Super Tuesday: Obama Wins Georgia

MSNBC has already projected that Obama has won Georgia. Being a proportional primary for democrats, we don't know exactly what share of the delegates go to Obama yet, as they are clearly not through counting. Georgia closed its polls 18 minutes ago.

California Democratic Debate a Tie or Slight Edge to Obama?

From:

" California Democratic Debate a Tie or Slight Edge to Obama?
January 31st 2008 Posted to 2008 Election, Politics

I am no political expert but I will say tonight’s Democratic debate was one hell of an event. Obama came out struggling with his points as health care took the stage front and center. Hillary has been pushing for the same plan for something like 15 years and I think that really helped her get her point across in a much more fluid and easy to understand way. I personally think Hillary dominated the opening rounds of the debate, but once we got beyond health care I think Obama came out ahead.

Hillary’s best quote was when she was asked a rather tough question (I thought) why we should put a Clinton back in office when we have had decades of the Bush and Clinton families in the White House. She said, “It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.” The place erupted.

The Obama quote that I loved and really smacks down any argument citing progress in Iraq was when they approached him with the idea that things are improving and fewer U.S. soldiers are dying. On the idea we are succeeding based on that analysis he said “we have set the bar so low, it’s buried in the sand at this point.” Killer comment and further proof that Obama would dominate the Republicans on the issue of Iraq and this really is pushing his agenda of being right from the start and having better judgment.

I will admit one thing though, Hillary grew on me tonight. She didn’t seem to be the evil shrew she has appeared to be up to this point. She seemed level headed, even if she struggled on a few later points.

Probably the most noticeable thing tonight was the good natured conversation that went on. It was as if both candidates decided to say, “Screw it, we don’t want a Republican to win. Let’s be cordial and talk about the issues and put the personal trash aside.” After all, these two are very similar on a lot of points and by putting the politics of it all behind benefits them both.

Did either one win? Hillary dominated the opening like I said, but I think the lasting impression of the Iraq conversation outweighs the discussion of health care giving Obama a slight (miniscule) edge. I think Obama needed a bigger win than he got tonight, but polls show him closing. He has to hope his stock continues to rise and Hillary’s stays the same.

The final question on whether they would consider an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket didn’t hit with a thud as I think it would have a week ago. Today it all seemed possible.

Super Tuesday is going to be close."

Democratic Showdown in Cali at the Kodak Theater

Here's my initial analysis from tonight...

Psychological: There is something to be said about the silent unity of women. I saw middle-aged women's eyes smiling when Hillary said in;

"Well, It DID take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it's certainly gonna take a Clinton to clean up after the second!"

I believe in the silent unity of women - look at NH.

Edwards has not decided who to endorse yet

I'm watching CNN. Edwards will speak with both Obama and Clinton about who to endorse. I respect him because he has fought hard about lobbyists and corporations corrupting the way our gov't does business... and that may be my biggest problem with politics.

This race keeps getting more and more exciting.

Undecided ’08 - Your Guide to Hillary or Obama

So, as you may know, yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. Being a Hillary hopeful this caused me some anxiety. I wanted to know why.. and more so... what to do now..?

By talking with friends, listening to Keith Olberman/NPR, and ultimately deciding for myself: I was able to make up my mind quickly.

All of this talk made me realize: that this was just as shocking to many as it was to me. I won't speculate on why but what I did hear that was helpful in bringing me to my resolution was the following:

Barack Obama's ideals do match the Kennedys' while the Clinton democratic ideals vary in small and specific ways. It is also true that we (all democrats) want the same thing - something that works and something that is right.

The Clintons would say "what WORKS is RIGHT"

The Kennedys/Obama would say "what is RIGHT, WORKS"



Now it will be our own struggle between pragmatism and idealism to decide which candidate we support. I had to ask myself which mode is more important for me at this point in time.


By the way - I feel good that this is my "oh woe is me" right now as an American Democrat.

DEMOCRATIC TAKEOVER 2008 !!! <3333

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

This one is great!n

From

Judicial Watch at judicialwatch.org

"Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

December 19, 2007"

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."

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

Found here:

"Sunday, January 27, 2008
Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

After a much needed win in South Carolina, Barack Obama will get the coveted endorsement from Ted Kennedy. Kennedy brings with him strong Democratic appeal, which Clinton is strong with in the primaries, and an establishment political machine.

To demonstrate how important this endorsement is, the Clinton campaign fought hard in the last few days to prevent Kennedy from making an endorsement, with Bill Clinton making personal calls to the Senator.

In terms of monetary support, Hillary Clinton has received $15,000 from the Kennedy family, while Obama has received $9,000.

Clinton aides responded to the endorsement:

“She has a great deal of respect for Sen. Kennedy and is very proud of all the endorsements she's received from her Senate colleagues,” said Doug Hattaway, a Clinton spokesman. “At the end of the day, the voters are going to choose a candidate on their merits, not on their endorsements.”



While this endorsement is a blow to Clinton, it is hardly the end of her campaign. Clinton still leads is mostly every poll for Super Tuesday states and her large organization may trump Obama's high profile endorsements. We will have to wait and see.

