Happy New Year

As we approach a new year, we must also prepare to deal with the challenges that will drag on from 2007, as well as new ones that are sure to arise.  In 2008, America will choose it's 44th President; and although there are many great candidates out there, there is one that is most definitely prepared to deal with those challenges.  

May everyone have a great New Year!

Ron Paul Parody

Here is a great, hilarious video I came across that pokes fun at Ron Paul's comments on last week's Meet the Press concerning Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement.  Enjoy!

The Politics Of Change

Every election cycle for President brings out the word "change".  It becomes part of the campaign rhetoric heard from both the Democrats and Republicans who are running for their party's nomination.

 

But what kind of change do the people really want and what change will the next president really represent?  The current president promised change and look what our nation and people received.  We went from a fiscally responsible administration who balanced the budget, created surpluses and paid down the national debt, to record deficits and record increase in the national debt.  We invaded a country that never attacked us over WMD that did not exist.  We are told we have to live in fear because of terrorists threats.  Our government became more secretive and our personal lives have been intruded on by the so called Patriot Act and warrant-less wiretapping.

 

Government figures try to divide us on religious and patriotic grounds.  They try to divide us by leaking secret information to protect their own wrong doing.  The list goes on and on.  Is this the change Bush was talking about?

 

The American people need to think hard if they base their vote on change only.  All candidates have their good and bad positions and qualities, so the people need to think in terms of what candidate can best advance the quality of life for the people and who can bring accountability back in all walks of government.  We, the people, have to bring back America---Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

Benazir Bhutto: 1953-2007

Today is a sad day for the world.  Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated earlier today following a campaign rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.  

Bhutto was perhaps the United States' last hope in bringing stability to Pakistan and the region.  Bhutto, in much contrast to President Musharraf, was adamant in her opposition to terrorist groups, especially al-Qaeda, which find refuge in Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan.  She was a long time outspoken opponent of extremism and was someone who could have truly been the greatest asset to the U.S. in the true war on terror.

I admit that while I have long said that Bhutto was a great woman and a great leader, I did not fully realize the extent that her passion and love for her country went. That changed today when I began seeing interview after interview with Bhutto on television.  

She was truly a brave and courageous person.  She did not have to return to Pakistan after her exile.  She did not have to hold public rallies.  She did not have to seek another run as Prime Minister.  But, as she explained in numerous interviews, Bhutto did all those things because she simply wanted to make her country a better place for its people.  

Bhutto said many times that she knew her life was at risk every second of every day, but she continued her tireless fight for democracy and peace nonetheless.  She was willing to give her life for her country, and today, she did just that.

Bhutto should be a role-model for every politician in the world.  She didn't think about herself; she thought only of the Pakistani people and their needs.  

Now, Pakistan is once again in turmoil.  A hero has been killed.  What is next for Pakistan, the most dangerous country in the world?  I, nor anyone, can even begin to say what comes next.  All I do know is that Pakistan, America, and the world has lost a tremendous person today.  This tragedy should serve as an omnipresent reminder to all that this world is volatile and unpredictable.  Everything can change in a heartbeat, and today it did.  We, in America and abroad, need leaders who are capable of responding correctly and effectively to these sudden changes.  Let that serve as a lesson learned from this tragedy.  

Photo Credit: MSNBC

2008---What's At Stake

Okay, the fun and games are over, it's time to get serious----It's time to choose a President.  

After following this election for over a year now, it's amazing to finally be only eight days away from the Iowa caucus.  But it seems that many are still not in serious mode.  People are still focusing on the idealism of a candidate instead of the policies and records of that candidate.  Instead of checking to see which candidates have and continue to "walk the walk", many are still content with just listening to candidates talk a good talk.  

America can not afford to have its voters look at idealism over experience or the "talk" over the "walk".  That is the kind of rational that got us George W. Bush nearly 8 years ago.  A Presidential election can not be about likability or the old "who would you rather have a beer with" question.  Choosing a President is serious business, and, as I think we've learned over the past 7 years, choosing the wrong one can lead to dire consequences.

The next President will come into office facing unprecedented challenges.  There will be no learning curve; the 44th President will have to be ready to lead from second one.  And while there is surely no perfect preparation for the Presidency, there are certainly candidates who are more prepared than others.  

There is a war to safely end in Iraq.  There is a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan against true terrorists to be waged.  America's standing in the world and its credibility must be swiftly restored.  There is a healthcare crisis to address; as well as an immigration one.  The economy needs to brought back to its greatness of the '90s.  The issue of poverty and education must be tackled, and tackled quickly.  My point: call it a talking point, call it pure rhetoric, but I call it the truth that simply can't be forgotten----America needs a President with the experience, knowledge, and leadership to offer real solutions to the growing problems this country, and the world, faces.  

Again, I warn America not to make the same mistake it did in 2000; don't be fooled by a superior personality or likability; support the candidate who has the proven leadership and skills to make America a better place.  In this day and age, talk is cheap, but often it is what seals the deal for voters.  And while talk might be a great help in getting elected, it does nothing once you take office and actually have to enact policies.  For that, only experience, wisdom, strength, and perseverance matter.  

