I've always said that even though I strongly disagree with his ideas and principles, I truly like former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, as a human being. While all the other GOP candidates seem stiff and unpleasant, Mike Huckabee comes of as a warm guy who one would just like to hang out with and have fun. Well now it seems that I'm not the only democrat who finds Huckabee likable:
"Is there a Republican in the field you admire, who you think might do a nice job?" Comedy Central host Jon Stewart asked Obama during his Wednesday night appearance on the program.
"I think some of these folks are decent people," Obama said. "I mean Mike Huckabee..."
Stewart then remarked, "Worst backhanded compliment ever!" - a remark that drew laughs.
"No, no, no," Obama insisted. "I think there are guys like Huckabee who I think are sincere and decent."
"Sincere and decent". That is indeed exactly how I would describe Huckabee. You might not agree with his positions, but you can tell that he truly believes in what he says and would always do what he feels is in the country's best interest. His appeal could have some real implications in the 2008 election as well. Once republican primary voters get to know Huckabee and get to see a little more of him, he could really pick up some momentum. I've said before that I think the Iowa caucus was his first chance to shine and he sure did. My advice to Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, & McCain: watch Huckabee, his like-ability might take him further than you think.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Hillary's Top 10
Here is an interesting list I just noticed on Sen. Hillary Clinton's website. It is an outline of presumably the top ten things she will accomplish if elected president:
1) End the Iraq War
2) Achieve affordable, universal healthcare
3) To create jobs for middle class Americans with the right investments in infrastructure and in new, clean, energy-efficient technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global warming
4) To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all
5) To promote 21st Century scientific innovation such as stem-cell research
6) To return fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations
7) To restore competence and eliminate cronyism in the government with a president who cares about and works for people who have been invisible to this president
8) To fight terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans
9) To restore America's standing in the world and rebuild our alliances
10) To build a more tolerant America, working together to achieve big goals with a president who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one
This is indeed the top 10 things every presidential candidate in this day and age should promise to accomplish if elected president. Hopefully if Sen. Clinton is elected president, she will accomplish all these things and more. For whomever can successfully tackle the above 10 issues, they might just go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time.
1) End the Iraq War
2) Achieve affordable, universal healthcare
3) To create jobs for middle class Americans with the right investments in infrastructure and in new, clean, energy-efficient technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global warming
4) To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all
5) To promote 21st Century scientific innovation such as stem-cell research
6) To return fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations
7) To restore competence and eliminate cronyism in the government with a president who cares about and works for people who have been invisible to this president
8) To fight terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans
9) To restore America's standing in the world and rebuild our alliances
10) To build a more tolerant America, working together to achieve big goals with a president who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one
This is indeed the top 10 things every presidential candidate in this day and age should promise to accomplish if elected president. Hopefully if Sen. Clinton is elected president, she will accomplish all these things and more. For whomever can successfully tackle the above 10 issues, they might just go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time.
Maliki lashes out at Clinton & Levin
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lashed out today against the Democratic party here in the U.S., namely Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin:
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."
Wow, I'm not sure what to say about the Iraqi Prime Minister's remarks. One would have to suppose these remarks stem from the fact that Clinton and Levin, among others, have called for the removal of Maliki from the position of Prime Minister of Iraq. This is the second worrisome statement made by Maliki this week, earlier insisting that if the U.S. won't help him, he'll find other friends(Syria) who will. After all the U.S. has sacrificed for Iraq and after all we have done to assist Maliki, its scary that, since I guess Maliki can't manage politics in his own country, he has to resort to interfering in American politics by attacking the democrats.
The reason the democrats, including Clinton and Levin, want Maliki gone from Iraq is because of his complete lack of leadership. He has been in office for quite a while now and has done more harm than good in respect to the progress in Iraq. He has led to further division in the Iraqi government, with a large part of the Parliament refusing to cooperate. It has been said time and time again: there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, there must be a political solution. With Maliki in charge, there will never be a political solution. He is too dependent on the United States and needs to have "friends" in case the U.S. pulls out. He expects the U.S. to just continue helping him with nothing from him in return, and must be frightened at the prospect that if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, he'll be left all alone. The U.S. has handed Maliki the proverbial "blank check" for too long. If Iraq's government won't put any effort into helping out their own country, why should we. We have stayed there too long and for that matter, should have never gone in. But, because of the lies of our president, we are indeed in, and now we need to focus on how we get our brave men and women home safely and securely while at the same time, focusing on how to keep America safe and fight terrorism where it actually is.
