in whatever happens next. Mr. Backer didn't return calls seeking comment; a Goldman spokesman declined to comment.

At Comcast Corp., the diversified approach has its appeal, too. Company founder Ralph Roberts, still a director at age 87, has donated to the campaigns of Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden. His wife Suzanne, who hosts "Seeking Solutions With Suzanne," a Comcast show aimed at older viewers, has funded Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama. Their son Brian, Comcast's CEO, has backed Mrs. Clinton.

"We give to both sides," says Comcast spokeswoman D'Arcy Rudnay. "You have to. There are lots of people here behind different candidates." Ms. Rudnay sees that as a sign of Comcast's diverse culture.

So what's going on? A jaded interpretation would be that many corporate executives aren't deeply committed to any candidate. Instead, they just want to befriend or mollify whoever wins the presidency in November's election.

Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, has been making that argument for years. "The ideology of business is pragmatism," he says. "Executives wouldn't be successful people if they didn't function that way."

Mr. Sabato notes the biggest presidential fund-raisers so far have been two Democrats: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Business backers may think of themselves as siding with Republicans most of the time, he says. But if executives think a Democratic victory is likely in 2008, he adds, they have started writing checks accordingly.

A different interpretation comes from executives and spokesmen at companies that have long been politically active. Both parties' political races are surprisingly up for grabs, they say. Donations by big companies' employees, even at the highest levels, simply reflect the same divided loyalties of the general public, they add.

At Cisco Systems Inc., for example, CEO John Chambers has supported Mr. McCain. Cisco's former chairman, John Morgridge, has given money to Mr. Obama's campaign. Executive Vice President Susan Bostrom is a Clinton backer. And Charles Giancarlo, who recently departed as executive vice president of the computer-networking company, helped fund the campaigns of Mrs. Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani.

Cisco employees privately say the scattershot political giving of their bosses is a lively topic of conversation within the company. A Cisco spokeswoman says the company regards employees' political contributions as a personal matter and can't comment further about them. Similarly, Time Warner spokesman Ed Adler says employees' political choices are their own business. "I don't think this is a culture where people discuss who they support. Most meetings here are simply about business."

Half a century ago, big companies like DuPont set a pattern of giving to both political parties. Some called it a way to promote democracy; others saw it as a way to gain influence no matter who won. Either analysis made it seem as if big business played a powerful, well-thought-out role in politics, behind the scenes.

It's possible that corporate executives' donations this year will assume a more coordinated role in shaping events. But so far, it looks as though business leaders -- like other American voters -- are still in the early stages of figuring out how they feel about this year's candidates.

Write to George Anders at george.anders@wsj.com"

Candidates on the issues...

Same as previous post - thank you to rgj.com... (image larger)



and for this quick-sheet thank you to http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary

A wonderful blog found here:


"The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary

I have been seeing and reading reports of the misguided insinuations of the Barack Obama camp on the remarks of the Clintons on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr and the history of the Civil Rights Movement. I am not surprised, because I know the hypocritical political tactics of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and how he is going to manipulate racial sentiments among the African Americans in South Carolina and other states to turn them away from voting for Senator Hillary Clinton.

The American news media and the Barack Obama camp are raising dust over nothing. They have become hysterical since contrary to their expectations, Hillary Clinton defeated them in New Hampshire, and they are scared of losing again in South Carolina. They are now either misquoting the Clintons or quoting them out of context to turn the African American voters against them.


Senator Barack Hussein Obama

Senator Barack Obama and his anti-Clinton surrogates should discuss the important and significant issues bothering Americans, the looming economic recession, and the early withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq, the housing crisis, health care and the problems of illegal immigrants. They should stop all their petty sentimental outbursts and hypocritical demagogy on race.

The political pettiness of the American news media is an embarrassment to those who believe in the ethics of modern journalism. They have been fixing the presidential polls to cause controversial debates to generate sensational news headlines to sell their newspapers offline and attract more readers to their news websites.
Grow up boys.
A good shepherd should know how to separate the sheep from the goats.

This is malicious. This is nothing short of political blackmail to discourage African American voters from voting for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina.
Why is Barack Obama desperate?

I hope he will not have a heart attack before the end of his make or break presidential campaign and his desperation to become the first black president of America.

He is afraid of being disgraced after all the hullabaloo of the Oprah Winfrey Road Show for him in South Carolina. He was shocked by his defeat in New Hampshire.
He concentrated all his energies on winning Iowa and when he saw the polls giving him a double-digit lead before the New Hampshire primary, he was already over hyped that he would beat Hillary Clinton. He was over confident and boastful, but God intervened and gave Hillary Clinton victory. New Hampshire has a remarkable history of supporting political Amazons and the people are more intellectually enlightened than the Iowans.

