Edwards Out; Who Benefits?

Much to my surprise, former North Carolina Senator, John Edwards, ended his presidential ambitions today in New Orleans, the same place where he announced his '08 candidacy.  This was shocking to say the least.  I had expected Edwards to stay in the race until the convention.  After all, what does he have to lose?  Or more importantly, what else can he do?  He has been, for the last 5 years, a professional Presidential candidate.  

Despite the shock and surprise of this drop-out, the media has already begun speculating on whom Edwards will endorse.  As I've stated in the past, I'm not sure how much endorsements matter.  I know several Edwards supporters and they have already made up their mind on who they will vote for now that he's out.  Some say Clinton; others Obama.  They assure me that whomever Edwards endorses is no more likely to get their vote than that person was before that potential endorsement.  

With that said, the Edwards vote is really split in my mind.  You have those Edwards supporters who are low-income, white, mostly rural voters.  Those voters are pretty much exactly how one would describe Clinton voters, minus the rural part.  You also have the labor unions, which, in some states, are heavily hispanic.  Those votes would also vote for Clinton, although the Kennedy endorsement might help slightly with latinos.  

Then there are those liberal "change" voters, whatever the hell that means.  They are Daily-Kos and Huffington Post Democrats, who support Edwards simply because of his far-left positions on some of the issues.  Those are, clearly, Obama voters.  

So the question should not be who Edwards will endorse, although it is more than likely to be Obama, considering all his anti-Clinton talk as of late, but who Edwards voters will break for.  Right now, my estimation is a 50-50 split, which leaves this race just as dead-locked as before Edwards got out. 

Conservatism: The Ugly and Unamerican Ideology

In the four years I spent on active duty in the Marine Corps, I was not asked one time if I was a liberal or conservative.  Yet we all shared the same thing and looked after and took care of each other.  We all served our country at a very young age and I am proud to be a Korean War Veteran.  We were "always faithful" to our motto and each other.  Being an American and a Marine was the only ideology. 

 

I worked for over 45 years in the business world and not once was my job or life affected by my political beliefs.  I can say the same thing about my life outside military service and work place.  But now, politicians have changed all of that, why?  The simple answer is political greed, and make no mistake, it started with the neoconservative administration of Ronald Reagan.  Ever since then Republican candidates have tried to paint themselves as the good guys and everyone else, the bad guys, especially liberals.  They have tried to change the meaning of patriotism when others do not share their ideology.  They have even stooped to the low of accusing people who do not always wear an american flag on their coat as unpatriotic. 

 

How did the people of this great country get suckered into this conservative ideology that is meant to divide us?  If the american people were impressed with facts, they would turn off this ideology tomorrow.  But people seem to go with the flow.  If some one in my Marine outfit or in my working career took the attitude that his ideology was better than any one else's, he would have not lasted long at all. 

 

Too many Americans have forgotten the good life we have lived as Americans and have bought into ideology as a substitute for being an American.  All one has to do is listen to what the Republican candidates running for President are saying.  "No one else is fit to serve in the office," that is the thrust of their speeches.  They can't even bring themselves to embrace the ideals that America has stood for since the beginning.  They even try to out do each other as to who is the most conservative.  That really gets to be a laugh.  The cure is very simple. Get a life and be an American first.  Come down off your high perch, you may like it here on earth, and you just might remember the days when ideology took a back seat in the real world.  Those were the days when much was accomplished.

 

If conservative politicians and candidates really want to do something for their country and fellow man, prove it by your deeds, tap into the real spirit of America and let go of your phony "holier than thou" attitude.  You will find it is better to have an American ideology than a phony conservative ideology.

 

Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford described themselves as conservatives, but never did they themselves proclaim a "holier than thou" attitude in their political campaigns.  They spoke to the issues facing the country.  I just wish the candidates these days would speak to the issues, but that seems unlikely.  

The Absence of Competence

We now learn from a report by the New York Times that Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, and General Michael Hayden, Director of CIA went to Pakistan secretly on January 9 to try and reach an agreement with Pakistan President Musharraf to allow America greater latitude to operate in the tribal areas where Al Qaeda and Taliban militant groups are active.  The report noted that Musharraf rebuffed their proposals to expand any U.S. combat presence in Pakistan, covertly, unilaterally, and/or by joint operation with Pakistan.

