11/15 Debate: Hillary "Turns up the Heat"

I just finished watching tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I must say I was very impressed with Sen. Clinton. I commented after the last debate in Philly that there was no clear winner. Well tonight, there was definitely a clear winner. Like her or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.

What is interesting to note is that most of the sparks in the debate took place in the first 15 minutes or so. Right from the start, Obama and Edwards went after Clinton, but unlike previous debates, Clinton responded. Clinton's forceful responses were spot on and she super-effectively made the case that she is the most qualified candidate to be President. I also find it interesting that after Clinton responded to her attackers, both Edwards and Obama left her alone for the remainder of the debate; she essentially shut them up.

Clinton's best response came when she was asked about playing "the gender card". Clinton correctly responded by saying that her opponents were not ganging up on her because she was is a woman, but rather because she is ahead. Another fact that will play to Clinton's favor is that she answered every question directly. No one can accuse her of parsing her answers or trying to get around the question. If anything, Obama had problems answering the questions directly; he himself got tripped up on the immigration question that Hillary messed up on in the last debate.

In the past few weeks, Obama has really grown as a candidate. He got a huge boost coming out of the last debate, but he completely failed to capitalize on that momentum tonight. Obama completely lost tonight. He indeed had one of his worst debate performances.

It would not surprise me if Hillary regains her strength and Obama loses his. Tonight was a complete win for the Clinton campaign and really a huge loss for everyone else involved. You could tell this by the crowd reaction. At the start of the debate, the audience was evenly split between Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. By the end of the night, the crowd loudly booed anything Obama or Edwards said negatively about Clinton. Clinton had managed to win over about 90% of the Las Vegas audience by the end of the night. And possibly the most important thing of all, Clinton looked the most presidential and she succeeded in presenting herself as the strongest, toughest, and most experienced candidate in the race.

As many of you know, I typically rank the candidates in the order in which I think they scored, but tonight there is simply no need for that. Sen. Clinton is the solid #1 winner. There is no reason to rank anyone else, because frankly, Clinton was in a totally different league then everyone else tonight.

With that being said, if you saw the debate and have any thoughts, please share them. I want to know what you think.

Presidential Primary Season

The beginning of the Presidential primary season is just around the corner and in the near future we will know the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Hopefully the American people will take this process seriously and truly vote for the person they think can best lead our country into the future.

 

What the candidates say is very important even with their double talk.  Those candidates who presently hold office and those that did in the past will be saying things that don't add up when compared to their actual record.  The most important thing to listen for is what they say they will actually do if they are elected President.

 

Candidates who resort to personal attacks on character, morals, and family values and try to tell people what other candidates will do have a big problem.  They do that because they can't tell the people what they themselves stand for nor can they articulate their positions.

 

It is noticeable in the debates that many candidates spend their time attacking others and fail to inform the people what they are going to do if they are elected President.  The primary season is when candidates should inform the American people how they are going to handle the many problems they will inherit.  It is unfortunate the people will get no help from the moderators of the debates.  Moderators are stuck on questions concerning the past and not on the future.

 

Voters should resist when a candidate tries to paint another as unfit because of a single issue such as abortion, immigration, or religion.  The people also need to understand that journalists on the cable networks have to fill up so much time that they try to create issues that are not there.  They are really a sad bunch.

 

There is no one candidate on either side who is perfect and without imperfection, so the people will have to choose the candidate who can best lead our country for the next four years and possible eight years and reverse the calamity the nation has been exposed too for the past seven years.  Listen closely to the candidate who talks about the future and has the character to explain the direction he or she purposes to take the country.  Our future depends on it.

America's Right to Privacy----Under Siege

The Patriot Act, surveillance without a warrant, and torture----all in the name of protecting America by the most secret administration in history.  And make no mistake about it, the secrecy started prior to the tragic events of 9-11.  The President believes privacy is only a right for himself and his administration, but not for the American people.

 

And now it has been reported that Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence, wants the American people to change their definition of privacy.  In fact, he is quoted as saying privacy can no longer mean anonymity.  He wants government and businesses to safeguard people's private communications and financial information. (From Associated Press writer Pamela Hess)

 

Mr. Bush and the intelligence community want to shield telecommunication companies from lawsuits for giving the government access to people's private emails and phone calls with out a court order.  After the WMD fiasco concerning Iraq and the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, can anyone imagine trusting this administration or intelligence when it deals with protecting the privacy of millions of Americans?  The closer this administration gets to leaving office the more the people are going to discover just how reckless this President and his administration have been.

 

Telecommunication companies who turn over private records of  American citizens to intelligence agencies without a court order deserve no protection.  Those companies who said no to our government agencies when asked to do so without a court order should continue to stand tall.  It is called checks and balances and being patriotic the patriotic way. 

