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."

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.