One thing is for sure concerning the '08 election----it is indeed a change election, and America has never been more ready, or desperate, for change than it is right now.  But change is just a six letter word without the experience and knowledge to make it happen.  There are those candidates who just throw the word around casually and make it the center piece of their campaign, but who have no real record or experience of bringing change, or even attempting to bring change.  Then there are those candidates (yes, plural), who do have a record, some a life long one, of fighting for change, even when it wasn't popular, and then bringing about that change.  Those candidates, who have a record of bringing about meaningful change, are the ones America needs in the White House.  America doesn't need another President who promises a break from the past, only to worsen things because of his inexperience and lack of knowledge.  

To sum it all up: vote with your brain, not just your heart.  Often times we fall in love with the idea of something or someone, only to later realize that our heart was misleading.  Look at the facts; look at where these candidates have been and what they've been able to do.  If everyone in this great country does that, I have no doubt we will elect the right person in '08.  But if America does as it did in previous years, and looks solely at the "talk" of a candidate, we may well be in trouble for another 4 years.  America can not handle that.  We must choose the right person.  That time to choose is now---let's make a difference by nominating a candidate who not only can win in November, but who can actually change this country, for the better, starting January '09. 

About Face In The Iraq War

I have mentioned in past commentaries that regardless of how the war in Iraq ends, or when it ends, Iran will be the main benefactor and Iraq and Iran will be allied together.

 

Now, despite the spin about the success of the surge, the State Department's top official on Iraq says Iran's sharp decrease of arms and munitions to Iraq has decreased the attacks sharply.  We know that the Shiite make up the majority in Iraq and Iran and that al-Sadr told his militia several months ago to stand down for 6 months.  We also know that the present administration in Iraq and Iran meet often and are in close contact with each other.  The game is on for them because they know that with the lack of violence, the U.S. will eventually have to leave.  

 

Another tell tale of what is happening in Iraq is in Basra, where British troops have turned over security to Iraq. Our military commanders are worried because Iran is entrenched in Basra and wields influence there to the point that is alarming.

 

And to top it off, Iraqi defense minister al-Obaidi declared his intent to dismantle the Sunni awakening councils which are financed and backed by the United States.  The Sunnis, who are the minority in Iraq but ruled the Shiite when Saddam was in power by force, will not be allowed to have any infrastructure to challenge the Shiite.  

 

In just 3 more months, the war will be in progress for 5 years.  Almost 4000 Americans have been killed, over 20,000 wounded; we don't have any idea how many innocent Iraq men, women and children have been killed and Mr. Bush still can not articulate when the war will end or how.  What we do know is that it was a war over WMD that did not exist.  Bush's reckless behavior to remake the Middle East in his vision has destabilized the entire region and when all  the killing stops, Iran and Iraq will be two sister states.  Iraq will look nothing like Bush saw in his dream.  But lucky for Bush, he won't have to deal with the mess he created much longer.  Unfortunately, the next President will bear the burden of his reckless behavior.

The Boston Globe's John Sasso On Hillary

Here is a great article from the 12/22 edition of the Boston Globe written by John Sasso.  Sasso has long been involved in the Democratic party and in Presidential elections.  He managed the Dukakis campaign in '88 and the Kerry campaign in '04.  He undoubtably knows what he's talking about. ---

Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place....

Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own. Hillary belittlers still abound, to be sure. She is still caricatured as calculating. But the senator has taken on some different markings. Gone is the defensive bite, on hand is a new openness to concede mistakes, often with glints of humor.

Once nominated her campaign will undergo another transformation. Her candidacy will take on an historic aura as it confronts an historic question -- can a woman, this woman, be elected president? Americans will be caught up in crossing one of the country's great divides. Voters of both parties, not just proud women, will be favorably disposed to make that crossing. Americans like the good feeling of removing barriers.

Why the least vulnerable Democrat? The day the Democratic nominee becomes obvious the Republican attack machine will spring to action. Always, the opponent is a target to be eviscerated. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, a man less intimately understood and less defined, Republicans will rush to manufacture their own brutal definition. Can Obama withstand that kind of barrage? Does he have the personal makeup to be as relentless as his opponents? Do past political positions leave him vulnerable? Because the risks are sky-high, these questions need to be reasonably raised and answered beforehand

Clinton is well past negative redefinition. Unlike John Kerry's 2004 campaign in which veterans opposed to Kerry's candidacy challenged his war record, it will be difficult to ram a Swift Boat into her candidacy. If there is a convict in her political past, as with Willie Horton during the Dukakis 1988 campaign, he will already have been exhumed. Besides, the Clintons are veteran enough to mount a withering counterfire of their own.  

The most vulnerable Democrat, Clinton is not. The most electable, she is. America's political landscape, this time around, looks fertile for the right Democratic candidate. But one day, surely, the country will elect a woman president. I sense that moment - and that woman - has arrived. 

For the full editorial, click here.

Happy Holidays To The Troops

I couldn't have said it better than this:

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to everyone.

Burlington Hawk-Eye Endorses Clinton

In addition to the endorsements of the Des Moines Register and the Quad-City Times, Sen. Hillary Clinton can add yet another well-deserved endorsement to her list.  The Burlington Hawk-Eye had this to say about Hillary:

"Vetted perhaps more than any woman in history, Clinton demonstrates the resiliency and tenacity needed in a president, especially one who will inherit the challenges the current administration will leave behind.

