The Path to the Presidency in the Eyes of Ickes and Penn (from hillaryclinton.com)

Today, Clinton campaign members Harold Ickes and Mark Penn released a memo concerning last night's victories for Clinton and the race ahead.  To read the full article, you can click here. But here are a few excepts that I think contain some important, key points:

__________________________________________________

-Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.

-In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.

-In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.

-Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.

-Steward of the economy: Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and healthcare. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.

(NOTE: Bold emphasis added by me.)  

What a Night!

All I can say is wow.  I'll be back later tonight for a full analysis concerning last night's results, but let me just say that last night had to be the most thrilling night in recent history for any and everyone who loves politics.  Many doubted Sen. Clinton could win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, I admit I was one, but she came through from behind, and I couldn't be happier.  This race continues.  And until I come back later tonight, here is Sen. Clinton's victory speech in Ohio. Enjoy! (Note: the speech had to be divided into two videos due to the length)

Comeback Kid, Take 2!  

The Bush Administration: A Legacy of Incompetance, Arrogance, & Hypocrisy

As of this month, the United States has been occupying Iraq 5 years after the invasion over WMD that did not exist.  And as of this date, neither Bush nor Defense Secretary Gates can tell the American people when or how this war and occupation will end nor has there ever been a timeline set for withdrawal.

 

Now, as reported by the New York Times, Gates has urged Turkey's military to abandon its invasion of Northern Iraq in those area's controlled by the PKK.  Gates is concerned the invasion by Turkey could widen into a broader and bloodier conflict.  (Does that sound familiar?)  He also said the Turks should make this operation as short as possible.  He added that "as short as possible" means in terms of a week or two and certainly not months.  He also demanded a strict timeline for the Turkish operation to end. 

 

Can this administration be any more arrogant or hypocritical?  Bush and Gates are looking to extend our involvement in Iraq beyond 5 years.  Let's not forget, our invasion and occupation has already caused a wider war and lured al Qaeda in to Iraq.  This administration preaches one thing and does something else.  Now it wants a Turkish timeline to withdraw, but no U.S. timeline; not even talk of a timeline.  It is now impossible for this administration to ever claim any competence at all.

 

In the meantime, Americans are still being killed and wounded in Iraq.  23 of our Troops died in December 2007 and 38 were killed in January 2008.  Sadly, the administration is still talking about how the death toll is dropping, but they don't mention the escalation in January.  Gates replaced Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, but nothing has changed concerning Bush's incompetent war policy in Iraq.  And sadly, the front runner for the Republican nomination, John McCain would continue this failed and incompetent policy, possibly for another 100 years.  Our men and women in uniform deserve better. America deserves better.  Our people deserve better.

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Recap and Conclusions)

Most reasonable people would agree that 20 years is enough time to put one's fiscal house in order and develop a real broad based economic plan that puts the country on a solid economic foundation.  Yet Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were given that amount of time but failed this country and its people big time.

 

The Republicans are caught in a time warp.  They still talk of Reagan reducing spending when in fact he accomplished the opposite.  John McCain talks about reducing spending on the campaign trail, yet he was part of the Republicans who controlled Congress and rubber stamped Bush's massive increase in deficit spending and debt year after year.  These people out right lie.  Lets look at what this massive spending and debt has cost our country and taxpayers.

 

The National Debt from when Reagan took office to February 22, 2008 increased $8.956 trillion.  That includes the $660 billion projected additional debt that Bush will produce in fiscal years '08 and '09.  84.5% ($7.564 trillion) of this debt was the result of deficit spending by Reagan and both Bushes.  

 

Interest that the federal government has had to pay on the debt since Reagan took office through fiscal 2007 was $7.261 trillion.  That is wasted taxpayers money that could have been used for needed programs and to extend social security, medicare, provide universal healthcare, etc. If those three Republican presidents would have balanced the budget and created surpluses as Bill Clinton did, this country would be in much better shape today.  Clinton did it after the 12 year fiscal disaster of Reagan-Bush and paid down $453 billion of debt. 

 

Had Bush 43 followed Clinton's fiscal discipline, the national debt would have been paid off.  But his deficit spending not only blew the $5.6 trillion projected surplus, he denied the country and its people an avenue to increase the quality of life, and fund needed programs.  The following is just one example how debt has eaten away at our ability to pay for these programs. 

