John McCain: An Uninformed United States Senator

Senator John McCain, in his recent visits to Iraq and the Middle East in order to show that he is Presidential, continues to show how uninformed he really is.  Like Bush, he is in denial about why we went to war in Iraq and what is really taking place there.  He speaks of victory, but still can not define it for our men and women in uniform or the American people who have sacrificed so much.  He says the surge is working, but it has yet to accomplish the mission of the surge over a year later. 

 

Now McCain has said several times that Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them back across the border into Iraq.  He, with the help of Joe Lieberman, had to correct his statement as being factually wrong.  Is it beyond any Republican to tell the truth concerning this war in Iraq?  And McCain wants to be the next Commander in Chief? The so called straight talker can not be trusted any more that George Bush.  He has the same problem when he talks about Iran, Syria, and other countries sending troops into Iraq.  Those countries, and even our allies, laugh at that statement because the United States sent 180,000 troops into Iraq and have been occupying Iraq for 5 years now.  Bush has put our country in the position of not being able to speak from the position of moral authority when he talks about the actions of others.  And of course McCain follows that line.

 

George Bush, the Republicans in Congress who have rubber stamped his reckless action, and Sen. McCain believe in a democracy that is foreign to our founding fathers' actions and commitments.  Democracy to Bush is a one way street of his neoconservative ideology.  He is right and every one else is wrong.  Sadly, Senator McCain's neocon ideology follows that same path.  That does not bode well for the country's future should he become President.  America can't handle four more years of Bush.  

The State of the '08 Democratic Race

Does Obama really have the Democratic nomination locked up like many pundits and journalists are saying?  Is Clinton really too far behind in delegates and the popular vote to catch up as many pundits and journalists are saying?  

 

There are so many people trying to influence the outcome of this race that it is hard to understand where they are coming from.  They are also the same people who say let the people decide, a real whopper of contradiction.

 

The only sure thing as of this writing is that Obama is leading in delegates and the popular vote.  Can Clinton catch Obama and pass him in the delegate and popular vote count?  Of course she can.  It is an uphill battle, but she is still in the game.

 

There has been much talk of what role the Super Delegates should play.  The Obama supporters say they should go with the candidate with the most delegates.  However, that is not the role of the Super Delegates.  If it were, it would be in the DNC rules and they would not be called "Super" Delegates.  They are called Super Delegates because they are free to take into consideration many other factors that go along with selecting the best person to represent the Democratic party, and ultimately be President.  This is nothing new, even to those who disagree.  The candidate, pundits, and journalists knew the rules before this contest even started.  

 

Journalists who support Obama, and most of them do, fail to inform the people of the real role of the Super Delegates.  Rather, they just push the idea that they should act like regular delegates.  What the public needs is a pro-Clinton journalist to push the idea that maybe a regular delegate should act like a Super Delegate.  Get the idea, "fair and balanced."

 

Then we have those pundits and journalists who want to rush to judgement and openly urge Clinton to withdraw.  They camouflage that with the statement, "for the good of the party".  The Democrats are having the best race in my life time and are showing the people what democracy is all about, and that is what's "good for the party", even if it goes to the convention.

 

The people of Florida and Michigan who went to the poles and cast their votes in the Democratic primary should have their voices heard.  It is obvious that would help Clinton, but the people did vote that way.  They should not have to pay for the mistakes of their state and the DNC.  That is the only legitimate answer.  The voters in both states casts their votes for the candidates on the ballot and/or on the uncommitted slate.  That is the way they should be divided.  The voters could have cast their votes for all uncommitted if they wanted to, but a majority choose Clinton.  That was the voter's business and choice and it should be honored.  The Obama campaign does not even want the Florida-Michigan vote to count in the popular vote.  Are these people really Democrats?  What will they dream up next?  Just treat the people's votes as if it never happened?  What kind of democracy is that?