In person, she's calculated yet personable. On issues, she's not a clone of her husband. She's an independent thinker with progressive ideas.

She promises that the days of secret eavesdropping and violations of other civil liberties ends on inauguration day. She promotes a reasonable approach to ending the war in Iraq and developing peace through partnership in the region. She honed her extensive international experience as first lady, traveling to more than 80 countries.

She finds it "galling" that American tax dollars help fund a first-class health-care plan for the wealthy members of Congress, while 47 million Americans go without access to decent health care. We'll take her word that she'll fix that, and that the wealthiest nation in the world will provide access to health care for those of little or modest means.

She sees the federal government as a partner with states and local schools in ensuring quality education.

Can she win? Polls show a dead heat in Iowa, and there are many undecided Democrats. Still, Democrats in the state would be selecting a proven leader with the skill sets necessary for our next president by caucusing for Hillary Clinton."

The Quad-City Times Endorses Clinton

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up another important endorsement today, this one from the Quad-City Times.  Here is what they had to say about her and her candidacy:

"Hillary Clinton passes test after test after test. This Clinton arrived for the caucus campaign with much, much more experience than the first Clinton to stump across Iowa. In campaign speeches and in an interview with the Times Editorial Board, she spoke passionately of people — specific, real people — whose stories drive her desire to solve problems. “I was brought up to believe we were the problem solvers,” she told the editorial board. “If it was hard, that meant America would do it.”

This Clinton hasn’t shied away from problems.

As first lady, she stepped far beyond the traditional role and took on a major policy issue: health care. Washington special interests villified her for trying, branding any reform “socialized medicine” and even giving it her name: “Hillarycare.”

Regardless, she persevered, becoming an advocate for children worldwide and pioneering the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has survived Republican and Democrat Congresses.

She passed perhaps the toughest personal test. Many Americans stand up for the sanctity of marriage. Hillary Clinton did something much harder. She very publicly stood up for her own marriage.

 She passed the New York voters’ tests. Twice. Rudy Giuliani backed away from challenging her to address his own health and marital problems. She went on to win and six years later won again by an even larger margin.

In the Senate, she’s worked across party lines to pass test after test and earn this testimonial: “This blue-state senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans.” That commendation was written for Time magazine by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who led the impeachment prosecution against her husband.

We tested her, too, in our editorial board interview, looking for evidence of the partisan rancor that is destroying our country. We found none. Instead, we found a proven, passionate, intelligent leader with a breadth of legislative and executive experience that is the best of a good bunch.

For Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, we support Hillary Clinton."

This is just another great telling of why Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job of United States President.  Her experience and proven strength sets her apart from everyone else in the field. 

Anything Can Happen: My Analysis For How The Democratic Nomination Process May Play Out

With the pivotal Iowa caucuses just 11 days away, one thing is clear: anything, and I do mean anything, could happen.  So here are a few possible scenarios that could shape the outcome of this Democratic nomination process.

One scenario is that Hillary Clinton wins the Iowa caucus.  If she does that, then I would bet everything I have that she will be the nominee.  Iowa is Hillary's big hurdle and the biggest obstacle in her inevitability at becoming the nominee.  Hillary started out this year behind Edwards in Iowa, but by mid-July she began topping the Iowa polls.  She maintained her lead, although not a huge one, until November, when Barack Obama began pulling ahead.  Now, just a little over a week to go, Clinton is creeping up on Obama's lead.  In fact, Real Clear Politics has averaged the last 6 polls from Iowa, and the result is a literal tie between Clinton and Obama.

But just because Edwards isn't tied for the coveted first place spot in Iowa polls, he is, as Newsweek put it, the wild card in this caucus.  The reason for this is that Edwards has the most support among traditional caucus goers and hence his support is the most solid of the top 3.  Edwards is also the leading choice among caucus-goers when asked who their second choice is.  If I had to pick right now who had the best shot at winning Iowa, I would have to say Edwards.  Clinton has strong support, as does Obama, but both are counting a great deal on first time caucus goers, especially Obama.  

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Obama may actually perform the worst out of the top 3 in Iowa.  Why?  As I mentioned in a previous article (available here), Obama's support comes mainly from younger voters, the group that is historically the least likely to actually show up on caucus night.  Obama might have the momentum in Iowa right now, but the question that we'll have to wait to have answered is whether his supporters actually get out and take part in the grueling caucus process.  In short: Obama may be 2008's Howard Dean.

Going back to Edwards, the sad thing about him is that he could win Iowa by a large margin and still lose every other primary/caucus.  Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is lacking in the financial resources to take his campaign through Super Tuesday.  Indeed, an Edwards' win in Iowa could all but guarantee that Clinton will be the nominee.  

So while this race is as unpredictable as ever, I will say with rather certainty that if Clinton finishes ahead of Obama in Iowa, then she will be the nominee.  On the other hand, if Obama finishes better than Clinton in Iowa, he will most likely be the nominee.  Sadly for him, Edwards has no real shot at being the nominee, although he has an excellent shot at winning Iowa.  