 

Medicare cost the federal government $437 billion in 2007.  General revenues financed $179 billion or 41%.  Dedicated taxes and premiums paid the balance, $258 billion.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services said that by the year 2013, general revenue will go up to 45.1%.  Since this is the most recent medicare cost lets use this as a measure of what the federal government could do if it was not for the massive debt Regan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 added to.  

 

Interest paid on the national debt for fiscal 2007 was $429.9 billion.  Interest paid for fiscal 2006 was $405.8 billion.  Yea, you read right.  That is almost a total of one trillion dollars of interest paid in only a two year period---wasted money.  That $835.7 billion of interest paid that could have extended medicare 4-1/2 years.  Then when you consider all of the money paid in interest that was required by this massive debt, it comes to $7.261 trillion since Reagan took office.  Interest paid on the national debt during president Carter's 4 years was a total of $219 billion.  That should knock your socks off.  Thats $7.261 trillion in interest paid on the national debt because of deficit spending that did not go to educate our children or to pay for other needed programs.

 

Interest paid to finance our debt is the fastest growing part of the federal budget and much of that interest is paid to foreign debt holders and is taken out of the United States.  (source:  U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt.)  Those Republican presidents liked to talk about the cost of social security and medicare (which are solvent), but have you ever heard them talk about the interest paid on the debt that they created because of their reckless fiscal policies?

 

It is past time for the American people to wake up to the Republican's scheme.  The federal government has the ability to pay for needed programs and services that are required if only our presidents were fiscally responsible and balanced the budgets.  No more excuses.  And if there is really any true conservatives out there, get your head out of the sand before it is too late.  A presidential election will be held in 9 months.  If the people blow this one, our country may never recover. 

 

Footnote:  It is hard to believe that not one question has been asked about this massive debt to any of the presidential candidates in any of the debates. 

 

Final Conclusion: President Clinton's fiscal and economic policies put America and its people first.  Conservative Republican Presidents, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, put America and its people last with their warped ideology.

Barack Obama; Food for Thought

Obama says over and over again on the campaign trail and in the debates that the problem is Washington.  Does that mean he himself is the problem?  After all, he serves in Congress and should he be the Democratic nominee, and win the White House, he would surely want four more years in Washington.

 

The problem is actually not Washington but the elected officials themselves, including Obama.  Mr. Obama certainly has not distinguished himself with any major legislation he has sponsored or passed and in fact has been rather silent until he decided to run for the nomination.  Can anyone really remember any thing Obama has done since being elected to the Senate?  Every candidate should have to face that test; Obama has yet to.

 

Why is the news media pushing Senator Obama?  Like Bush in 2000, Obama is the least experienced candidate in the race.  If a lack of experience impresses the American voter, then why not Ralph Nader?  He has no political record or political experience, but a pretty good record on standing for the changes some seem to want.

 

If the people really want good government, how can people like Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd get only 1 or 2% of the vote?  Those two senators are capable leaders.  I have said before that the people have a right to choose and I would not want it any other way.  However, there is a disconnect somewhere.  Voters think it is in our best interest that our leaders should talk to the leaders of other countries even though we may not like them, yet they hesitate to vote for some candidates just because they are disliked.

 

The voting public needs to think this thing through.  Obama, during the last debate, said it was more important to inspire people than talking about policy or the issues.  Am I the only one who heard that statement?  Being an American and having the opportunity to vote is what inspires me.  I remember President Kennedy well and how he inspired the people, but he spoke to the issues and informed the people on what he would do if elected President.  He thought the people had a right to know.  He did not run and win just because he was inspirational.  Besides that, he had more experience than Obama does at that stage.  Kennedy was also well versed on the issues and he beat a sitting Vice-President.

 

My first choice to be the Democratic nominee when this process started was Senator Joe Biden.  I still wish he was in the running.  Now we are down to just two: Senators Clinton and Obama.  I thought Joe Biden had the most and best experience to handle the problems the country will face when Bush leaves office, and I still feel that way.

 

So now my choice is between Clinton and Obama and it goes to Clinton.  Both candidates have pluses and minuses, but I believe Clinton has more plusses, more experience on the problems this country faces, and has been more candid as to what policies she would follow if elected President.  She is the candidate more likely to make the changes necessary to advance America and its people.  I have no doubt that if she is the Democratic nominee, she will beat John McCain in the general election in November; I can't say the same about Obama. 

