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."

Obama Says What?!?!?!

I've commented before on Obama's harsh rhetoric towards Al Gore and John Kerry, seemingly blaming them for dividing the American people and hence giving the GOP a win in the last two Presidential elections.  He then went on to imply that he would be a better Democrat than they because he could unite the country.  And, while many thought that statement was harmless, I didn't.  And now, Obama seems to be pandering more and more to Republicans.  Here are several quotes from Barack Obama's interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal:

-"The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there, over the last 10 to 15 years."

-"I think Ronald Reagan changed the directory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way Bill Clinton did not."

-"(Reagan) put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it."

-"With all the excesses of the 60s and 70s...he (Reagan) tapped into what people were feeling---we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism." 

Wow, where do I begin?  I mean, seriously, those are direct quotes from Obama's mouth.  Not only the above words, but also the tone of his voice was very, may I say overly, complementary to Reagan.  And the Republicans were the party of ideas over the last 10-15 years?  So I suppose that means George Bush (past 7 years), had some good ideas?  I suppose he thinks Bob Dole's ideas were better than Clinton's in '96?  Does he think Gingrich had the right ideas in the '90s?  

And not only does Obama's kind tone to Republicans alarm me, but also his pessimism to fellow Democrats.  Let's face it, comparing Bill Clinton to Richard Nixon is a pretty low blow.  To say that Reagan gave the country change and Clinton did not is, quite frankly, insane.  As my fellow commentator here at POLITIDOSE, John Lucia, often points out, Clinton revitalized the American economy and balanced the budget deficit and lowered the debt that Reagan-Bush had built up.  Bill Clinton was a break from the past, an agent of change to use Obama's own talking points, more than Reagan ever was.  So Obama needs to be asked, who will you govern more like: Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, because from this interview, it appears Obama would choose the latter.

And what exactly does Obama mean by the excesses of the '60s and '70s.  Sure, there were excesses, as there are in all generations, but Obama seems derogatory towards them as a whole.  What about the civil rights movement, which had a huge effect on the '60s.  Was that an excess?  Were people who protested the Vietnam War, because they felt it was fundamentally wrong, much the same as many of us feel concerning Iraq, an excess?  What about the strong feminism movement?  Was that an excess?  Or how about the new found concern of the environment?  Was that an excess too?  

Obama needs to be held accountable for his words.  I find it very discouraging to see the media just skip over Obama's latest comments.  Comments and statements like these are what the media needs to focus on.  These type of statements let us in to the candidate's thoughts and feelings.  And I feel that if we take a look into Mr. Obama's thoughts and feelings, we may not like what we find.  

John McCain: The Media's Favorite Republican

No one seems to remember Senator McCain opposing the troop level that Bush sent to Iraq at the start of the war, but he claims that he did.  It must have been a sigh since it did not register and McCain is now bragging about the troop surge over WMD that did not exist.  Sixteen more Americans have been killed in Iraq since the first of the year and, unfortunately, more deaths are likely to be seen.  

 

The Senator tells America he talks straight and is for fiscal responsibility on the part of the government, yet he, along with his Republican colleges who controlled congress during Bush's first 6 years, supported Bush's massive federal deficit spending.  He supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a way to pay for them except for more deficit spending.  And despite his outburst against so called earmarks, he consistantly voted for them when his party controlled Congress.

 

This is the same Senator who says he is against special interest, yet he receives contributions from them.  T.V. journalists have made a point to mention that Mitt Romney has spent millions of his own money for his campaign.  They try to compare that to what McCain has spent.  Well, I would prefer to see a candidate spend his own money than be beholden to special interest money.  If the straight talker is against special interest groups, just don't take their money.  It's very simple.  Real campaign reform can be accomplished with out legislation.  Just refuse the money.  That is what Senator Kennedy does.

 

Like Obama in the Democratic side, T.V. journalists are in McCain's corner and it shows.  McCain frequently makes the T.V. circuit, but won't be asked any questions about his flip flops like you hear them do about Romney's.  McCain claims his immigration flip flops were "a change of position after listening to the people".  Translation---like Bush, he can't admit a mistake.  Also like Bush, he can't tell the American people when or how the war in Iraq will end or how.  

 

This is the same Senator McCain who said in one of the debates that our troops have to remain in Iraq so they can come home with honor.  I have news for the Senator, If all our troops are brought home tomorrow they will all come home with honor.  The ones who have lost their lives, been wounded, or have completed their tour of duty in Iraq have already come home with honor.  Senator McCain seems to have forgotten our men and women in uniform always serve with honor even when they are sent to fight in an unnecessary war.  