 

The war in Afghanistan is past the 6th year and we have failed to find Bin Laden.  Worst of all, our invasion of that country, with the mission to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda, failed to seal the area off where we believe Bin Laden and al-Zawahri are hiding, the tribal area bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Instead of fighting the war concerning the people who struck the U.S. on 9-11, Bush's attention was, and still is, on Iraq.  The troop level necessary to fight the war in Afghanistan and seal off the enemy's escape was never there.  It would be hard to choose what war Bush has been more incompetent on, Iraq or Afghanistan. 

 

The U.S. is now getting ready to send more troops to Afghanistan and trying hard to get NATO to respond.  Many military people are saying we are losing the war.  Why is the President, after 6 years of war, and in his last year in office, finally making a push to find Bin Laden?  The answer is that this President is such a small person and has been so reckless in his behavior, that he thinks capturing Bin Laden will erase all the mistakes he has made during his tenure as President.  However, Bush will be remembered as the President who started a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist, and a President who failed to fight the real war against the people who harmed our country on 9-11.  Six years later he is trying to find his groove in Afghanistan.  It is hard to absorb the real cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with all the loss of life and the area concerned is less stable now then before the wars.  The tragic story is that the American people can not even  be told or explained what our objectives are.  The President and supporters of both wars keep changing the story of why we are there. 

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part I of III)

The U.S. economy is in the news yet again with many economists and business leaders predicting a recession in the near future.  Some say it will be short lived; others say it will be deep and prolonged.  The candidates who are running for their party's nomination have already put their two cents in.  

 

If a recession does occur, it will be the second one on this President's watch.  The first occurred in 2001.  That leads to the question, which party's President, in the last 28 years, has had the best economic policy for the economy and its people?  The undisputed answer and fact is the Clinton Administration.  That is one of the main reasons Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest approval rating of any President in modern times. One could go back 40 years and the Clinton economy would still come out on top.  

 

Reagan-Bush served 12 years, Clinton 8 years and G.W. Bush 8 years.  Those 3 republican presidents served a total of 20 years.  Reagan was the first of the neocons who championed an ideology that claimed the GOP was best at balancing the budget, creating jobs, lowering unemployment, cutting the budget, managing the economy, and lowering crime.  But sadly, those 3 republican presidents were reckless with the people's money and (1) Failed to keep their promises to the country and its people; (2) Betrayed the voters; (3)  Created massive debt for our children and grandchildren; (4) Placed in jeopardy our democracy by being in bed with Corporate America, and (5)  Deliberately tried to put the U.S. government's financial situation in jeopardy with debt in order to bankrupt social security, medicare, and other social services on which millions of Americans depend. 

 

One will not have to be a deep thinker to absorb the facts.  The actual numbers will tell the story because they are already written in the history books.  There are those who have lived through the 28 years and will still not believe the facts.  They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they do not have a right to call those 3 republican presidents fiscal conservatives, nor do they have a right to call liberals big spenders.  The facts will show just the opposite.

 

George Bush said the tax cuts of 2001 and the stimulus package that was passed by Congress ended the recession of 2001.  Now he is talking about another stimulus for the predicted recession to come soon.  The reader needs to keep in mind the republican problem.  They have, through the years, a tax cutting policy but not an economic policy.  They believe in the trickle down theory.  On the other hand president Clinton had an economic policy to deal with the 12 year fiscal mess Reagan-Bush left the country in. 

 

An economic policy is lasting and covers a broad spectrum while a stimulus package does not answer the real problem and, in fact, comes after the fact.  Ditto for the tax cuts that the republicans propose because they favor the most wealthy people.  Simply put it: trickle down economics is a fairytale. 

 

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate running for president who has spoken about fiscal responsibility, while the other republicans have talked about emulating Reagan and Bush.  Senator Clinton is the only democratic candidate for president who talks about getting back to fiscal responsibility as the best way to deal with the economy and our other problems. 

 

Sadly, the massive spending and debt the republicans have put the country in is never discussed by the journalists in the news media.  Stay tuned because part II will deal with the Reagan-Bush years and part III with the Clinton and Bush years.

Why Michigan And Florida Need To Count

There has been a ton of buzz, both on the blogs and in the media, because Sen. Hillary Clinton asked the DNC that both Michigan and Florida delegates be seated at the convention.  Many have suggested that this is unfair; that Hillary Clinton is only doing this because she won Michigan and might win Florida.  Well, maybe thats partly the truth, but nonetheless, Michigan and Florida need to count.