Posted by Rick Evans at 4:30 PM"

Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama

From Boston.com

I feel so lost at this moment...

"Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama
Posted by James F. Smith January 27, 2008 12:29 PM

By Susan Milligan
Globe staff

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.

That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

"The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' said Representative Bill Delahunt, A Quincy Democrat who is also backing Obama. ``So having him pass on the torch [to Obama] is of incredible significance. It's historic.''

Obama's landslide win in South Carolina yesterday gives Obama and Clinton two wins each in the primary campaign, and puts the two senators in a fierce battle for delegates on Feb. 5, when 22 states will hold Democratic primaries and caucuses.

While polls show Clinton ahead in some large states, including her home state of New York and delegate-rich California, the Kennedy endorsement gives Obama a stamp of approval among key constituencies in the Democratic party that could make Super Tuesday more competitive.

Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.

The Massachusetts senator was key in helping his colleague, Senator John F. Kerry, score a comeback win in Iowa in 2004, sending Kerry on a path to the nomination. Kennedy campaigned on his own and released several senior members of his staff to work for Kerry."

New Hampshire Recount Results Are In...

How to read these results:
These results are from the DEMOCRATIC recount only. The towns listed below are the towns where the recount is complete. The set of numbers under the candidate(s) name reflect the number of votes reported to the Secretary of State's office after the January 8, 2008 Presidential Primary Election. The number to the right (under the column marked "recount") is the number of votes the candidate(s) received after the recount of votes in that town.

The republican candidates listed at the end of this tally (indicated by the r next to their name) are candidates who received WRITE-IN votes on democratic ballots. PLEASE NOTE: The tally for WEARE is not done!!




From:

Am I allowed to flip flop?

Ok... Hill's fighting dirty.

It's not very becoming on her.

Here is what I need to know before I cast my vote:

1. Hillary, can I trust you?

2. Barack Obama, what are your long term plans for economy? Are you a fast learner? Do you give in to bribes and threats easily? Are you ready to change the course of history? Do you have what it takes to completely reform the way our country handles its finances by pulling out of globalized economy or reforming it so it actually does benefit us - the bottom 99% of income earners in America? Are you willing to ignore lobbyists and close legislation loopholes that are making the rich richer?

That is all.

Candidates on the issues

I think we need this:

Two Quick-Sheets. I did your homework for you!

Thanks for this information go to:

http://rgj.com for Quicksheet 1 and

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm for Quicksheet 2

Quicksheet 1:



Quicksheet 2:

Barack Obama is not an Operations Officer - Admittedly

But what Barack Obama will say about himself is that he is a motivational speaker!

During tonights democratic debate in Nevada, the candidates were asked; "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" Obama was specifically asked to comment on a comment he made about himself not being an operations officer. Obama reaffirmed this statement and noted that a president's job is not to oversee operations... it is to appoint the overseers of operations... but provide America with a vision - inspire a vision, talk about the vision, talk about the American Dream...

His idealistic chatter was so void of those tangible rocks of foundation that it failed to stay in place for very long... if at all. The "hope" his talk was inspiring was as fleeting as a message written written in the sand at the shore of a beach - gone just as soon as the next wave came crashing gently over it. The wave would be reality. The reality would be the grim look at the crumbs that remain in the plate that was called the American Pie. The reality would be the teeny size of my bank account, the astronomical cost of a new home, and the formidable cost of investing in my future - which I will need another degree for....

Obama - PLEASE - give me something to grab onto. Hope is always high when my pockets are full.

Obama continues to point out the "why" things are as bad as they are; wow he sounds dumb. Every "why" is because of a misguided "vision" a misguided "American Dream" - and the answer will be to instill a new sense of accountability, a new sense of hope a new sense of... huh?

Whatever, sounds awesome - I completely agree! And thank you, by the way, for pointing out the literary themes in the history we just created/are in the process of creating.

Now WHAT THE F*$% DO YOU PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT? THINGS!!! PLANS!!! NOT HOPES - NOT DREAMS - NOT INSTILLING THEM - TELL ME TELL ME TELL ME - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN??????????????????

Please note - his "uh, um" factor when asked specifics on these plans is extremely high.... then he draws us back to the broader shifts and themes and... whatever...

If I needed a life coach, I would get one!!

grrr

Hillary in 2008! Shit, Edwards and/or McCain too - just not Obama! He isn't even clear on the job description!!

By the way, I was very pro-Obama a year ago - before I started to listen to these guys speak. I had that anti-Hillary sentiment as well. I think the sensationalism of having a black President truly guided me when I was for Obama as president. When it comes down to it this guy just isn't qualified.... or at least the way he talks doesn't seem like someone who has a plan.... you know, the ladder to the dream... that dream we are all unifying and agreeing upon... according to Obama.

Global Opinions on the New Hampshire Primary

More truth about what happened in New Hampshire. Original blog found here:

What I see is that the only level-headed blog responses I find on this event come from articulate and calm-minded objective bloggers who blog from outside of the US. This one is from Malaysia. The last I posted came from Nigeria.