Sen. Obama And The Present Vote

Barack Obama, with his many flaws, has one that truly exemplifies his leadership ability, or lack there of.  For those who don't know, when voting in a legislative body, there are essentially 3 votes that can be made---yes, no, or present.  The vote "present" is more or less taking a pass on the vote and refusing to take a stand.  It is a tactic often used by politicians to avoid taking a position on a controversial issue.  So, if anything, Obama's liberal use of the "present" vote exemplifies this man's lack of strength in standing up to critics and taking, what can be, unpopular, but none the less important, positions.  Here are just some quotes on Obama's present votes on those very important issues:

-"Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate." (New York Times, 12/20/07)

-"At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. "  (New York Times, 12/20/07)

-"Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill." (HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99)

-"Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill." (HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999)

-"Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school." (SB759, Passed 52-1-5,3/25/1999)

-"Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops." (SB609, Passed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001)

-"During Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

'When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass,' said Grabenhofer. 'He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.'"  (Illinois Now)

As far as I'm concerned, America needs someone who has proven to have the strength, perseverance, and leadership to tackle tough, controversial, but critical, issues.  To know how a person will govern in the future, you just have to look at his/her past. And Obama's past record shows a clear, undeniable refusal to take a firm stand on issues very important to Americans.  

Pure Facts On Obama's Iraq War Record

The Obama campaign is truly stooping to new lows.  Now, the Obama campaign, through surrogate Dick Durbin, is claiming that Hillary Clinton's remarks on Obama's record concerning the Iraq War are somehow just like the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry.  Here's a reality check, the Swift Boat ads against Sen. Kerry were completely untrue and there was nothing to back up the claims made in them.  On the contrary, the contrasts Sen. Clinton has been making on Sen. Obama's position are 100% true and the evidence to back them up is as follows.

1) In 2004, Barack Obama clearly said that he does not know how he would have voted---yes or no---had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote:

"When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’ " (New York Times, 7/26/04)

2) Obama also said that there was not much difference between his position and George Bush's in 2004:

“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)

3) Until Obama began his Presidential campaign, Obama voted for every single war funding bill, even though, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he would not vote for a single one.

4) Obama waited a year and half once he got in the Senate to give a speech on Iraq, and ironically enough, it was one where he opposed a time table for withdrawal:

"I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them." (Obama Speech, 6/21/06)

5) Obama has based his entire campaign on the premise that he was always opposed to the war and that his opposition the last 5 years has been much different than that of Sen. Clinton.  But, again, the fact is that once he got in the Senate, he voted the exact same way Sen. Clinton did:

"In fact, 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)

My Take: Sen. Obama is being clearly disingenuous when describing his position.  No one is claiming that this speech in the Illinois State Senate in 2002 wasn't in opposition to the war.  But the fact is, that was a speech.  When Obama had the chance to turn rhetoric into reality and talk into action, when he arrived in the Senate, he failed to do so.  This further illustrates the point that I have consistently made against Obama.  He always talks a good talk, but has failed to back his talk up with action. It's great that Obama opposed the war in 2002, but in 2004 he clearly had a different sentiment.  And in 2005, when he was elected to the Senate, Obama did nothing to change course in this war.  It is simply wrong for Obama to base his campaign on the fallacy that he was always different from Sen. Clinton concerning the Iraq War.  The facts prove otherwise.  

Dems Worst Nightmare: An Obama-McCain Race

As both the Democrats and Republicans edge ever so slightly to choosing their respective nominees, I have often speculated and analyzed, perhaps overly so, the most likely match-ups come the November general election.  

As far as things go on the GOP side, I see either Huckabee or McCain getting the nomination, which of course makes my prediction a few months ago, that Romney would be the nominee, completely wrong.  Truly, what a difference a month and a half can make----we saw the meteoric rise of Huckabee and the comeback of McCain.  We also saw the fall of Romney and Giuliani.  So, out of Huckabee and McCain, who will get the nomination?  My guess is McCain.  He looks poised to either win or do extremely well in Michigan, which he did win in 2000.  If that happens, the only real place I could see McCain being stopped is South Carolina, whose evangelical population could give Huckabee a huge win.  But even then, it's still a McCain race to lose, and in the end, I strongly believe he will be the Republican nominee.