Reason 1:  Both Michigan and Florida are key swing states come November.  The Democratic nominee will need every last vote they can get in those states.  By not seating the delegates, some Democratic voters get pretty pissed off and simply won't vote. And they certainly have a right to get angry at the Democratic party. That brings me to reason two.

Reason 2: Every last voter in this country deserves to get their voice heard, regardless of who they voted for.  It's unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida that the voters of 48 other states will have their voices heard at the convention, but they won't.  

Reason 3: The reason the DNC gave for stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates was that they moved their primary up too early.  I usually agree with the DNC, but they were wrong in this situation.  Every state should get a change to have an equally strong voice in the nomination process.  Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina shouldn't be the only states to get in on the action.  Thats why I have said repeatedly that there needs to be a national primary come 2012.  

So along with Sen. Clinton and the people of Michigan and Florida, who have voted and will soon vote, I ask the Democratic National Convention to seat their delegates at the convention.  Every American who chooses to vote deserves his or her voice be heard when it comes to selecting the next President of the United States.  

Yet Another Failed Middle East Policy

Just a few weeks ago President Bush traveled to the Middle East and visited with the leader of Israel, the leader of the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries.  This was supposed to restart the so called "Road Map" talks and lead to a treaty to solve the Israel and Palestine problem before years end.

 

But the President failed to include Hamas, and the palestinians who occupy the Gaza strip, in the talks.  Keep in mind it was Hamas who won the parliament election in 2006.  How can the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians, as well as other nations of the Middle East, reach a lasting peace agreement and establish a Palestinian state with borders without Hamas being invited or involved.

 

Now we have Israel and Hamas in conflict again with each other.  Both sides launch attacks against each other and Israel has responded by cutting off all supplies moving into and out of Gaza. Israel has cut off fuel for Gaza's only power plant.  The Palestinians, in order to break the hard ships, blew up the wall separating Gaza and Egypt and flooded Egypt to stock up on supplies.  The breach in the wall is still open and the Palestinians are still moving into Gaza to purchase needy goods and food.

 

President Bush has been A.W.O.L. for 7 years concerning the Israel-Palestinian problem so in his last year he decides to go to the middle east and save face before he leaves office.  But he fails to include Hamas in any of the talks and now Hamas is making its plight known. This is just more incompetence from President Bush.  The world needs a Middle East peace agreement that will actually work. 

1/24 Republican Debate Analysis

"Wow!" was the headline I gave to Monday's Democratic debate, but if a similar headline were to be given to the GOP debate, it would be "Booooring".  Okay, maybe boring is too harsh of an adjective, but it was extremely mild considering the crucial Florida Primary is this coming Tuesday.

So who won?  Many in the media have given then win to Mitt Romney.  Others, although less numerous than the former, halied McCain the winner for simply not doing anything to halt his momentum coming out of South Carolina.  Here's my take:

After watching the debate, it is clear than any one of the Democratic candidates is a thousand times better than any Republican candidate.  With that being said, I have to point out some outright lies by John McCain.  As reported by NBC's First Read:

"Tim Russert asked him this: "Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' 

Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?"

McCain replied, "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from."

Well Sen. McCain, you did say that.  Here is what you said:

“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics that I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

That is the exact quote Russert read and that McCain denied ever saying.  Maybe he's losing his memory as he gets up in age, but McCain did, indeed, say that he is not experienced in economics.  In fact, just last month, McCain had this to say, further illustrating the lack of economic experience McCain now claims he has and has always had:

"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should." (Boston Globe)

McCain also claimed to have received a majority of the Republican vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  This is, again, factually inaccurate.  In New Hampshire, Romney won the Republican vote while Huckabee did the same in South Carolina.  On a side note, it should be interesting to see if McCain can win the Florida primary since only Republican voters, not independents, can vote in it.  If New Hampshire and South Carolina followed the same rules as Florida, McCain wouldn't have won.

McCain stated, in addition to the previous mis-statements, that not a single military official has said that the current troop levels in Iraq can not be sustained.  Well, in fact, many, too many to list, have said that it will be impossible to maintain current troop levels in Iraq for much longer.  Some of those military officials to which I refer include Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. George Casey.  

Well now that I'm done picking apart McCain's apparent lies, let me move on to the analysis.  