CIA: Still Out Of Control

The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Jose Rodriguez, a former CIA official who directed that secret video tapes of two captured terrorists be destroyed.  Those tapes contained interrogations that some have speculated show torture.

 

Mr. Bush wanted the Congressional panel to defer its investigation until an inquiry by the CIA and Justice Department is completed.  The panel's chairman refused to do so and rightly so.  Mr. Bush can get to the bottom of the destruction of these tapes if he really wanted to, just like he could have taken care and got to the bottom of the Valarie Plame case if he so had chose.  The two people involved in that case were Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, who happened to be working for the White House and were good friends of Bush.  Bush knew of their involvement, but let Ms. Plame get dragged through the coals.

 

History has proven the CIA can not investigate itself.  They cover their own tracks and flat out lie.  We know that from previous investigations.  It took the Church committee and the Iran-Contra hearings and other hearings to bring to the public the lies and dirty tricks and the violation of the law by the CIA.  The Justice Department is just as bad under this administration.  Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was one of the attorneys, along with others, who knew about those tapes according to recent reports.  A self serving statement was recently made by the administration saying that they recommended the CIA not destroy the tapes.  Recommended?  They should have told CIA not to destroy the tapes.  In fact, the President himself should have ordered the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

 

There is only one reason to destroy evidence, especially when a court ordered the CIA to preserve all records.  Why? Yea, you guessed right.  I wonder why the CIA failed to inform the courts of the tapes' existence, and like wise failed to inform the 9-11 commission.  Why?  Yea, you guessed right again.  This is the same game the CIA played during the Warren Commission's investigation of President Kennedy's death.  They withheld information from the Warren Commission that was not specifically asked for, even though they knew it related to the President's death and the investigation.  This was documented in the House hearings concerning Mr. Kennedy's death.  It really is time to break the CIA up in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  If the new Director of National Intelligence can't control the CIA better than it is doing, that too needs to be taken care of. 

GOP's Hypocrisy Continues At Bush Press Conference

At his news conference on December 20, Mr. Bush threatened to cancel earmarks (pet projects) that Congress passed in legislation.  He claimed that he ordered his budget chief to review options for not implementing them.  This is the same President who signed every single earmark legislation by the Republican controlled Congress for the first 6 years of his administration.  It is a phony issue by a President who is so small of a person, he still can not tell the truth.  

 

The Democrats, who took over control of Congress, said they would reduce earmarks and they did exactly that in this bill Bush referred to.  A count by "Taxpayers for Common Sense", a group that fights earmarks, reported that the bill sent to Mr. Bush has 25% less earmarks and is less costly than the all time high set by the Republican Congress and Bush in 2005.  Regardless what the subject is, this President just can't tell the truth.

 

Ever since the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist, Mr. Bush has sent his own earmarks to Congress and outside the budget process at that.  As of this writing, his Iraqi earmarks have totaled close to a half trillion dollars.  Not only is Bush's deficit spending paying for those earmarks, but so is the money borrowed to pay interest for the dramatic increased in the national debt that he has run on the taxpayers.

Once again, President Bush and the Republicans have demonstrated why they are hypocrites.  They utter not one word about their own, record-high earmarks, but when the Democrats cut earmarks by 25%, they cry foul.  

Hillary Still Strong

The media, as of late, has been really hitting Sen. Clinton hard and presenting only one side of a very complex story.  But I'm not into the game of "blame it all on the media".  Rather, I like to look for facts, and quite frankly, the facts show that Hillary is still a very strong candidate, both nationally and in the early states.  The media has been highly critical of the Clinton campaign, focusing on what they want you to think is a huge, sudden downfall for her in the polls.  The polls that show Hillary looking strong are all but forgotten.  So here is the most up to date polling available and, as you'll see, Hillary isn't in all that bad of shape after all.

First, let's take a look at the national race.  The two national polls that keep being shown over and over again on CNN and MSNBC are the two that show Obama very close to Hillary.  A Hotline poll from 12/10-14 has Obama trailing Clinton by just 5 points, while a Zogby poll has Obama just 8 points behind.  But here are the polls that aren't getting play, mainly because they don't make for as interesting of a story.  The very latest poll from Fox (12/18-19) has Clinton with a staggering 29 point lead over Obama.  An ABC poll from earlier this month has Clinton with a 30 point lead.  A NBC poll conducted just this past week has Clinton with a 24 point lead.  As you can see, Clinton's national lead is still strong.  Her peak was 30 points over Obama back in October.  Still, despite what the media would have you think, that lead is still very much in place.

Next up is Iowa.  Just today I heard talk on CNN and MSNBC about how dangerous Clinton is to coming in a distant third in Iowa and how horrible she is doing there.  Here is a fact: the last 3 out of 4 polls from Iowa have Clinton in the lead.  The American Research Group and Rasmussen give Clinton a 4 point lead.  CNN gives her a 2 point lead (interesting how CNN doesn't even report on their own poll).  Real Clear Politics, a great website that averages recent polling, indicates that Obama and Clinton are tied in Iowa with 28.3% each.  Does Clinton have Iowa locked-up?  Of course not.  But she is certainly doing better than the media lets out.