Bravo For The New York Philharmonic

On February 26, the New York Philharmonic performed a concert in North Korea that was broadcast live on radio and television.  What a great opportunity for our arts and entertainment to be exposed to the North Korean people.  President Kennedy promoted the Arts and Science and was very active in cultural exchanges because he knew the value of bringing people together.  He honored many  who gave their talents for the good of mankind.

 

The U.S. should be promoting the same thing with Cuba, instead of hanging on to worthless sanctions.  Sanctions have not changed Cuba in the last 50 years, just like the sanctions against Iran have not changed that country.  We should be promoting the Arts all over the world instead of promoting arrogance and so called "tough talk".  Arts and Science, if promoted with respect, will be accepted by all people, because everyone has a thirst for joy, entertainment, and education.

Many of our leaders today are detached from reality.  We invoke the name of Democracy and try to implement that with war and military might.  We have leaders who have failed to take that first step and show the world our true strength and value as a nation.  No nation or people will ever reach their potential nor will humanity reach its highest level of achievement without the Arts and Science.

 

So, to the New York Philharmonic, I say once again: BRAVO!  You have hopefully lifted the spirits of the Korean people and planted the seed to understanding America.  Hopefully, this cultural exchange will continue and spill over into other countries.  It is way over do. 

The Daily Dose---2/27

The Final Debate

I must say, I really did enjoy last night's debate.  I though the questions that NBC prepared were much more substantive and diverse than those picked out by CNN last week.  It's those questions that ordinary people don't think much about---like Kosovo, and Putin's successor---that really say a lot about the candidates running for office.  No offense meant to Sen. Clinton or Obama, but how much skill does it take to debate Iraq or healthcare these days?  They have debated them 100 times before and I think the American people get where they stand.  But these unexpected questions, which highlight the challenges facing the next President, give us a great insight into these candidates' minds.  One thing I will note, and maybe it's just me, but when Tim Russert asked about Putin's successors, he did, in fact, ask it openly---giving both Sen. Clinton and Obama a chance to jump at the question and answer it first.  The look on Obama's face said it all---he didn't have an answer, or, atleast, a decent one.  Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, paused, and then, dare I say, when Obama didn't answer, came to his rescue.  Now, if I was in Sen. Clinton's shoes, I would have said something like, "I think we should let Sen. Obama answer."  But she didn't, she took the question and then allowed Obama to, in essence, copy her answer, almost exactly, and pass it off as his own.  That could have been the moment where Obama slowed his momentum, not being able to answer a very important foreign policy question.  But she chose to help him...make of that what you will, but I find it interesting to say the least and I'm surprised the MSM hasn't picked up on it.  Other than that, the debate was, as I said, very substantive and very formal.  I thought that both Sen. Clinton and Obama performed well and both, I can confidently say, would beat McCain in a debate this fall.  

For Once, I Have Something Nice to Say...to a Republican

Yep, that's right, but I must warn you, don't get used to it.  I just want to take this time though to commend Sen. John McCain for decrying the actions and words of Bill Cummingham, a conservative radio host, who had some less than appropriate things to say about Barack Obama.  I just hope that McCain keeps his attacks up on those who engage in these type of tactics.  They are completely unnecessary and McCain needs to keep up the pressure on them.  Let's have a clean campaign based on the issues and facts at hand, not dirty tricks and falsehoods.   

Speaking of Dirty Tricks...

I'm really get sick and tired of this whole Barack "Hussein" Obama and Muslim thing.  Number one, Barack Obama is not a Muslim.  Number two though, it shouldn't matter if he was?  Seriously, does someone have to be a white, male Christian with a simple 1-2 syllable name to be President?  Maybe America should just focus on electing the right person for the job, regardless of gender, race, religion, or anything else.  Sure, Obama isn't a Muslim, but the religious right is practically insulting every person who isn't a Christian, essentially saying that they're unqualified for public office.  What's that document that says there shall be no religious test for office?  O, yea, that's right, it's the U.S. Constitution, the document our entire democracy is founded on.  Maybe the Republicans should take a look at it once and a while.  With that being said, this is my request for the religious right (even though they couldn't care less): 1) Stop lying about Barack Obama's faith and 2) stop demeaning people who might not follow the Christian faith----news flash: there's nothing wrong with that.  