 

We know that this administration met with oil, gas, and other energy companies behind closed doors and never revealed what took place.  In fact they fought to keep their discussions secret.  Now we have lived with the most sustained price increase for oil and is now in the $90 barrel range. 

 

The absence of checks and balances during the run up to war in Iraq led to the President misleading the American people and the Congress.  Because of this administration,  men and women in uniform were committed to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  This administration has already failed the test.  No american should trust this administration to protect their privacy.  

Trouble Ahead: Pakistan, India, and Israel

All three countries have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other WMD according to the experts.  None of them participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.  The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China are all involved in the treaty, and yes, so is Iran.  The administration talks almost daily about the dangers of the proliferation of these WMD to other countries and parties, yet we have no foreign policy to put pressure on these 3 countries to join the treaty and open up their nuclear plants to inspection.  Has any one heard Mr. Bush, or for that matter any Republican, talk about this issue?

 

Now we have Pakistan  being declared in a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf.  He is still chief of staff of the Army and the Army is in charge of maintaining the order.  Finally after 6 years and $10 billion for Pakistan the administration is asking Mr. Musharraf to give up his Army role.  The country is in turmoil and the  Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are in charge of protecting and preserving their nuclear stockpile.  Members of this administration and others say they believe the weapons are safe.  But suppose the Army splits and tries to overthrow their President, then how safe would those stockpiles be?  Remember, Mr. Musharraf himself came into power with a coup.

 

Adding to the mixture is former prime minister Benazir Bhutto back in Pakistan from exile.  The administration seems to favor her sharing power with Musharraf.  He does not seem to take to kind to that approach and just recently had her under house arrest.  The Shah of Iran was put in power by the United States and everyone knows what happened to that country down the road.   

 

It is past time for the U.S. and other governments to put pressure on Israel, Pakistan, and India to join the non-proliferation treaty and open up their facilities for inspection.  Is that too much to ask for in this dangerous world? I think not.  All three countries are in a part of the world that is unstable and is prone to radical ideas.  That's reason enough in my estimation.  

Pelosi and Reid Say "No More" To Bush

Finally, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are taking a firm stand against the Iraq War. Both Pelosi and Reid plan to present President Bush with a $50 billion measure for the Iraq War with the condition that the President begins to bring this disaster of a war to an end. This will be the toughest worded spending bill for the Iraq War since Democrats took control of Congress back last November. And if Bush goes against the wishes of the American people and vetoes the spending bill, he will not get his (and I emphasize "his") war funded for the rest of this year and possibly longer.

Even though I am enthralled that Democrats in Congress are finally taking strong, progressive steps to end the Iraq War debacle, I must admit that I wish it didn't come to this. I have stated in the past that it is the Republicans' responsibility to do what the American people want and bring this war to a safe end. Democrats have been fighting to end this war for years, but they simply do not have the numbers to overcome the Republicans. Pelosi and Reid do get unfairly blamed for not ending the war. Americans should not get angry at the Democrats for not ending the war, they should instead put pressure on the Republicans. It is the Republicans who keep the war going; not the Democrats.

With that being said, it is pretty clear that the Republicans weren't going to do the right thing. They refuse to break with their President and they continue to support a failed policy. So what were Pelosi and Reid going to do? I certainly do not think that funding should just be cut off all together. The troops, as Joe Biden has artfully pointed out, deserve to get the equipment that they need. Yet, at the same time, I feel we are doing them just as much harm by not ending this war. So what are we going to do?

Well, in Pelosi and Reid's proposal, I find a sort of "middle-ground." The Democrats are not cutting off funding for the troops; if anything, they are helping them. It is now on George Bush's hands to decide what course will be taken. Will he defy Congress and the American people yet again by continuing the war? Or will he finally recognize that the war is doing nothing but harming America in every way possible? If Bush does the former, he will be in essence cutting the funding off himself. It will then be the responsibility of the Republican's in Congress to override Bush's veto. If they don't, then they will be to blame for not supporting the troops. The Iraq War is no longer a partisan issue; Americans want it to end. And as usual, it is the Democrats who fight and who will continue to fight for the American people. I pray that the President and the GOP do the right thing and support this bill and begin to bring our brave men and women home...where they belong.

Let The Truth Be Known

President Bush, Mr. Cheney, many Republicans in Congress, and some running for their party's nomination are still trying to convince the American people that bin-Laden and al Qaeda attack and hate America because we are a Democracy who enjoys freedom.