Another poll which has been given a ton of airplay today is the USA Today/Gallup poll from New Hampshire which shows Clinton and Obama tied.  What the media fails to mention is another poll which was conducted during the same time frame as the Gallup poll and gives Clinton a 14 point lead.  The latest CNN and Fox polls give her a 12 and 9 point lead respectively.  Real Clear Politics averages that Clinton has a 6.2 point lead; certainly not great, but far from horrible.

Clinton may not be at her peak, but no one realistically expected that she would be right now.  It is a historical fact that the closer to the primaries a Presidential election gets, particularly on the Democratic side, the more the race tightens.  Again, my point in writing this is not to attack the media, but rather to get the other side of the story out there.  It seems that over the last few months the MSM has turned violently against Clinton and is doing everything possible to pump up Barack Obama.  But facts are facts.  This is a very close race, but Clinton is still the frontrunner and is either winning or tying for first when you average the most recent data.   

Future Iraq Funding

If President Bush asks Congress for more money for Iraq next year, other than what has already been approved, here is how the Democrats need to handle any such request.

 

Since Bush has always requested money for Iraq outside of the budget process without any plans to pay for the war except to continue his deficit spending, the Democrats should handle it as a separate item and not mix it with any other legislation.  Bring it to a vote and let the Congress vote.  The Republicans can't muster the 60 votes needed in the Senate so the legislation would fail.  Bush will then go into his self serving statement about Democrats not supporting the troops.

 

The Democrats need not be afraid of that any more and should repeat over and over it is Bush who does not support our troops; he sent them off to fight a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The reason Bush's approval rating is between 29-30% is because the people understand the way Bush has lied to the country and that it is his own actions that does not support our troops and in fact he is using our troops as pawns to play God in the Middle East. 

 

Keep in mind, if neither Republican or Democrats in the Senate can reach 60 votes, the measure is dead.  There is enough money in the pipe line to bring our troops home safe.  No more funding.

Change Can Only Happen With Experience

Chris Dodd: American Patriot

Senator Chris Dodd's threatened filibuster against proposed legislation supported and asked for by George Bush and the Republicans in Congress to shield telecommunication companies against prosecution for cooperating with NSA on wire taps without a warrant and make it retroactive was the American thing to do.  Senator Dodd, with his threatened filibuster, showed the Democrats how to handle Bush concerning his reckless behavior.  The Republicans do not have enough votes to break a filibuster and Democrats in Congress need to use that tactic more.

 

As an American, one would think the telecommunications companies would be against this legislation because it opens up their networks to spying on their customers.  They should be mobilizing their people and industry to tell Congress to stay out of the people's private communications.  They should be totally opposed to having government spy on their customers without proper cause and authorization from a proper court.

 

It is so un-American for a President to have such a secret agenda.  To give telecom companies immunity from prosecution amounts to a bribe by this administration.  The terrorists successfully attacked us on 9-11 because Mr. Bush's mind was on Iraq instead of the threat bin Laden posed. Bush, like all Americans, knew bin Laden wanted to strike the United States.

 

The Democrats in Congress may not have enough votes to pass all their legislation and override all of Bush's vetoes, but they do have other means to deal with this President.  The filibuster is one means.  The other is to forget about being called "unpatriotic" by Republicans and do the right thing for the American people, especially concerning Iraq.  If Democrats do the right thing, the American people will stand behind them.  Senator Dodd did the right thing when he left his campaign in Iowa to come back to the Senate and let his voice be heard.  I salute Senator Dodd for his actions.

Israel's Sad Excuse For Leadership

The Associated Press has reported that one of Prime Ministers Olmert's ministers warned that the U.S. NIE report on Iran could trigger a war.  It also reported that an Israeli intelligent delegation is in the U.S. to press Israel's case that Iran is still working on a nuclear bomb.

 

The leaders of Israel and those ministers who have clout will not be satisfied until the U.S. supports an attack on Iran.  They supported the war against Iraq even though Israel's own intelligence knew Iraq had no WMD.  Israel wants to be the only power in the Middle East who has nuclear weapons and other WMD.  

Israel's leaders want to be the only ones to have these weapons because they want to be able to continue the use of their military power with impunity.  If anyone is not sure what impunity really means check the dictionary and you will understand how unstable and reckless Israel's leaders are.

 

The American people can not trust Olmert and leaders of Israel.  They agreed long ago to a U.N. resolution not to occupy land belonging to Palestine and instead continue to build settlements on those lands and Bush has let it slip by.  Now they are in Washington trying to convince Bush that our NIE was wrong. 

 

Mr. Olmert also complained that Iran is building long range missiles that could reach Israel.  Of course it is okay that Israel has had missiles for many years that can reach Iran.  There is much talk about the bible and armageddon in the Middle East.  If there is a war of armageddon in the middle east, it will be the leaders of Israel who will start it.  Our President and future presidents should realize what Israel's leaders really are and how they try to use the U.S. as their patsy.

Senator John McCain: To Torture or Not To Torture

Senator McCain spoke at a Columbia, S.C. campaign stop Saturday and said he wanted to create an Army Advisory Corps of 20,000 soldiers to act as military advisers and a new office of Strategic Services to fight terrorists.  He would put them in a crash program in civilian and military schools to have more experienced speakers in strategically important languages to create a new specialty in interrogation.