The Daily Dose---2/25

March 4: How It Looks As Of Right Now

March 4, the date when voters in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont cast their votes for the Democratic nomination contest, is shaping up to be a split decision, at least according to new polling released today.  In Texas, which I predict as of right now going to Obama, a new CNN poll has Obama up by 4, while a new Rasmussen poll has Clinton with a 1% lead. Vermont, as expected, is heavily expected to go to Obama and it is the one state I can 100% say will go for him.  Rhode Island, on the other hand, is a state which I can confidently say will go to Clinton. She has maintained anywhere from a 10-15% lead there, depending on which recent poll you look at.  Ohio also appears to be leaning towards Clinton, but in the same way that Texas is leaning for Obama---meaning neither candidate really has a significant lead in either state and the races are still too early and close to call.  But, if I had to say right now, Clinton would win Ohio and Rhode Island.  Obama would win Texas and Vermont.  That's just how I see it currently.  Ask me about the race on Friday, and I'll probably be able to confidently predict the winners in all 4 states.

Am I Losing My Mind?

As I was eating a snack this afternoon, I tuned in to MSNBC's Tucker, where Tucker Calrson was interviewing Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.  To my shock and horror, I actually found myself agreeing with Ralph on all the issues discussed, especially energy.  With that being said, I still disagree with Ralph on several of his positions that were not discussed, but it was a little shocking to find myself actually nodding in agreement with Nader.  But, let me be clear, this does not mean in anyway that I would support Nader in the election.  I firmly believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for a Republican.  It's that simple and I hope America realizes that this time around.

Absolutely Ridiculous Memo From Obama

I'll admit, Obama is growing on me, probably due to the fact that he will be the nominee, but today his campaign released a completely idiotic memo that blamed the Clinton campaign for distributing a photo of him wearing traditional Somali dress.  They accused the Clinton campaign of "fear-mongering" and said that they should be ashamed of themselves.  This is such a ridiculous thing because, for one, the picture wasn't even that bad, and two, why does it have to be the Clinton campaign who sent out the memo?  Obama needs to wake up and realize that he's not just facing the Clintons anymore, he's facing the right-wing slime machine.  As Maggie Williams said in a press release,

"Enough.  If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

In Defense of  Hillary...

Hillary has been slammed on the blogosphere for "mocking" Obama's message of change.  But, at least in my opinion, she has a point.  I have yet to get an answer from an Obama supporter about what exactly Obama will do to solve all our problems.  Sure, Obama is an excellent speaker and knows how to get thousands of people fired up, but what about when this campaign is over.  What about when Obama sits down in the Oval Office, and the friendly crowds are gone, and it's time for Obama to be President, to be Commander-in-Chief.  Can he handle it?  I certainly hope so, but I honestly don't know.  In fact, I can draw another potential comparison between Obama and Deval Patrick.  Patrick was a great speaker and knew how to energize a crowd, but as anyone in Massachusetts can tell you, when it came to get down to business, Patrick fell a little short in his first months as governor.  His inexperience prevented him from being ready "on day one".  With all the challenges America faces, I just can't help but feel that we need someone to be ready, "on day one".  

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part III of III, The Clinton/ Bush Administrations)

Bill Clinton 1993-2001

 

Bill Clinton came to office after 12 straight years of record deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the National Debt during the Reagan-Bush years.  A fiscal night mare no other President faced.  But Clinton had a real fiscal plan to reverse the out of control spending and an economic plan that was broad based to create the greatest economy in modern time.  The Democratic controlled congress passed Clinton's fiscal and economic plans without one vote from the Republicans in congress.  They predicted doom and gloom on the floor of congress; record unemployment, record deficits, a devastating economy and etc., and they were proven wrong. 

 

The economic and fiscal package contained tax increases and tax reductions for the people and businesses, along with other tax benefits for families.  It was broad based and mandated that the budget be in balance over a number of years and contained spending restraints.  Over 22.7 million new jobs were created on Clinton's watch in 8 years.  That was 4 million more jobs created than the Reagan-Bush administration created in the 12 years they served at the helm.  91% of the job creation under Clinton was in the private sector, the highest in 50 years.  The neocon Presidents always talk about promoting the private sector but it was Clinton and his economic policy that actually accomplished the deed.