 

Does anyone wonder how these people can get it so wrong and why they continue to mislead the country?  It's called fear.  Pat Buchanan, a true conservative Republican wrote a book titled "Where the Right Went Wrong."  He pointed out bin-Laden's own words on why he attacks and hates America.  He listed the reasons and not one has anything to do with Freedom and/or Liberty.  It is because western countries have in the past and still occupy muslim lands.  Bin-Laden is from Saudi Arabia and he has attacked Saudi Arabia because the United States had bases on their land that the Saudi's let the U.S. use during the 1991 gulf war.

 

Now we have been occupying Iraq for almost 5 years over WMD that did not exist.  That is why al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed.  They did not exist before the invasion.  So called tough talk may make politicians feel macho but 6 thousand Americans have paid the price for the tragic events of 9-11 and the war in Iraq, not to mention over 20,000 wounded. An entire book could be written on all the lies this administration has put forward and how they have misled the American people.  It is pretty sad when the President can't bring himself to tell his own people the truth.  The War on Terror will be won when the War on Terror is fought.  

Face the Nation---A Sad Source for Information

This past Sunday, Bob Schieffer, moderator of "Face the Nation",  had Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul on as his guests.  Both are candidates for the Republican Party  Presidential nomination. 

 

Mr. Schieffer was cordial with Mr. Huckabee and asked soft questions concerning his stand on several issues.  He explored Mr. Huckabee's rise in the polls and good crowds that he was drawing at various events.  However, I did not learn anything new by the questions asked of Mr. Huckabee.  The program is only 30 minutes split between the two candidates.  You would think Mr. Schieffer could ask at least one question concerning the difficulties faced by the next President and what he would do.

 

Then came Ron Paul's turn for questions.  I thought he was treated unfairly with silly questions about 10 issues that Mr. Paul is against.  Mr. Schieffer framed the questions that gave the impression that Mr. Paul was anti everything and anything.  Mr. Paul had to point out that there is a pro side to those issues.  For instance, Paul's position on government spending is to live within our means instead of running up record federal deficits that are taking place in this administration.  That is a "pro" position.  Mr. Schieffer went out of his way to describe Mr. Paul as being against everything and tried to cast him in that vein instead of asking Mr. Paul for his "pro" comments on those issues.  Then Mr. Schieffer seemed to enjoy suggesting to Mr. Paul that he could not win his party's nomination.

 

After 40 plus years as a journalist, Mr. Schieffer's show is not about seeking answers from candidates that would inform the American people about a candidate's likely actions if they became president.  Clearly, this segment of the show with Mr. Paul was to put him down and treat his positions on the issues with disdain.  It is such a shame to see the media become like this.  

***NOTE: My (John Lucia) posts will no longer be written in a different font than those of Joseph***

Should Romney Address his Mormonism?

The fact the Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon is a fact that has dogged Romney throughout the campaign. According to a recent poll, 1/3 of all Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for President. And no surprise, many of those intolerant bigots are people from the religious right of the Republican party. Now again, I do not support Romney or his views, but by no way do I think that any candidate should be judged by his religion--or for that matter his or her race, gender, etc.

There has been talk about Mitt Romney giving a speech to address doubts about his faith and supposedly the speech is already written, just waiting for Romney to give it. There is reportedly great debate withhin the Romney campaign on whether or not to give the speech. Here are my thoughts:

Right now, I don't see Romney needing to give the speech. He is far ahead in Iowa, his lead in New Hampshire has grown even more, and he is now ahead in South Carolina. If Romney is asked about his faith on the campaign trail, then surely he should answer it, as he has done. But to say that Romney needs to give this huge speech just doesn't make sense to me at this time. Why mess up something that is going so well? What exactly is Romney going to say anyway?

His religion doesn't seem to be hurting him yet; it is his values (genuine or not) that are actually helping him appeal to conservative Republicans. Now, of course, the general election is a different story. As more and more Americans pay attention to the Presidential race, Romney might need to address his Mormonism, much as J.F.K. did in 1960 about his Catholicism. But Romney should determine that when and if the time comes. Right now I would advise Romney to do keep up whatever he is doing, because it is working, and there is no need to jeopardize that.

Obama Blows the Crowd Away

This past Saturday night, at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama finally showed that fire that everyone has been waiting to see. I am far from an Obama fan, but even I must admit that his speech created an electric atmosphere. This was the best I've seen Obama since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It could very well be the turning point in this campaign.

In Iowa, Obama has been running neck and neck with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the polls. Iowa is in fact the only place where Obama is even remotely close to Hillary in the poll numbers. That is why Iowa is where Obama must stop Hillary. And I think his great speech last Saturday was his first step in trying to halt the Clinton machine. I look forward to seeing the next poll numbers from Iowa to see if Obama has picked up any momentum. I predict he will and I also predict that the Iowa Caucus results will be an extremely close call. I am now more convinced than ever that Obama might just be able to win Iowa.