Obviously, I'm not a Republican, but I figure to at least try to analyze this crucial debate, I need to get in the mindset of conservative Republicans who make up the bulk of Florida GOP primary voters.  When I do that, I can indeed see why so many in the media have pronounced Romney the winner.  Joe Scarborough was the first pundit to declare Romney the winner and I agree with his analysis.  He is, after all, a Florida Republican---he should know how his own people think and how they vote.  

Why do I think he won? Because: Romney came off seeming knowledgeable concerning the economy, which is the top issue for Florida voters.  Compare Romney's detailed answers on the economy to McCain's, "let's get some people together and work this thing out" approach and Romney was the clear winner.  And the fact that the majority of the debate focused on the economy, and not foreign policy, was a huge plus to Romney and a huge minus for McCain.  

Rudy, in much contrast to Romney, came off looking the worst.  It's as if he has already ceded this race and just wanted to fade away quietly (which is probably a good idea).  Rudy probably said some pretty wacky stuff last night, as he usually does, but to be honest, I just can't remember anything he said.  His performance was forgettable, literally.  

With all that being said, here are my top 3 winners of last night's GOP debate:

1st place: Mitt Romney

2nd: Mike Huckabee (although he's a crazy religious right-winger, he is charming and that goes a long way in a debate)

3rd: John McCain

New York Times Endorses Clinton

Today, the largest newspaper in the country, the New York Times, read by people in all 5o states, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for President.  Here is some of what they had to say:

"As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election...

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now...

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave...

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right...

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006...

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

Dems Hail McCain The GOP Frontrunner---But Who's Best To Defeat Him?

It's clear from watching Monday's debate that the Democratic candidates have focused in on whom they believe will be the Republican nominee, and hence their opposition, heading into the November general election---John McCain.  All three major candidates---Clinton, Obama, and Edwards---have made the argument that they themselves would be the strongest nominee to best McCain and win the Presidency.

So who is truly the strongest candidate?  The truth is that they all have points that need to be taken into account.  Obama says that he can bring in independents.  Edwards claims he can bring more rural, traditionally red, states into play come November. Clinton's argument is that she is the only Democratic candidate who keep up with McCain on foreign policy issues.  All the above are excellent points made by each of the candidates.  

So, we've heard the arguments, but what about the numbers?  Well just today, the LA Times and Bloomberg released polling data pitting Clinton and Obama against McCain (sorry Edwards, you weren't included), and here are the results:

-Clinton 46% McCain 42%   (Clinton +4%)

-Obama 41% McCain 42%   (McCain +1%)

As I pointed out before, Clinton has to be considered the best Democrat to go against McCain.  Why?  Because McCain could easily beat Obama over and over again with the claim to experience in general as well as foreign policy experience.  Clinton would cede neither the experience argument nor the foreign policy experience argument to McCain.  She could go toe to toe with McCain on those issues.  Giving McCain Obama as an opponent would be giving him a huge advantage.  What's his advantage over Clinton? Is there one?  We haven't seen one yet.  

1/21 Democratic Debate Analysis

Wow!---thats all I can say.  Watching last night's CNN Democratic debate felt like watching a high speed car crash---where you just know it's going to get uglier and uglier but you just can't turn away.  

The first half of the debate, in addition to housing the fireworks between Clinton and Obama, had some rather odd moments. For one, it seemed as if Obama had rehearsed lines that he was determined to get in on Clinton regardless of what the topic of the question was.  In the first ten minutes, Obama was asked a question about the economy, but instead of spending his one minute of time answering the question, he attacked Bill Clinton.  It was just plain weird to see a question on the economy turn into an attack on Bill Clinton, which of course drew a response from Clinton, and then one back again from Obama and so on. 

One thing I was shocked to see, and I say this from a completely unbiased point of view, was that Obama took the Clintons' bait. It was overtly obvious to anyone watching the past few days that Bill and Hillary wanted to distract Obama from the issues and get inside his head.  And to my surprise, Bill threw out the bait and Obama jumped on it.  It was unproductive for Obama last night, it terms of the more or less national race coming February 5, to attack Bill Clinton.  Obama has South Carolina locked up with its 50% + African American vote, but Super Tuesday is another story.  And by taking the Clintons' bait and attacking Hillary and Bill, rather than answering the questions, Obama was reduced to nothing more than a mere politician.  If I was Obama and I was put in his position, going up against the Clinton machine, I would have risen above the fray and tried to appear untouchable.  