 

The Republican's talk about fiscal responsibility but it was Clinton who accomplished that also.  The deficit fell every year during Clinton's first term and the budget was in surplus his last four years in office.  His administration left the incoming President George W. Bush a projected surplus of 5.6 trilling dollars and a budget in the black.  but that all changed in one short year under Bush.

 

George W. Bush  2001-2009

 

 

During his campaign for President Bush acknowledged the $5.6 trillion surplus the federal government was running and said it was the peoples money and he would return it to the people in the form of tax cuts. (Which everyone knows benefited the most wealthy the most.)  Once again trickle down economics and voodoo economics was reintroduced to the american people. 

 

Bush then set a course to reverse the fiscal and economic policies of the Clinton administration which has led to the largest deficit spending spree in the history of our country and the largest ever increase in the National Debt and the country still has to live through two more of Bush's Budgets, one ending fiscal 9/30/08 and 9/30/09.  The CBO has already projected the 08 deficit at over $260 Billion and the 09 at over $400 billion.  That's over $600billion more to add to the National Debt.

 

Bush has continued the reckless spending of the Reagan-Bush years in office and is designed to bankrupt the federal government so social security, medicare and other federal programs that have helped the people have to shut down.  They want to see social security made into private accounts so the wealthy financial institutions can get a hold of that money so they can pull another Enron.  The tax cuts of those three presidents was done to take the people's mind off what they were really up to.  The public has paid for those tax cuts over and over with debt and trillions of dollars in interest paid on the debt they created.  Money that could be used for other needed purposes.

 

And now we are in the midst of another recession, the second one on this president's watch.  The lack of a fiscal and economic policy has been so reckless, the nation and its people have lost all the gains it made under Clinton's administration.  The economy lost 13,000 jobs during Bush's first term in office and last month it was announced the economy lost 17,000 jobs.  Bush has asked for and received from congress a stimulus package, not the first financial aid to help the economy.  The problem is Bush seven years into his presidency still has no economic plan for a sustained economy. 

 

This is the President who had a business background we are told, but he used his experience to harm the country and its people instead of setting a higher course for the benefit of all.  The $5.6 trillion projected surpluses vanished under deficit spending on Bush's watch.  Never was any President in modern times able to take office with such a sound fiscal government and economy than Bush and he blew it big time.  The following numbers tell the whole sad story. 

  Budget Deficits or Surpluses

 

Bill Clinton's Administration

 

1994      $203.2 Billion Deficit

1995       164.0 Billion  Deficit

1996       107.4 Billion  Deficit

1997        21.9 Billion   Deficit

1998        69.3 Billion   Surplus

1999       125.6 Billion  Surplus

2000       236.0 Billion  Surplus

2001       128.0 Billion  Surplus

Total for 8 years: $62.8 Billion Surplus

 

 

George Bush Administration

 

2002      $157.8 Billion Deficit

2003        377.6 Billion Deficit

2004        412.7 Billion Deficit

2005        318.3 Billion Deficit

2006        248.2 Billion Deficit

2007        162.8 Billion Deficit

Total Deficit Spending: $1,677 Trillion

 

2008      $260.0 Billion Deficit Projected

2009        $400.0 Billion Deficit Projected

Total Deficit Spending including Projected:   $2,337 Trillion

 

 

National Debt

 

9/30/01  When Clinton Left Office:      $5,807,463 Trillion

9/30/93  When Clinton Took Office:    $4,411,488 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt:       $1,395,981 Trillion (increase: 31.6%)

 

As of 2/22/08:                                            $9,298,686 Trillion

9/30/01 When Bush Took Office          $5,807,463 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt           

with 2 more years of deficit spending 

to add:                                    $3,491,223 Trillion (increase of 60%) 

 

Spending vs. Previous Administration

 

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Bush I First Term            $5,368.5 Trillion

Increase of 14%                $771.2 Billion

 

Bush II First Term          $ 8,936,5 Trillion

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 46%               $2,796.8  Trillion

 

Clinton 2nd Term          $7,007.1 Trillion

Clinton 1st Term            $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 14%              $867.4 Billion

 

 

Public Debt

 

When Clinton Left Office               $3,319.6 Trillion

When Clinton Took Office             $3,248.4 Trillion

A increase  in Public Debt of          $71.2 Billion (increase of 2%)