His Kenyan grandmother recently called Barack Hussein Obama, “a good Muslim” in a CNN interview with her at the Obama homestead in Kenya. So, he became a Christian in America, because of his presidential ambition? Americans will never vote for a Muslim presidential candidate in America.

After name-dropping Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, they are now name dropping Pa Nelson Mandela to campaign against Hillary Clinton, by their deliberate distortions of Bill Clinton’s remarks and statements. They want the African Americans to think that the Clintons are disrespecting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and Pa Nelson Mandela.

They are trying all the tricks of their political tactics to swing African American voters away from Hillary Clinton by political misinformation.

He won Iowa and he turned his victory speech into a parody of the Civil Rights Movement, as if he is now the symbol of the African American struggle to elect the first black president of America, with rephrased clichés.

Hello Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Shirley St. Hill Chisholm, was 100% bona fide Africaan American woman who was a presidential candidate in 1972. Then in 1984, Rev. Jesse Jackson became the second African American to mount a nationwide campaign for President of the United States, running as a Democrat. He won five primaries and caucuses. He also contested in 1988. So, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama you are nothing new in America.

Senator Barack Obama is not the first non-white presidential candidate in America and he won’t be the last.

Barack Hussein Obama is the one politicizing race and not the Clintons. He wants to turn the Democratic primary in South Carolina into a black versus white presidential election power struggle.


"Our lives are a mixture of different roles. Most of us are doing the best we can to find whatever the right balance is . . . For me, that balance is family, work, and service."
~ Hillary Rodham Clinton, 1992."

Obama Wins the Popularity Contest ... Clinton wins the Favor of Pissed Off Women Nationwide

Before I begin let me admit my bias: I am a woman. In order to be fair I will also tell you I am a white, 24 year old female with a great college education, no debt, great credit, parents who have given me a lot and who have worked hard to build a lot for themselves. I am a registered independent in MA solely because I believe it is fair to have every name on a ballot. I have never voted for a republican. My parents are republicans. They are also registered independents. They vote republican in nearly every election. Obvious exceptions include the fact that they voted for Ted Kennedy in the last Senate election. I do not care for wine or beer. In fact, I am not a big drinker at all but when I do drink it is gin and tonic. I shop at whole foods. I shop at Shaw's. I shop in the closest supermarket to my home. I always buy organic even though it costs more. I believe our country is facing a health crisis that could be remedied if we adopted better policies in what we accept as edible. Europe has higher standards for the food they will eat. My high priced yet "liberal" food choice stems from my understanding of nature and not any "high-minded, well-to-do" cockiness....

I support Hillary Clinton.

I am not a poor democrat, nor am I a feminist. Yeah it pisses me off that no matter what she does during this campaign or during her presidency (should she be elected) - no matter what she does - she WILL be chastised. This did not swoon my support. I have been in the Hillary camp for nearly a year now. Obama was my choice a year ago when I harbored an anti-Hillary sentiment. This sentiment was and still is shared by many.

I agree that she is not likable. If you look closely at alpha-females, not many of them show a likable face to the world. There may be something behind that. Or perhaps it is that we expect a likable woman to be charming and equate that with gullible. Above I said "not many" - I do know of some who have been able to show a likable quality with their strength; the late People's Party Leader of Pakistan, Benizeer Bhutto. Her clout had been established and her political persuasion was effortless. She was a woman of great courage, great strength and whom the People knew because of her family's legacy. Her death came during one of her courageous displays of affection toward her supporters. Her supporters already believed she could do it. Her kindness and softness could be displayed safely (and by safe I mean, without changing the minds of her would-be voters during the weeks leading up to a vote). Hillary Clinton can not do that here. I can not explain the phenomenon - I could only postulate the reasons why. The "why" does not matter here, though. The truth is something we can all feel...

The truth is this: let us all fast forward to the day after the 2008 election for presidency. Let us pretend Hillary has won. Everyone will be watching and waiting for her to make a mistake. Since we do not expect emotional displays from her we will not be pulling the "crazy emotional woman" card on her. That card is too easy but definitely hurts the majority of women who want to be the Cheif. We will likely be poised to criticize her competency in other ways. Say Hillary were to engage in the political game of "You scratch my back - I'll scratch yours" with lobbyists campaign money funding special laws that rig the market for them. I believe that every competitive politician engages in lobbyist deals. But - should Hillary make such a move and compromise the safety or welfare of the people - she is going to lose popularity. Hillary has thick skin. She knows ALL of this. She knows that the problems on her desk on day 1 will be lose/lose situations. In the past 7 years these problems have shifted the losing to us - taxpayers. In fact, they have shifted the loss the other loss and then a little more because the reparations for the loss have to be payed for too after the litigation fines some organization that then bills the gov't.... us... tax money...