Why Obama aggressively and persistently went after the Clintons, particularly Bill, is beyond my comprehension.  Does he not understand that he played right into the Clintons' hands last night?  This should be common sense for anyone, especially someone with the savvy of Obama---you don't attack Bill Clinton in a Democratic Primary race. It's just plain stupid.

And to make matters even worse for Obama last night, he was the one who started the entire fight, and trust me, it was a fight. Usually it's Hillary who makes a charge against her opponents and more or less starts the dialogue.  Last night it was Obama who appeared overly eager to throw the first punch.  But as Obama found out, Clinton can hit back pretty hard too.  After several minutes of back and forth bickering, Obama made a comment about Clinton and Wal-Mart.  Clinton, clearly having had enough, hit Obama back with the whole Rezco scandal, which does deserve more attention than it's gotten.  You could just tell by the look on Obama's face that he was not ready for that, and he was pretty much "well-behaved" for the rest of the debate.

  

Again, I'll say that those opening moments clearly rattled Obama.  The candidates were asked about a bill that came to the Senate that would put a cap on interest rates for credit cards at 30%.  Clinton voted for it, Obama against it.  Clinton made the charge that by not voting to put a cap on how high credit cards could charge a customer interest, Obama was playing right into the corporate lobbyists' hands. Obama then gave the most bizarre comeback of this campaign season: he voted against it because he though that 30% was too high.  John Edwards, who has mostly sided with Obama in previous debates, turned to Obama, with the a priceless look on his face, and simply asked Obama how the hell does it make sense that you vote against a 30% cap, which by default would allow a company to charge as much interest as they like, and then say it was because the cap was too high.  Isn't a 30% cap better than a 100% cap?  

Edwards also went after Obama over his liberal use of the "present" vote in the Illinois State Senate.  This is really telling, because as Edwards said, if you agree with a bill, you vote yes, if you don't, you vote no.  The present vote is nothing more than a cheap shot at political cover.  Instead of taking a stand on tough issues, Obama decided to straddle the middle.  As Edwards said, America needs a President who is not afraid to take tough positions; America needs a President who will stand up and fight for a progressive agenda.

The best and most substantive policy debate of the night came over the issue of healthcare.  From what I could tell, both Clinton and Edwards looked great defending true universal healthcare.  Democrats have wanted universal healthcare for over a decade, and it's appealing to many to hear Clinton and Edwards stand up firmly for it.  They both correctly pointed out that Obama's plan is not universal.  Every American will not be insured; in fact, an estimated 15 million or more would be left without healthcare coverage.  In 2008, with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, universal healthcare can get passed.  It would be sad to pass up that opportunity, both in my mind and in the mind of many other Democrats.  

So who won the debate?  Clearly Edwards.  Not because he was particularly great last night, but because the spat between Clinton and Obama virtually cancelled each candidate out.  Unfortunately for Edwards, it's just too late for him to make a comeback.  So in that sense, when you realize that it's now a Clinton-Obama race, Clinton won the debate.  Obama played to the South Carolina base, and did well on that front.  But on the national scale, Clinton was the winner.  

Well If It's The Economy(...Stupid!), Then Hillary Is Your Candidate

Time after time, when talking to friends, surfing the blogosphere, and analyzing the recent polls, there is one single issue that stands in the forefront of people's minds.  It's the economy.  Sure, ending the War in Iraq is a huge issue, as is universal healthcare and the environment, but the economy is paramount.  I've taken the time to review all the major Democratic candidates' proposals for the economy, and one sticks out.  It's Sen. Hillary Clinton's.  Why?  Because, unlike others, hers does not talk in broad based ideas and ideals when coming up with solutions.  It talks specifics. 

Sen. Clinton has also demonstrated her vast knowledge of America's current economic situation in the debates.  She is the only candidate, from either side of the isle, with perhaps the exception of Romney, who looks confident and knowledgeable on the facts.  (In my opinion, Romney is completely wrong when it comes to the economy, but he does at least look confident in talking about it...but thats another story.)  Earlier today, Clinton addressed the worsening global economy.  Here is what she had to say:

Obama Calls Out Bill---Who's Telling The Truth?