The one thing I must criticize Obama for is his refusal to mention Hillary by name in his speeches. When he goes on the attack, it is obvious that he is talking about Sen. Clinton, so why doesn't he just call her out by name? I guess it is no big deal to most voters, but it's just something that irks me. If Edwards goes after Clinton, he doesn't have a problem calling her out by name. Same thing when Clinton challenges Obama. In my opinion, it just appears that Obama doesn't have the "guts" to call Hillary out by her name, and thats just not something that appeals to me.

It should be interesting to see how Hillary and her campaign respond to her slumping poll numbers and the attacks by Obama and Edwards this week. I have a feeling that Hillary will just leave Edwards alone; he is no threat to her. Obama, on the other hand, might be in for a surprise. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communication director, is known to play hardball. It was Wolfson who really led the charge in the Clinton campaign back in the summer when Clinton went after Obama for saying he would meet with foreign leaders "unconditionally." If you noticed, it was after Clinton branded Obama as "naive" and "weak on foreign policy" that Obama began to drop in the polls and Clinton picked up speed. I see Wolfson doing the same this week. The Hillary campaign is going to go after Obama's biggest weakness-----his complete lack of experience. The argument is going to be made-"Obama has spent just over 2 years in the Senate, is he really ready to be President?" And when you make it sound like that, I think we can all agree, it plays to Hillary's favor.

Whatever the backlash may be, I must commend Obama for finally showing the same spirit at the JJ Dinner that made the country fall in love with him back in '04. I feel that Obama's speech on Saturday might have just won him the Iowa caucus. I also am sure though that Hillary won't go down without a fight, and I expect it to get ugly in the next few weeks. And although I am a Hillary supporter and I enjoyed her comfortable front-runner status, the other side of me is glad to finally see a race. There is nothing like the hardball, nail-biting, no-holds-barred feel of Presidential politics.

McCain vs. Giuliani

Well it finally appears that at least one Republican is ready to get tough against GOP Presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. Too long have the other Republican Presidential candidates let Giuliani falsify his way to the top of the polls. This past week, and especially today on Fox News Sunday, John McCain began to lead the fight on pointing out how the former New York City mayor isn't as experienced as he would like you to think.

McCain first turned up the heat on Giuliani Thursday when it was announced that Giuliani's former police chief, Bernard Kerik, had been indicted on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and lying to the IRS. Giuliani had apparently been briefed on Kerik's past and still proceeded to hire him as police chief. In late 2003, Giuliani, with knowledge of Kerik's criminal past, recommended to the President that Kerik should succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. President Bush, because of Giuliani's recommendation, did nominate Kerik. (Kerik eventually withdrew his acceptance of the nomination.) McCain is now calling Giuliani out on his judgment, and rightfully so. We don't need another President like the one we have now---one that puts personal friendship and loyalty before the law. McCain pointed out that today on Fox that Giuliani essentially tells voters that he is the only candidate that they can trust with national security. Yet, as McCain said, how can Giuliani be trusted on homeland security if he was willing to recommended Kerik, whom Giuiani apparently knew had criminal ties, to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security.

The second issue on which McCain has come out swinging against Giuliani is on the topic of foreign policy experience. Giuliani, in just about every speech, touts how experienced he is on foreign policy. The fact is that Giuliani has zero foreign policy experience. McCain, on the other hand, has a plethora of experience when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The third issue that I think is critical is the fact that Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group because he wanted to make more money by giving speeches. Anybody like Giuliani, who is worth millions of dollars yet thinks that making more money is more important than the Iraq War, shouldn't be President. McCain pointed that out this morning saying something to the effect that a President must show that he cares and is interested in the troops, but Giuliani failed to do so when given a prime opportunity. McCain, however, has shown a great interest in our troops by visiting Iraq many times and talking to soldiers when they arrive home.

The reason Giuliani is leading in the polls is clearly because voters see him as the most experienced on issues such as national security, foreign relations, and the war in Iraq. But, by looking at Giuliani's past compared with other candidates, you see that Giuliani is indeed the least experienced candidate. Joe Biden was definitely right when he called Giuliani "the most unqualified person to be commander-in-chief". With that being said, the other GOP candidates have done absolutely nothing to challenge Giuliani on his record. Finally though, John McCain has started to do just that. And while I am certainly not a John McCain fan, I am even less of a Rudy fan and I am very glad to see that at least one GOP candidate is trying to get the truth out to the American public. Rudy Giuliani is not what he says he is---not by far. Republicans would do themselves a lot of good to actually look into Rudy's past and make an informed decision, instead of believing every word that Giuliani says.