However these problems are addressed beginning on day 1 will be viewed as a poor move and reports will criticize Hillary in every way for it. They will word it that she is doing something corrupt or she is hurting the economy. The truth will be that she is shifting the costs off of the middle class tax payers but we will hear it differently. Hillary has thick skin. The anger at nay-sayers is enough to prove them all wrong... Hillary will persevere and deliver and give our economy and middle class the redemption it so desperately needs. It will be tough and tedious. The details will be boring and the benefits to us will be arrived at slowly but steadily over time. She will need 2 terms to do this. But she will persevere.

With more money in our pockets and a feeling of hope for our future it will be a good time for me to feel like uniting. Global Warming will be a huge issue among others, perhaps. The world is going to start throwing up on us and natural disasters are going to throw us into a shock. We all know this. Barack Obama would be a great president after we are back on our feet.

Right now the likable card is helping him. He is the "Great Uniter." In times of desperation we are really loving escapism in this election. We escape to the nostalgia that his booming voice and oratory skill bring us. You hear him speak and you just get chills. It reminds you of the Kennedys for sure. But Barack Obama looks different - so he is able to claim the "candidate of change" title. We believe it. Of course we believe it - show me one candidate in either party that is a candidate of status quo... there are none. Not one single candidate will stand up and say "Bush is doing a fabulous job and I plan to continue his work"

Every candidate is a change candidate.

So let us go back - why do we escape and why would we not want a uniter. Ok - let us see: we are in troubled times and we need someone who can work miracles. Barack Obama feels like that miracle. I wanted to chant "Yes We Can" the other night - I got so mesmerized by his NH concession... but... unite ..for what? In anticipation of the inevitable recession? Why are we uniting? Our pockets are empty and our futures look hopeless. When the election is over and (imagine) Obama is president we have moved on from the warm fuzzies in anticipation of the miracles that will come. "We" don't do anything. We watch him do his job. Or we don't... really watch at all. The media will inform us when he does something amazing though... but what would happen...? We don't know... but let us imagine. Newbie rookie takes BIG office and has MAJOR problems on his desk on day 1. MAJOR problems. Lose/Lose problems. Moral conundrums. In pour the predatory lobbyists with petitions in the form of answers. In pour colleagues who know the ropes up there and have their own lobbyists' interests in mind too... Obama picks his closest advisers and the nature of his decisions begin to take shape. If he plays the game of let's make a deal with no major shake ups he gains acceptance. What do we see in the news? A little token motion on his promises and nothing much in terms of huge changes. We see... nothing new. We see really slow movement in the direction we want to go but nothing like the wildfire movement of his campaign. The ride ends when the job begins. The job is tough. Deval Patrick experienced this phenomenon after his exciting campaign (which I supported and felt excited about). He is facing a lot of "no go" from congress right now. He is escaping this criticism by living vicariously through Obama's primary campaign -- it reminds him of the campaign he was in - sometimes the chase is more fun than the prize. I still believe Patrick is doing a good job but I don't think we are seeing him making wildfire reform changes that are resulting in wildfire reform changes in the jobs and health care in Massachusetts. Those results are assessed at the end of a term. That is how slow they are. Patrick can do it - I believe that now as I did when I voted for him - but I also believe his current escapism is a good example of how real world this decision is for us. A state election is one thing and the problems to fix in a state are smaller than in a country. Right now in America we desperately need someone who already knows what changed in gov't to change the economy from good to bad in the last 8 years. We need someone who is well connected nationwide and globally and knows how to weed out the most imperative issues from the pile and multi-task on them ALL simultaneously. Hillary can because she has the experience. Her competency is unmatched by any candidate of either primary race. Her ability to multi-task is clear (and - let us be honest - us girls can multi-task). Her ability to look at the economy as a whole will be a refreshing change to the way it has been viewed as "a bunch of bottom lines/focusing only on the ones that matter to me" for a long time now. Hillary knows what to do on day 1. This may be another reason why the supporters aren't pouring in. She can't be wooed. She can't be influenced. She is also the automatic loser in the popularity contest and she is not exciting....