 

Bush thru 2007                            $5,035.3 Trillion

When Bush Took Office             $3,319.6 Trillion

A Increase in Public Debt of      $1,715.7 Trillion (increase of 52%)

 

 

Public Debt as Percentage of GDP

 

When Clinton Left Office         33%

Bush as of 2007                          36% (two more budget years to go)

 

 

Job Creation

 

Clinton first term                     11,507,000 Million

Clinton second term               11,239,000 Million

Total Jobs Created                  22,746,000 Million

 

Bush first term                             13,000 Thousands jobs lost

Bush second term thru 2007     5,807,000 Million

 

 

Unemployment

 

The unemployment rate when Clinton took office was 7.3%.  It was 4.2% when he left office for a total decline of 3.1% during his two terms in office.  The unemployment rate declined every year on his watch and for 5 months during the year 2000 it stood at 3.9%, the lowest in over 30 years. 

 

 

The unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2%.  It went up to 6.3% in 2003 and stood at 4.9% in January of 2008, a total increase in unemployment of .6% as of that date.  The lowest was 4.4% in 2006.  Mr. Bush inherited the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years when he took office.

 

 

It should be noted that Bush's very first budget that ended fiscal 9/30/02 was in deficit to the tune of $157.8 Billion 6 months prior to the start of the Iraq war.  Mr. Bush had no plans to balance any budget.  The people need to think hard about this massive reversal of fiscal responsibility.  It is no wonder the conservatives hate Clinton.  He accomplished just what he said he would do with out their vote and despite their opposition. 

 

I will have a follow up to Part III in a recap and conclusions.  Stay tuned.

 

All years information are fiscal years with the exception of unemployment.

 

Notes:  The National Debt is made up of Private and Public Debt.

 

President Clinton paid down the public debt $453 Billion in his last 4 years in office.  Reagan and the  two Bush's paid down nothing in their 20 years at the helm.

 

The Reagan administration did not face any major wars, Bush I administration had the Gulf War but the coalition paid for the major part of the war.  Bush II had budget surplus coming into office and a projected $5.6 Trillion surplus. He started a war and occupation in Iraq with no plans to pay for it and  as shown his very first budget was in deficit even before the War began.  None of those three Presidents can use war as an excuse for their reckless deficit spending and debt that they have amassed on the American taxpayers. 

The Daily Dose---2/23

Nader '08?

Tomorrow morning on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader, who ran for President in 2000 and 2004, is expected to announce a bid for the Presidency this year as well.  Quite frankly, this man sickens me.  He runs year after year for nothing more than an ego trip.  When will he realize that all he does is take votes away from the Democrats, whom he is much more in line with than the Republicans?  Seriously, who would have done more to advance the causes that Nader supposedly cares about----Al Gore or George W. Bush.  We know that answer.  That brings me to the conclusion that if Nader really cared about the issues that he says he does, he would not only support the Democratic nominee, but campaign for him/her. All he does by running, is make it easier for a Republican, in this case, John McCain, to win the White House.  

Here's a great video that an "anonymous" person posted on the internet concerning a possible 2008 Nader candidacy:

Democratic Veeps

There has been a lot of buzz on the net concerning who Barack Obama might choose as his Vice-President.  Frankly, I don't want to rule out Sen. Clinton, but it does appear that Obama will be the nominee.  So, who will he choose?  Many are suggesting Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  I like Gov. Sebelius, but she's not right to balance out the ticket. Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience first and foremost, and Sebelius does not have that right now. Many though, are adamant that Obama should choose a female running mate, to pacify the women who would be disgruntled if Sen. Clinton does not win.  I'm not saying she's the right person, but Sen. Barbara Boxer is probably the only female, besides Sen. Clinton of course, who is young enough, yet has enough foreign policy credentials to be on the Presidential ticket (Sen. Feinstein would be other, but she is too old).  The problem with Boxer is that California is going to go for Obama regardless of whether or not she is on the ticket.  My suggestion for Obama would be someone like Bill Richardson. Richardson has executive experience, unparalleled foreign policy experience, and would do a great deal to bring Latinos on to the Obama campaign.  And although I don't think Richardson is that exciting or was that great of a candidate in his own right, he might be the best choice out there for Obama.  Any other thoughts?