In a pre-taped interview with ABC's Good Morning America, set to air tomorrow, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that Bill Clinton had recently been making "factually inaccurate" statements concerning him(Obama) and his campaign.  So, the question has to be asked: Who's telling the truth, Barack or Bill?  Let's look at the facts on some of the issues of which Barack claims Bill was not telling the truth:

1)President Clinton said that Obama's radio ad told Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for him.  Here are the President's exact words:

"There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me."

Obama claims that is not true.  But here is exactly what Obama's radio ad said:

"Caucus for Barack Obama Saturday the 19th 11am. You can register right at the caucus. Independents and Republicans who want real change can attend and switch registration." 

In addition to the radio ad, Obama's campaign was also distributing pamphlets in Nevada that urged Republicans to caucus for Obama "if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary."

2) President Clinton told a Nevada crowd that he and Chelsea witnessed voter suppression first hand at casinos:

"There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.'"

Obama claims that Bill lied and saw no such thing.  However, the local Las Vegas Sun has confirmed that dirty tactics were indeed being employed by Obama supporters:

"Union representatives, he(Ruben Beltran, a Culinary Union member) said, are telling employees they must caucus for Obama on Saturday, making it sound more like a demand than a suggestion. Beltran said workers feel intimidated because the union holds sway over their jobs."

3) Obama claims that Bill Clinton lied concerning Obama's evolving Iraq War positions.  Here is how Bill characterized Obama's positions:

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Well, here are quotes that prove President Clinton's points:

a. "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war," Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

b. “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

c. Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over."

d. "Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. " (ABC News, 5/17/07)

So, my friends, there are the quotes and the facts, do with them what you please.  

Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts III Endorses Sen. Clinton

Abyssinian Baptist Church Pastor Reverend Dr. Calvin O. Butts, III, has endorsed Sen. Clinton for President.  Here is what he had to say:

Rev. Butts said it best when he said:

"As a nation, we cannot afford four more years of uninspired and uninspiring leadership. In our quest for change, it's time that we returned to the fundamentals - experience, ability, respect, character. It's time for Senator Hillary Clinton."

Mike Huckabee: The Facts

The following post is from my friend Johnny, who often comments on my posts.  He sent this to me concerning Mike Huckabee:

Many people have become enamored with Mike Huckabee, the "evangelical" candidate for president. We all know that evangelicals are much more moral than the rest of us and thus would make better presidents. Here's a few things you might NOT know about Huckabee:

 

-FACT: Mike Huckabee is an ordained evangelical Baptist minister of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention).(Source: Montanaro, Domenico; Lauren Appelbaum. "HUCK ON ''THEOLOGY'' DEGREE", MSNBC, 2007-12-14. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.)

-FACT: The SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) was formed because of its decision to separate from other Baptists in defense of the institution of slavery.(Source: McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville: Broadman, 1987.)

-FACT: It wasn't until the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995 that it voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery.(Source: This Side of Heaven: Race, Ethnicity, and Christian Faith. Edited by Robert J. Priest and Alvaro L. Nieves. Oxford University Press, 2007, pp 275 and 339)

 

-FACT: The ethics commission fined Huckabee $1,000 for failing to report that he paid himself $14,000 from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign. (Source: POLITICO, Huckabee rivals unearth ethics complaints Kenneth P. Vogel Nov 21, 2007)

-FACT: Huckabee accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw. (Source: POLITICO, Huckabee rivals unearth ethics complaints Kenneth P. Vogel Nov 21, 2007)

 

-FACT: Mike Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 convicted murderers, one of which "Wayne DuMond" shortly after his release moved to Missouri where he raped and murdered Carol Sue Shields. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Clay County, Mo., in 2003. He died in prison in 2005. (Source: The Leader, Arkansas clemencies outpace other states, Garrick Feldman, 2004) Can anyone say Willie Horton?