America is so wound up in the media hype it is hard to take a step back. Most people are not looking at the most important issues. They are highlighted in this wonderful Blog by Dan-Yel:

"Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hillary won New Hampshire

Having just read an article comparing Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan with Obama's and Edward's, I'm relieved that she won the New Hampshire primary. International Herald Tribune report here.




Why Hillary, and not Obama? I think she has the experience and that of her husband's (remember the Oslo Accords?). Obama has the charisma and drive, but politics in Washington needs more than a heart and soul. In Washington, where it's hard to tell which is which, where clouds of gray enshrouds the usually-clean-clear city, sometimes simply what you believe and your heavily-driven persistence might work against you.

Politics works better in striking a deal with the devil, not launching a fiery crusade against it, but at the same time not compromising principles. It is here where being driven by the right goal and being realistic play central role, but it's not the sole prerequisite. Politics is an art, you cannot get to hard in the head or you end up like George W Bush with his Axis of Evil and War on Terror labelling. It's an art of brokering and consensus-reaching, as well as numbers that works, not just words.

Looking beyond rhetorics, Obama's strategy seems more like "gather the votes first, work out a way later". Comparing their healthcare plans best explains what I mean, both their plans aim for universal coverage, but Obama avoided compelling all individuals to buy insurance cover, only the children so he won't displease the middle-class. She had to work out the nmaths, making sure the plan is most likely to succeed and not creating paralyzing cost burden on the nation by compelling all to purchase insurance, with subsidies for the poor of course. That, together with plans to compel small firms to offer insurance coverage (with subsidies) appears to me more workable (though not popular), contrary to the more likable Obama's exclusion of these firms.

Her healthcare plan has been praised by many expertss as politically clever and substantively good. Edward's and Obama's, on the other hand, may serve only well to please more voters, aware of how unpopular the reform could be like what happened to Democrats losing both the Senate and the Congress after a spoiled attempt by Hillary in 1993."

Interesting Opinions about The Exit Polls from the NH Primaries

Found here:

"She’s Back… Why Hillary Won in New Hampshire and Lost in Iowa
Posted on January 9th, 2008 in Election 2008, Hillary, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton by liberalcollegekid

Well the vote is in, and once again I got it wrong… Congratulations Hillary.
However, for those that think of the 2008 Presidential election as the Ballot Bowl, the results in New Hampshire should certainly make for an interesting run up to the next Democratic primary in South Carolina. As of this writing, Hillary leads there by 8 points.



The 2008 race is forcing Democrats to make uncomfortable decisions. In the caucus state of Iowa I think two things combined to boost Obama over Hillary that didn’t exist in New Hampshire.

First, the caucus creates a different kind of vote. That is, the caucus is a public vote, where everyone present gets to see who you are voting for. Democratic voters this year have their choice of a woman, an African American, a Latino, and a few white guys. One can easily imagine how this could become the oppression Olympics in terms of what group is most deserving of a vote based on their minority’s past experiences. In essence, voters are being asked if they would rather have the first female president or the first black president, not an easy choice. It is especially a difficult decision when everyone else around you gets to see who you are voting for. We have to ask the question, how much of Obama’s vote in Iowa came from people who wanted to be for a black candidate in front of others? While this question and others like it make me extremely uncomfortable I think there may be something to this theory. South Carolina is another primary state and Nevada is another caucus state. If the results of those two follow New Hampshire and Iowa we will certainly have to give this theory some serious consideration.

Next, the caucus rules in Iowa require that people casting their vote for candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote switch to another candidate or not vote. This means that lower tier candidates, which for the Democrats in Iowa included Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel all had to find others to vote for (except in just a few places where Biden and Richardson received more than 15% of the vote of those present). We have to ask the question of who did the best when these candidates’ voters had to switch to candidates with more votes. Kucinich was fairly outspoken in asking his voters to go for Obama as a second choice. The rest of the candidates had to choose between Edwards, Clinton and Obama. This election season both sides are talking about the need for change. Clinton, clearly, represents not change but a return to the prosperous 90’s. So, many voters likely moved to Edwards because of his emphasis on the middle class and to Obama based on their desire for change in Washington.

These two factors had no bearing in New Hampshire, though. Women turned out in record numbers, but something else existed in New Hampshire that was missing in Iowa. The New Hampshire vote was a primary, done in private. No one to try and convince voters to change their vote, no one there to see who they were voting for. This helped Hillary, more so than anyone else could have predicted. Obama came into today projected to win New Hampshire by double digits, and left 3 points behind Clinton. The exit polling didn’t show it though, early exit polls and even those later into the evening were showing Obama in the lead. However, as the votes were counted it became clear that Hillary had won.

So why were the exit polls wrong? If my theory holds true its the same thing that happened in Iowa: people want to be seen as voting for the African American. Now its on to South Carolina for the Democrats where the African American vote is around half of the Democratic electorate. Don’t think race will be a factor in this election? Think again."

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.