 

He says by having this new group we will never have to feel motivated to torture anyone ever again.  Then when asked if he knows our forces had engaged in torture, he said he did not know because he does not have that kind of information.  What is going on here?  He wants a special group so we don't have to torture but he does not know if we do torture under our present system.  Is this the real "straight talking express" candidate?

 

Our country has done well interrogating the enemy over the years without torture.  We are parties to the Geneva Convention, which prevents torture.  We don't need another layer of our military who is supposed to make sure we don't torture and then have a President who thinks he can do whatever he wants to do and approve torture.  We are in this water boarding and torture game now because of this President's reckless behavior. 

 

If McCain becomes our next President then all he has to do is set the example and policy so that it will be clear: The United States does not get involved in torture, period. Everyone in the world needs to knows it.

Climate Change - Rebuke In Indonesia

The Washington Post reports that at the Global Warming Conference over the weekend in Indonesia, delegates from over 190 nations, including the United States, came to an agreement that both the industrialize nations and those developing nations would commit themselves to measurable, verifiable steps for facing the global warming problem.  That was a first.

 

The U.S. was represented at the conference by Paula Dobriansky, U.S. undersecretary for democracy and global affairs.  She told the delegates that the U.S. was not willing to accept language calling on industrialized nations to deliver measurable, reportable, and verifiable assistance.  That comment brought about boos and hisses from the delegates and sharp rebukes.

 

The U.S. relented and changed its opposition after several other nations blasted the U.S. position.  Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea's ambassador, told the U.S. that if you can't lead, get out the way and leave it to the rest of us.  The South African minister of environmental affairs and tourism said Dobriansky's comments were unwelcome and wanted to know why Washington was not doing more.

 

Leaders of developing nations accused Washington in blunt terms of pressing them for commitments while refusing to make its own.  The U.S. tried all week to scuttle the conference with rigid demands and had to back down in the end.  Former V.P. Al Gore took the Bush administration to task for not supporting the conference and not doing its part.

 

Mr. Bush continues to think he is King of the World and can push other people around.  The leaders in Indonesia took their stand and let their voices be heard.  Our Congress should take note and bring Mr. Bush under control here at home before he makes any more reckless decisions that harm the U.S. and its people.  Seven years into his administration and Mr. Bush still can't lead the world on important issues as did past Presidents.

Enough Is Enough----Stop The Spin!!!

As I was watching my usual afternoon/evening lineup on MSNBC, I was outraged at the coverage that both Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson gave to the following Bob Kerrey statement:

"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal." 

Chris Matthews and Tucker attempted to spin this into somethings it's completely not.  Bob Kerrey was COMPLIMENTING Barack Obama, saying that his background was a plus.  Somehow, the MSM, and even some Obama-bloggers, took this to mean that Kerrey, taking direction from the Clinton campaign, was attacking Obama because of his background.  How they got an attack out of the above statement is beyond me.  If anything, Kerrey was saying that Obama has experience, something that one would think Obama supporters and the Obama-loving-media would be pleased with.

But no, of course not.  It seems that everything and everyone connected with Hillary Clinton can't just make a comment without being pounced on.  Even the nicest, most positive statements somehow become twisted into racism or discrimination or just plain meanness.  Seriously, enough is enough.  You don't have to support or even like Clinton, but to go after Kerrey for this is absurd.  Kerrey was giving his sincere opinion on Barack Obama, one that happened to be positive.

To twist the facts just to make Sen. Clinton look bad is ridiculous.  This has gone too far.  Not only does it falsely represent the Clinton campaign and their thoughts on Sen. Obama, it distorts Sen. Kerrey's opinions, who has proven to be one of the most honest, straight-shooters around.   This was not a negative attack meant to, in any way, criticize Barack Obama for where he grew up and what religion his relatives practiced.  Let the facts be the facts and then give analysis and opinion on those facts, but don't make something into something that it's not just for "good television" or "good reading".  Thats my message and plea to the MSM and bloggers who took this WAY out of context and made it into a story that it's simply not.

Kerrey Endorses Clinton

Hillary has received another major endorsement.  Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey had this to say:

"At a time when our nation faces serious challenges, it will take a leader with Hillary Clinton’s strength and experience to bring the real change we need.  Hillary is tested and uniquely capable of restoring America’s standing in the world."

1 "Kerrey" Down, 1 "Kerry" to go!

Religion And Politics (Part II)

Religion, the separation of Church and State, "In God we trust", are all words that bring out the best and worse depending on one's persuasion.  America, the land of tolerance, has been hijacked by the "holier than thou group" who question other people's faith and religion.  It has become a litmus test cast down on those who seek public office to explain their faith.  And no matter how much explaining is done, it is never enough.

 

This "group" is the extreme right, the neocons, and some evangelicals who demand proof of one's faith and religious beliefs.  They use one's faith and religion, or a lack there of, to judge a person's fitness for office or life itself.  They can't articulate what they themselves stand for, so they attack others to divide and conquer.