Now, as far as the Democrats go, I have no idea.  It's clearly a 2 person race, and, at this point, I say both Clinton and Obama have a 50-50 shot at the nomination.  I could see either a Clinton or Obama win Nevada, with Obama more than likely capitalizing over his racialization of this campaign to pick up a win in South Carolina, where half the voters are African Americans.  And when you go to Super Tuesday, again, all bets are off.  Clinton looks poised to win the delegate-rich northeastern states, while Obama is looking very good in the South.  The tipping point could be California, which, by my sense, is leaning towards Clinton, but not by much.  It could very well be the determining state in this race for the Democrats.

So while I'm analyzing the potential match-ups for the general, I see Clinton and Obama being able to best just about any Republican, except McCain, where I see a huge problem for Obama.  As the latest CNN polls, just out yesterday, show, both Clinton and Obama would beat all the Republicans, with the exception of McCain, by about the same margin and by double digits.  McCain, however, is a complete different story.  Clinton beats McCain by just 2%, while Obama is statistically tied with a 1% lead.    

What's even more indicative of the troubles of a McCain candidacy for the Democrats, particularly for Obama, is evident when you take a look at the latest polling from key swing states----Ohio and Florida.  The latest Survey USA poll from Ohio has Clinton and McCain tied.  That same poll, however, shows McCain beating Obama by a large margin---47% to Obama's 38%.  In Florida, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Clinton defeating McCain by 3%, while Obama is tied with McCain.  That trend is also echoed in other states, where in fact, Clinton always outperforms Obama when matched up with McCain, although she may not when matched up with any other Republican.

The reasoning behind Clinton's edge over Obama when competing against McCain?  It's the one word Obama wants you to be scared about----experience.  Although we hear little about it in the primary campaigns, foreign policy and national security will be one of, if not the, top issue come the general election.  And when people go to the voting booths voting for a President, they want one that will make them feel safe.  Obama simply can not match up to McCain on matters of national security and foreign policy.  Regardless of whether McCain is right or wrong, the narrative going into next November will be that if you want a President who can keep you safe, choose McCain, he has the experience.  Now, again, I'm not saying it is right, but we all know that it will, without a doubt happen.  Obama's experience will be called into severe question and that, I promise, will hurt his chances with moderates and Republicans, who want a change in direction, but also want to feel safe with a candidate of experience.

Clinton, on the other hand, is the only Democrat left in the race who could stand up to McCain and say, "You may have experience, but I have that too".  When people are asked in general election polls who they trust most on foreign policy and national security, Clinton always tops Obama by a hefty margin.  Clinton can stand up to the GOP and actually counter their arguments about experience; she has experience too. 

And, god forbid, there is another terrorist attack, either here or in Europe, between now and November, the Republicans will seize that opportunity to paint Obama as inexperienced and unqualified for the job of Commander-In-Chief.  If that were to happen and Obama was the Democratic nominee, I can assure you that the Democrats will lose again if McCain is our opponent.  Clinton, in contrast, would be able to stand up and make the argument that she has just as much experience as McCain.  The country wouldn't be scared into voting Republican because the Democrat would be just as experienced.  The GOP's argument just wouldn't work against Clinton.  

So while I am fairly confident that Obama can defeat Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, etc., I am confident that he would suffer a devastating defeat going up against McCain.  Indeed, if McCain is the GOP nominee, Clinton is the Democrat's best bet.  

Pollsters, Journalists, and Pundits...Oh My!

Pollsters in the past have generally been accurate in their political forecasts, so what happened in the New Hampshire Primary this past Tuesday?  The New York Times reported many pollsters and news organizations plunged into a post-mortem of how they did not see what was coming.

 

What happened was very simple.  The pollsters, journalists, and pundits were pushing Obama, especially after the Iowa caucuses.  Obama was their candidate and they went to great length to talk him up and great length to knock Clinton down.  The polls just prior to the New Hampshire primary showed Obama with a lead, a sure indication that something was wrong and the pollsters knew it but the game was on for Obama.  T.V. journalists were the worst.  Obama received most of their air time and then used their programs to knock Clinton.  The worst was Chris Matthews of MSNBC.  He attacked Clinton daily because she was campaigning and would not come on his show.  He really showed his ass.  The big baby could not get his way so he tried to get even.

 

CNN, on the night of the returns, had William Bennett and Ralph Reed on to offer commentary.  Those two neocons represent the worst in politics, but there they were for all Americans to see.  CNN has no shame.  That shows just how far T.V. will go to try and intimidate the people.  T.V. journalists represent the worse when it comes to broadcasting the facts.  They are the same ones who promoted the Iraq War  and the WMD that we now know did not exist.  And they were the ones hyping war with Iran until the recent NIE report came.