 

-FACT: Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years. (Source: The Leader, 08/30/2006)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee''s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure. (Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10/09/07)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003. (Source: Arkansas News Bureau, 11/21/03)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee, in 2004, allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law. (Source: The Gurdon Times, 03/02/04)

 

-FACT: Mike Huckabee stole over $70,000 worth of furniture from the Arkansas governors mansion. (Source: Arkansas Times Counting the Furniture, 12/14/06 Leslie Newell Peacock)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee set up a nonprofit entity so he could give paid "inspirational'' speeches without having to disclose the donors. (SOURCE: Bloomberg Dec 12, 2007 Margaret Carlson)

 

-FACT: During the 2001 regular session of the Arkansas Legislature, Mike Huckabee supported giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. (Source Arkansas Journal, Mike Huckabee Supported Bill to Give Driver''s Licenses to Illegal Aliens, Henry Rearden, 11/22/2007)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee supported in-state higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants. (Laura Kellams, "Senators research U.S. law on aliens," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/27/05)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee opposed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in his own state. (Source CNS NEWS, Some GOP Concerned about Huckabee''s Immigration Views, Fred Lucas, 12/04/2007)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee says he has a degree in theology. Further investigation discovers he does not. (Source: The Carpetbagger Report, Mike Huckabee has a theology degree -- or does he?, 12/14/2007)

-FACT: Mike Huckabee wants "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." (Source: msnbc, HUCK, THE CONSTITUTION AND ''GOD'S STANDARDS'', 01/16/08)

Look through his "Awe Schucks" act and see him for what he really is. Mike Huckabee is a typical Washington type politician.

Afghanistan: Failing Because Of Iraq (Part 2)

Once again Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is telling the American people how we are failing in Afghanistan.  The Los Angeles Times reports that Gates said he believes NATO forces currently deployed in the southern part of that country do not know how to combat a guerrilla insurgency.

 

While at the same time, many NATO officials blame inadequate U.S. troop numbers earlier in the war in part for a Taliban resurgence.  Does that sound familiar and reminiscent of our track record in Iraq, where we used too little troops in a completely unnecessary invasion?  Afghanistan was where our enemies were.  We should have been fighting there instead of worrying bout Iraq. So now Gates decides to send an additional 3200 Marines to continue this 6 year old war. 

 

Gates went to Scotland last month and met with NATO leaders to try and convince them to send more NATO troops, but said no one at the table stood up and agreed.  The incompetence of this administration and Mr. Gates in trying to bully other nations is historic.  The U.S. under Mr. Bush has lost all creditability in fighting this war on terror.  Other nations hear that we call this the War on Terror, but they see that the U.S. practically abandoned Afghanistan, where bin-Laden and al-Qaeda were, and focused on Iraq, who was no threat to the U.S.   

 

Iraq seems to have been pushed to the back burner because of the Presidential primaries, that's the way the people in this administration would like it to be.  Get it out of the news.  I truly hope the American people never forget the tragic loss of life among our men and women in uniform because of the reckless behavior of Mr. Bush and his surrogates.  Never again should the people accept such incompetence and reckless behavior in our President.  Our troops and our country deserve better.

It Was Just 2 Weeks Ago...

...that Hillary Clinton was declared politically dead after losing the Iowa Caucuses.  It was just two weeks ago when everyone in the media said that Obama would sweep through New Hampshire, Nevada, and Super Tuesday, riding his newfound momentum to the nomination. 

Now, two weeks later, we know that the media was dead wrong.  Sen. Hillary Clinton proved to be the "comeback kid 2.0". She and her campaign worked tirelessly in New Hampshire, taking questions for unprecedented two hours after campaign rallies. She went from cafe to cafe and door to door, and in the end, the New Hampshire voters decided who was the best candidate for President.  

The campaign for President then moved on to Nevada, another state where Clinton was facing an uphill battle.  Barack Obama had picked up the endorsement of the very large and powerful Culinary Workers Union, who claimed to be able to turn out 60,000 caucus-goers.  Some in the media even suggested that Clinton should skip Nevada, claiming it was just too much of an uphill battle.  Well, she proved them wrong again.  Clinton again went door to door and she listened to the voters and their needs.  And today, the people of Nevada dealt Clinton the winning hand.  

One could say that Clinton and Obama are now even matched heading into Super Tuesday. Both will be 2 and 2.  I say 2 and 2 because Obama will almost certainly win South Carolina next Saturday with its huge African American base.  

In conclusion, I will say that today is a victory, not just for Sen. Clinton, but for the American people and their voices.  It is so refreshing to see the American people so tuned in to this race, that they ignore the media and instead listen to the candidates themselves and make up their own mind independently.  

So congratulations to Sen. Clinton and her campaign.  She listened to the American people and Nevada responded.  That's what democracy is all about.    

The Bush Legacy: Afghanistan And Iraq

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the U.S. will be sending 3200 additional Marines to fight the war in Afghanistan.  Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, who recently visited with the leaders of NATO, have both been trying to get NATO to contribute more combat troops to that war with no success.