 

President Kennedy answered their warped minds after he became the Democratic nominee in 1960.  They wanted to know if he would take orders from the Pope or follow the constitution.  Of course, they knew the answer because he had  served in Congress and they already knew his positions.  But the zealots would not let go.  On the day he arrived in Dallas and was assassinated, the right wingers greeted him with a newspaper ad and poster that read, "Wanted for Treason." 

 

Now it's Mitt Romney's turn to have to answer questions about his religion, despite being a governor where his positions have been well known.  I have said before that when some one questions another person's character, it is the person who is doing the questioning that has the character problem.  Same is true for questioning one's religion or faith.

 

God gave Moses the 10 commandments of life and living.  There was no religion involved in following those words of wisdom.  In fact, we are told on the day of judgement he would be the one to judge.  But the "holier that thou group" wants to be judge and jury of one's faith and religion.  The American people need to realize them for what they really are. 

Politics And Religion (Part I)

The American people are their own worst enemy when it comes to politics and religion. Americans elect the same politicians over and over most of the time.  All one has to do is look at the make up of the Congress and State Legislatures.  The great majority are incumbents with many years of service.

 

Elected officials create the laws, regulations, tax codes and etc., that the people have to live with.  They create some bad ones, but the people still reelect them.  Has any one noticed how many times Senator McCain has said the tax code is unfair and has to be changed?  Yet it is he and Congress who create the tax code.  The people of Arizona have not called McCain down for this, instead he is elected and reelected over and over. 

 

The people have allowed the right wing neocons to divide the country.  They govern by fear, innuendo, character assassination, bigotry, and lies.  They do that because they know a lot of people can't make a decision and believe any thing they hear.  They have teamed up with the religious right to play God.  Many of the religious right even have T.V. shows that bring in millions of dollars.  They, along with the neocons, preach God and family, but God would surely not condone their hypocritical behavior.

 

Why  do people let themselves fall for this con game?  Do they realize these con artists are laughing at them everytime the people support them?  Because the neocons are so sure of themselves and their ability to control the people, I call your attention to the recent resignation of Karl Rove, Bush's  chief operative.  He resigned to write a book and rewrite the history and lies of the Bush administration.  The right wing T.V. and radio networks will give him center stage to continue the con job.  And worst of all, many people will continue to be conned.

 

Elected officials rub their power and greed right in the people's faces. They have no shame when accepting money from special interest, even though it is influencing their vote.  Neither is concerned about doing what is right and necessary for the country and the people.  Greed and power is their make up.

 

They preach no taxes and then turn around and give the people massive deficits and a massive national debt, and every year they waste billions of dollars paying interest on the deficits and debt they created.  That money could instead be used to further the quality of life for the American people.

 

Many members of Congress go to work for these special interest groups when they retire from Congress.  They are welcomed with open arms.  Is there any wonder why?

 

The people will elect a new president next year and also those in Congress who are up for reelection.  Time will tell  if the people can make a choice that truly changes the course of the con game.  One can only hope so.  

Des Moines Register Endorses Clinton

When I heard earlier this week that the Des Moines Register would be announcing their endorsement for President today, I, as many others, thought that the endorsement would surely go to either Obama or Edwards.   Surprisingly it went to Sen. Hillary Clinton and rightfully so.  Here is what the Register has to say:

"The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces - from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

...Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton's life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation's first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she's demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

...The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

And for those who say that this endorsement means nothing, all you have to do is look back in recent history to realize that it does.  In 2004, the Register endorsed John Edwards.  Many credit the Register's endorsement for Edwards quick ascent to a 2nd place showing.  With the race this close in Iowa, this can only benefit Sen. Clinton.

On a side note, the Register endorsed Sen. John McCain on the Republican side.  

Boswell Endorses Hillary---Caucus For Her

Here is a wonderful video I found of Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell on why he supports Hillary and why America needs her.  As he says in the video, Hillary has over 15 years of experience standing up against the Republican attack machine and against the special interests.  She has and continues to stand for meaningful change---not because she "hopes" for it, but because she has the actual experience and leadership to make it happen.  

Obama's Electability

Quite a stir has been caused by Billy Shaheen's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's past cocaine use.  In all honestly, I think the media has spun the story into somethings it's simply not.  Bill Shaheen was not saying that people should vote against Barack Obama for his drug use, but rather that the Republicans would use it heavily against him in a general election, which is undoubtably true.  So while I do not feel that Shaheen's comments were as terrible as they have been made out to be, I will admit that it was not necessary for a Democrat to bring up Obama's cocaine use.  But since he did bring into question Obama's electability, I think all Democratic caucus goers and primary voters should take Obama's electability into serious question before supporting him.

Facts are facts.  Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been under national scrutiny from the Republicans for years.  Both are experienced with how to deal with those problems.  Their pasts have been vetted; everything that could be used against them is already out.  

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has not had his past vetted.  He has yet to run a serious campaign against a Republican or take hard hits from the right-wing machine.  This makes Obama a vulnerable candidate and calls into question his electability next November.  