 

The best thing for people to do is tune the cable news networks out and just watch the 30 minute evening news of ABC, CBS ,and NBC.  Shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation are copying off the cable news networks and are also pushing their favorite candidates.  Their questions tell the real story. 

 

Many pollsters and journalists undermine America and its people with their outright lies.  Once they pick out their favorite, they gear their questions to flatter that person.  They really are a sad bunch.  They remind me a lot of Bush---they have no character or ethics, and they are determined to continue to mislead the people and the country. 

Clinton vs. Obama: Who's Truly Playing The Race Card?

I am sick and tired of the media narrative, and now the Obama campaign's narrative, that Hillary and Bill Clinton, as well as their supporters, are racist.  This is an insane notion to throw out to the American people, not to mention a complete and udder lie.  So when I see commentators and pundits, both on television and in written articles, talk about the Clintons' racism and prejudice, it truly gets my blood boiling.  Now, as Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reports, 

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. "

I watched Chris Matthews and Tucker yesterday.  I saw Tim Russert on MSNBC today.  I saw various pundits on Fox News and CNN.  All completely distorted Bill Clinton's quote from this past Monday.  They all claimed that Bill called "Obama's candidacy", a "fairy tale".  Simply not true.  Here is the full quote from the former President:

"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 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 website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.  This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

As is evident when the "fairy tale" quote is put into context, Bill was talking about Obama's position on the war, which was, in 2004, a much different position than he holds now, and for that matter, in 2002.  In essence, Obama was against the war, before he was for it, before he was against it.  That quote, in no way, as the Obama campaign is now claiming, had anything to do with race.  I think we can all agree that if Bill said this about, let's say, John Edwards or Joe Biden, or any white candidate, this so called scandal would be none existent.  It is Obama and the Obama-loving media who are turning this into a racial matter. Last time I checked, it is perfectly fine and not racially offensive to point out changes in the positions of a candidate running for office, especially the Presidency.  So to those who say this quote exemplifies Bill's racism, to quote the President, give me a break!

The Obama campaign is also using this following quote to demonstrate Bill Clinton's supposed racism:

"Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela," when the former president declared, "I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions...I would pick Hillary.'"

Again, how the hell is this a racist statement?  Can one person give me an example?  I personally think it's perfectly reasonable that when you ask a man who he would take with him on what could be the last minutes of his life, he picks his wife.  I mean, seriously, Hillary is his wife.  He loves and trusts her.  Again, I point out that if Bill was asked about someone, let's say Churchill, who was white, and then said he would pick Hillary, there would be no big deal made about it.

Obama and the media, particularly David Brooks on "Tim Russert" this morning, are now also saying that Hillary Clinton doesn't respect Martin Luther King Jr.  Here is the quote that they are using to "justify" that attack when Clinton was asked about civil rights legislation:

"It took a president [Lyndon Johnson] to get it done."

And again I ask, where's the controversy?  After all, the question asked to Sen. Clinton wasn't about the civil rights movement and who should get credit for that.  It was about civil rights legislation.  And last time I checked, MLK was not a member of Congress nor was he the President.  So while yes, of course MLK was an instrumental figure in the civil rights movement, he did not have any power to get civil rights legislation passed.  It did, indeed, take a President, who faced much opposition, to get civil rights legislation passed.  Thats not an attack on MLK; it is merely a factual and historically accurate statement. Clinton was also making the point that it takes more than just a great speaker to get things done.  It takes a President who stands up to opposition and has the perseverance to weather even the harshest of storms and come out, not only successful, but stronger.  If Lyndon Johnson had not taken a tough stand and stood up in the face of opposition, there would be no equality for all races.  

So, Mr. Obama, I ask that you, your campaign, and the media drop this ridiculous act.  Your claims that the Clintons are racist is simply nothing but a tactic of the Republican dirty tricks of personal destruction.  I compare this to the swift boat ads ran against Sen. Kerry in '04.  They are a complete distortion of the facts, released to the public for the sole reason of your political benefit.  I have no problem, Mr. Obama, when you argue against Sen. Clinton based on issues and on facts.  But you have, with this latest scheme, crossed the line.  You are trying to personally destroy the Clintons based on racism.  Sen. Obama, you and the Democratic Party are so much better than this.  Debate the issues; debate on facts.  Do not attack someone for something on which you have no basis.   It is not the Clinton campaign, my friends, who are using race as an issue, it is the Obama campaign.  This is wrong and more people need to stand up and say so. 

It's About The People, First And Foremost