But I think voters are taking their ballot choice more seriously than ever before. Voters in primary elections are generally people who care more than the average Joe (or Jane) about who they want the president to be. While Obama's rallies have become like sold-out rock concerts, Hillary's supporters come out in droves to the polls and exit quietly as a strong and silent force. Their knowledge of the issues is vast. Their strength in support is unwavering. They are not there for the hype or to join the wave of the populous. They are there to do what they know needs to be done to get their candidate on the November ballot. Obama may draw crowds but the crowds are there to chant. Many of them are too young to vote or unregistered in the state they attend college in. They like the feeling they get when they chant with Obama and they feel a pseudo nostalgic connection with the college kids of yore who used to protest real issues - like the war! Our college kids don't do that anymore. They are less connected to the other kids their age who serve our country. Their friends aren't dying in combat. Their friends are attending college. Their friends are attending political rallies on the weekdays and keg parties on the weekends. Their friends are partially informed on the goings-on in the world (if they care a little) and are making assertions based on some biased source of information they have never experienced first hand accounts from. Their friends may also be the average kid who really doesn't get politics and has a faint care for who wins but probably would only attend a rally if Kanye West spoke at it. Our college kids are in a bubble and it is a nice bubble that has been appropriately formed so education can happen in an environment that is free from real world biases and pressures. But our college kids lack real world experience and real world responsibility and accountability. They take stands on issues at times but the issues are often irrelevant to real world issues and very self-centered. If they are humanistic issues they are often one of the many issues and we all sort of look at them and say - "wow, you just heard about that now?? That BS has been happening for years... if you care about that issue in that far away land you must know about this issue going on in our land..." (and ask them what they think about some similar problem in the homeland) - they look at you as selfish for caring about Americans more than the impoverished who are far away and stick to their unorganized and slightly informed stands. College kids want to get out there and make changes in the world but they really don't anymore. They get out there and immediately succumb to the debt of their loans and the pharma job that pays more than a sales job that is not so crooked. They wanted to be an influential law-maker who would change the system but ended up working for a big firm that pays in the aftermath of an expensive legal battle via some abuse of the systems in place.

By the way, I work in a sales job. It is clinical in nature but we are subscriber funded. We don't take money from advertisers. We can't be biased because our name can only thrive by credibility. We're credible and the job is a piece of cake. We don't even make commission. In a sense, you really can't call this a sales job. I defend myself every time I tell someone I work in medical sales though. To some it seems weird. I am positive there are a lot of old friends who would be impressed if I told them I was a pharma sales rep. To me that is disgusting. To me it is morally corrupt and scummy and my bottom line is morality.

To me, it is Hillary, a woman... a bottom-line focused, multi-tasking, morally minded woman. Her bottom lines are moral. The economy of the nation over that of her fund sources. The wealth of the middle class and the hope of families in America over the share prices of the countries biggest companies who are getting richer by selling our country's assets to China and selling our wealth and potential for another hit. Money is crack to the top 1/10 of 1% of income earners in America and it is killing us all. We need Hillary in 2008.

I'll unite with you all when my pocket is full again.

Dear Deval Patrick - Please Stop Trying to Live Vicariously Through Barack Obama

Hi Governor Patrick,

I am writing you from my home computer in Brighton, MA. I heard yesterday on NPR that you're heading to South Carolina to help campaign for Obama's candidacy. Listen, I know the beginning of the year is a little slow in terms of having stuff to do but I'm pretty ticked off that you're doing this. I voted for you and I think you're doing a great job but you and John Kerry supporting Obama is not only unfair - it is tacky. The truth is that the decision of who to vote for should be made by the voters. You're really slapping the Clinton's in the face with this one. John Kerry is also slapping John Edwards in the face. With you I am more pissed though. I rode the exciting wave of your grassroots campaign. I see how the aftermath of such excitement can be dull now that you're working the daily grind and seeing the same wave (but bigger) happening makes you want to get involved but I am your supporter and I pay taxes in this state and have entrusted you to be here doing your job. I also am in support of Hillary Clinton. I think Obama is great. Once our pockets stop being robbed and our economy is back in shape in America a great uniter with an exciting and booming voice would be a thrilling president to have. Right now we need Hillary Clinton in office. That is how I feel. And right now I need you to stop wasting time and resources on helping a primary candidate because it is not in the interest of the people of Massachusetts. It is in your own interest. It is unfair and tacky.

More people should follow the ever-consistent example of Senator Edward Kennedy. He is not backing a primary candidate. People with such sway should not reveal their personal preference. It is unfair to choose between two great candidates in such a close race like this. Once a candidate has made the final cut and become a candidate for the presidency then it is ok to announce your support.

Oh yeah, and Oprah's on my shit list too.

I am not against supporting a candidate at all. In a situation like we have here it is important that influential figures who are clearly going to support a democrat are sure to stay out of it until the best man or woman wins. Both candidates are vastly popular and it is going to be close. With all these big names coming in to help Obama the contest seems to be swaying in his favor. Of course he reminds us of the American dream - his NH concession speech even gave me chills. I wish voters could focus on the issues without the popularity contest clouding their vision. I vote for competency in the times at hand to deal with the current economy and get the middle class back on track. Please come home and work out your 2008 budget and this casino crap and stop trying to ride the wave so you can do the job that your wave brought you to...

Thanks,

Renee