Past drug use, although it matters nothing at all to me, is something that could prove to be a turn off to many swing voters.  The Obama campaign likes to put forth the fact that he has been open about it in his book and in public.  But that, in a general election campaign against the Republicans, won't matter.  Do you really think that ordinary Americans have read Obama's book?  Of course not.  The Republicans will use this against Obama and it will hurt him.  I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

And it's not just his past drug use either.  We, much less the majority of Americans, know very little about Barack Obama's past.  He has not been vetted.  There are surely things in his past that could hurt his electability.  Every candidate has problems no doubt, but candidates like Clinton and Edwards have had their "dirty laundry" aired a long time ago.  Their "dirty laundry" is old news to voters.  Obama's would be new news.  

Clinton and Edwards have both proven successful in winning over Republican voters and winning in strong Republican areas.  Obama does not have that experience.  His one major election, his 2004 Senate campaign, was against a very weak opponent, Alan Keyes.  I mean, seriously, let's face it, Alan Keyes is just about the weakest Republican in the country.  The '08 election, in much contrast to Obama's Senate campaign, will be far from a cake walk.  As a Democrat committed to getting a Democrat elected in '08,  I want to put my trust in someone like Edwards or Clinton, who know how to deal with the Republican dirt machine and who have proven to be winners in tough battles. 

The Only Way Barack Can Lose Iowa

Sen. Barack Obama, much to my dismay, looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  The big "Mo" (momentum) is on his side and he is leading in many recent Iowa polls.  Clinton and Edwards appear to be stuck in second and third place respectively, but with such a tight race and the volatile nature of the Iowa caucus, there is something that works to the advantage of Clinton and Edwards.  This same thing is the one and only way I could see Barack Obama losing Iowa.  So what is that "thing" of which I refer?  It's the youth vote, of course.

Sen. Clinton and Edwards have the top two traditional caucusing groups on their side.  Sen. Clinton has the 40+ women vote, which traditionally shows up in strong numbers on caucus night.  Edwards also has an important and consistent caucusing group---the labor, or union, vote.  And Barack's support.....the youth vote.  

Polls show Obama to have a tremendous amount of support among college students and other voters in the 18-34 demographic.  If Sen. Obama can get his many young supporters to show up, he will surely win.  The problem is that history is not on his side.  Only 10% of all caucus goers in 2004 were under the age 35; Obama draws much of his support from those same people.

We all remember what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  At this point in 2003, with just 3 weeks until the caucus, Howard Dean was still the clear frontrunner.  The problem for Dean on the night of the caucus was that his core support consisted of voters under the age of 35 and they simply did not show up to caucus as the polls had suggested.  

As can be seen, the youth vote if far from reliable.  Many young voters show up at rallies for a candidate and even tell pollsters that they are "likely caucus attenders".  Yet, when the night of the caucus comes, the youth simply don't show up in big numbers.  Sadly, they often get distracted.  It should be noted that a big distraction for many young voters, particularly male, this year could potentially be the Orange Bowl, which will begin at about the same time as the caucus.  

Obama and his supporters have promised that this year will be different.  They say that the youth will show up and caucus.  Talk, however, is cheap.  Howard Dean and his campaign claimed the same thing in 2004 as did candidates in previous years.                                                                                                                               

My point: Obama is in the prime position to win the Iowa caucus, but he's not inevitable.  With a large chunk of his support being from younger voters, Obama leaves himself vulnerable.  If he can truly, as he says, bring in youth voters as has never been done before, Obama has this caucus in the bag.  But if only 10%, or even 15%, show up, Obama could be in deep trouble.  With the race so tight in Iowa, Obama, or any candidate for that matter, can not afford to not have their core supporters show up.  As Dean learned in '04, it's one thing to have supporters, it's a completely different thing to have them actually show up on a cold winter night to stand in a room for hours and caucus for you.  

Clinton and Edwards have reliable supporters who are traditional caucus goers; they should have no problem getting their people out.  The race in Iowa, and possibly the nationally, depends on how many of Obama's youth supporters actually show up.  If he gets them out there, he'll win.  If he doesn't, he could be the Dean of '08.  Only time will tell.  

Afghanistan: Failing Because of Iraq

The United States invaded Afghanistan over 6 years ago.  That was the right decision because Bin Laden's operations and training camps were there and were supported by the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, the people of the U.S. supported that operation as did most world leaders.  Our military leaders were convinced that we had Bin Laden trapped on several occasions, but we failed to capture him.

 

As of this writing Bin Laden is still at large.  The U.S. has approximately 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and NATO has about 28,000.  The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Does that make sense when we knew Iraq was no threat to the U.S.?  Everyone knows who struck the U.S. on 9-11.  Our resources were and still are committed to the wrong war.

 

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Gates is blasting NATO for not doing enough in Afghanistan and that Gates wants to overhaul the alliance strategy in Afghanistan.  Violence is on the rise and the U.S. strategic goals for Afghanistan in 2007 have not been met.   In fact, senior administration officials have gone as far as saying that the country is backsliding.  

 

The bottom line is that we have not been fighting the war on terrorism.  We have turned that over to NATO and our rhetoric is hollow.  Our resources have been wasted in Iraq.  The President's self serving statement, "the War on Terror is centered in Iraq," is purely false.  The War on Terror can not be won when you have a faulty foreign policy.  The next President has to have the wisdom to recognize the real threat that terrorism poses, and have a foreign policy that deals with that threat.  Iraq is not a threat; Afghanistan and bin Laden are.