 

Our previous Presidents were able to offer leadership to NATO, but not Mr. Bush.  His reckless foreign policy has isolated the U.S. more than ever with our allies.  The war in Afghanistan passed the 6 year mark in 2007, which was the most deadly year for our troops and our own military leaders said that things are getting worse.  That is the exact language we heard during the Vietnam war---"things are getting worse so lets send in more U.S. troops". 

 

The American people should remember it was the Reagan-Bush administration who created the Taliban and armed them to fight the Soviet occupation and now they are fighting and killing Americans.  Our military technology is worthless if we have to occupy other countries to protect our national security.

 

And to top it off, Mr. Bush told reporters on his tour of the Middle East this past week that the U.S. could  be in Iraq for 10 years.  All of the reasons Bush gave for invading and occupying Iraq were lies and now we are being told it may be another Vietnam.  We already know the Republican candidates running for President would continue the Bush policies(with exception of Ron Paul), so the American people and our men and women in uniform have a major stake with their vote in November in electing a President who will truly keep our country and its people safe.  Bush failed to keep our country and people safe on 9-11 and almost 7 years later, there is no end in sight.

Clinton Racks Up Big Endorsements

The Las Vegas Sun endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday, calling her "the right choice".  Here is some of what they had to say:

"The American people naturally are demanding change, and the 2006 election was the first evidence of this, as Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. But the Democrats hold a majority too slim to override vetoes, and Bush and Senate Republicans have obstructed Democratic legislation.

Obama has been in the Senate for just three years, so the question is whether he is the most experienced Democratic candidate to immediately assume the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009. Although Obama is likable, so was the inexperienced George W. Bush before he became president -- and we know where that got us.

Additionally, is Obama the best Democratic candidate to run against whomever the Republicans nominate this year? Although the Republican field has failed so far to dazzle its party’s faithful -- let alone independents or Democrats -- rest assured that if the past is any guide the GOP nominee will do just about anything to keep the White House.

The Democratic nominee will need to be the kind of individual who has been through grueling campaigns and has the mettle not only to stand up to the Republican nominee’s hardball tactics but also to deliver a message of positive change that will take this country forward again.

Clinton has a long and substantial record of leadership fighting on behalf of working Americans and children, and it is this experience and her passion for creating a better country that would serve this nation so well.

Our country needs someone who can be president from Day One after taking the oath of office. Her steadiness and resolve certainly would aid us in reestablishing better relations with other nations after Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy, not to mention a thoughtful and responsible policy regarding our combat troops in Iraq.

On domestic issues, such as the economy and health care, Clinton clearly has the best command of the issues, as was witnessed in Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas. For example, in contrast to Obama’s health care plan, Clinton’s would truly offer universal health care coverage. She also has an economic stimulus plan, including tax rebates for working- and middle-class families, that could help jump-start our sluggish economy, which is in danger of heading into a recession. We need someone in the White House who can get our economy back to the way it was when Hillary’s husband, Bill, was president."

The Kansas City Star, the largest newspaper in the largest city in the very important Super Tuesday state of Missouri, also endorsed Sen. Clinton:

"Sen. Clinton would be the top choice for the Democratic nomination. She is a woman of obvious intelligence with a strong commitment to reform on health care, taxes, energy, immigration, education and global warming.

And Clinton gives voters a clear picture of what she has in mind. On health care, for instance, she offers a comprehensive program that would allow people to keep their current insurance coverage or choose from among the health plans available to members of Congress.

Despite her strong differences with Republicans, she has shown the ability to work with some of them in Congress. And from years of experience in Washington, she speaks thoughtfully about what the federal government can and can’t do.

Clinton has used her years in the Senate to develop considerable expertise in defense issues, serving on the Armed Services Committee.

She has properly criticized mistakes that have been made in Iraq and offered constructive suggestions to improve our military forces. Clinton also realizes that President Bush’s open-ended military commitment to Baghdad is a mistake.

As first lady and then a senator, Clinton developed a thorough knowledge of the world and many national or regional leaders.

She understands the need for more effective American diplomacy to deal with problems ranging from terrorism to global warming.

Some critics have focused on the mistakes of her husband’s administration. But if Sen. Clinton is to be held responsible for some of those mistakes — which is appropriate — she must also get credit for some of its successes. And there were, in fact, many successes."