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."
Wow, I'm not sure what to say about the Iraqi Prime Minister's remarks. One would have to suppose these remarks stem from the fact that Clinton and Levin, among others, have called for the removal of Maliki from the position of Prime Minister of Iraq. This is the second worrisome statement made by Maliki this week, earlier insisting that if the U.S. won't help him, he'll find other friends(Syria) who will. After all the U.S. has sacrificed for Iraq and after all we have done to assist Maliki, its scary that, since I guess Maliki can't manage politics in his own country, he has to resort to interfering in American politics by attacking the democrats.
The reason the democrats, including Clinton and Levin, want Maliki gone from Iraq is because of his complete lack of leadership. He has been in office for quite a while now and has done more harm than good in respect to the progress in Iraq. He has led to further division in the Iraqi government, with a large part of the Parliament refusing to cooperate. It has been said time and time again: there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, there must be a political solution. With Maliki in charge, there will never be a political solution. He is too dependent on the United States and needs to have "friends" in case the U.S. pulls out. He expects the U.S. to just continue helping him with nothing from him in return, and must be frightened at the prospect that if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, he'll be left all alone. The U.S. has handed Maliki the proverbial "blank check" for too long. If Iraq's government won't put any effort into helping out their own country, why should we. We have stayed there too long and for that matter, should have never gone in. But, because of the lies of our president, we are indeed in, and now we need to focus on how we get our brave men and women home safely and securely while at the same time, focusing on how to keep America safe and fight terrorism where it actually is.
Would another terror attack help the Republicans in '08?
Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has recently drew fire for suggesting that a terrorist attack on American soil between now and the 2008 Elections, would be a huge help to the GOP, stating:
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'...But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Clinton then added that, "I'm the best to deal with that(terrorism)".
I certainly can see what sounds terrible about that statement. What Clinton said is one of those things that no matter how you phrase it, it comes out sounding awful. Yet, Clinton's assessment of what could happen might not be too far off, if there was, God forbid, another terrorist attack on the United States.
The thought of a terrorist attack being used for political gain is a real issue. The GOP is a master at making themselves appear strong and instilling fear in Americans. George Bush used that fear in 2004 to be re-elected. By making John Kerry appear to be weak on terrorism, and constantly bringing up terrorism in the debates against Kerry, Bush was able to make Americans feel like he, not Kerry would keep them safe. So while it is a rather awful sounding statement, it does have merit. The Republicans are already trying to fool the American people by calling democrats "weak on national security" and proclaiming that they would "give al-Qaeda a victory". I find it quite upsetting to see fellow democrats jump on Clinton for her remarks, when they know that, sadly, she is right. She has spent years fighting Republicans. She knows how they operate and knows how to beat them. My question is why did Clinton make this statement. It is a statement that to most people, should be obvious, the GOP try to use fear to their political advantage. Trust me, the Clinton campaign is well though out, she had planned to say this statement, it wasn't a mere slip of the tongue. It'll be most interesting to see if it can be figured out why she made this statement and how the whole situation will play out.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'...But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Clinton then added that, "I'm the best to deal with that(terrorism)".
I certainly can see what sounds terrible about that statement. What Clinton said is one of those things that no matter how you phrase it, it comes out sounding awful. Yet, Clinton's assessment of what could happen might not be too far off, if there was, God forbid, another terrorist attack on the United States.
The thought of a terrorist attack being used for political gain is a real issue. The GOP is a master at making themselves appear strong and instilling fear in Americans. George Bush used that fear in 2004 to be re-elected. By making John Kerry appear to be weak on terrorism, and constantly bringing up terrorism in the debates against Kerry, Bush was able to make Americans feel like he, not Kerry would keep them safe. So while it is a rather awful sounding statement, it does have merit. The Republicans are already trying to fool the American people by calling democrats "weak on national security" and proclaiming that they would "give al-Qaeda a victory". I find it quite upsetting to see fellow democrats jump on Clinton for her remarks, when they know that, sadly, she is right. She has spent years fighting Republicans. She knows how they operate and knows how to beat them. My question is why did Clinton make this statement. It is a statement that to most people, should be obvious, the GOP try to use fear to their political advantage. Trust me, the Clinton campaign is well though out, she had planned to say this statement, it wasn't a mere slip of the tongue. It'll be most interesting to see if it can be figured out why she made this statement and how the whole situation will play out.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)