 

In my judgement, what I see happening tells me this race is far from over.  We are getting down to the final primaries and the American people will now have to make up their minds on who can best lead this nation to deal with the many serious challenges Bush will leave behind.  I don't expect journalists to get serious because they have too many axes to grind.  I do, however, expect the voting public to take a good, hard look at the remaining primaries.  The Democratic process may have a surprise ending.   

Doctrines of Obama's Church

The following are excerpts from an article written by Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers:

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church....

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there...

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology... 

(For the full article, click here. )

Did Obama attend the church knowing some of these radical doctrines that the church is founded on?  Thats a question that needs to be answered.  

McCain's Secret Weapon...

Obama has Obama Girl.  Hillary has "Hot 4 Hill" Girl.  John McCain has...the McCain Girls.  Take a look if you need a quick laugh:

"A Typical White Person"

Those were the words that Sen. Barack Obama used to describe his white grandmother.  Many in the media seem to be giving Barack Obama a free pass on this one, as are many in the liberal blogosphere.  Yet, in the interest of fairness, let's replace the word "white" with the word "black" and let's say that it was Hillary Clinton who said it.  

We all know what would happen.  There would be outrage.  She would be called a racist.  She would be thrown under the bus and criticized for days and days.  It's not that I'm necessarily saying that Barack Obama hates whites, I don't think he does, but many are not covering this the same way they would if the situation was as I described above.  I'm getting sick and tired of the double standard out there, where Obama gets a pass on controversial statements and Clinton gets bashed and buried.  People are ultra-sensitive when African Americans or Latinos are stereotyped (which is completely understandable), but when whites are stereotyped, the one making the comments gets a free pass.  It's just not right.  We need to start covering the candidates all equally.    

This Can't Help...

Asked why Sen. Barack Obama was qualified for the job of the Presidency, John Kerry told a Massachusetts newspaper that Obama is "uniquely qualified" because "he's a black man".  I don't want to bash Sen. Kerry, whom I have much respect for, but I do think it's outrageous to claim that race, gender, religion, etc., makes one individual "uniquely qualified" over the other to be President and deal with the many issues that face our great country.  Here's the full video:

Obama's Evolving Position on the Iraq War

Just yesterday in North Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama told a large crowd that he has always been opposed to the war since it began.  The facts and quotes, however, tell a different story.  Watch:

Calling Out Daily Kos

I just made a now rare visit over to the Daily Kos website only to find the radicalization of the site bordering on un-American.  Whether you agree or disagree with the author of this user's post (named Red Wolverine), he was instantly censored and troll rated for posting a YouTube video that was apparently in opposition to Sen. Barack Obama.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the content of the video since I didn't get a chance to see it due to the Obama-biased moderators deleting it.  What I am saying is that it is completely wrong for someone to be censored and their words and thoughts edited just because their opinions might be unpopular.  

This has become an disturbing issue that is growing on some blogs which heavily support Obama.  Anyone who disagrees with them, or posts something controversial, is censored, verbally attacked, and told never to come back to the site again. Many people with whom I do not agree post comments here at POLITIDOSE, however, I don't go around and delete their remarks simply because I disagree with them.  This is America.  Regardless of which candidate we support, we must be willing to have a serious, honest discussion about the candidates and what is at stake in this election.  This can not happen, however, if we shut everyone up who we disagree with.  

For those reasons, I am calling on Daily Kos and like websites to respect others' views and allow them to be respectfully discussed.  Those were the ideals that America was founded on and they must be allowed to continue.

For those wishing to see the censoring and bashing of the post to which I refer, click the following link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/205116/282/734/480325.

Obama's Big Speech: My Take

Sen. Barack Obama, without a doubt, gave a great speech today.  The substance can be debated, but the delivery and tone were spot on and brilliant.  The overall message was correct and is one which I agree with. Racism (along with sexism and homophobia) is an underlying current in American society today and that needs to change.  Prejudices, from both sides of the isle, white and black, need to end.  We need to judge people for who they are, looking not at the color of their skin but at the character demonstrated in their actions.  

With that being said, however, some parts of the speech I still have some problems with.  For starters, Barack Obama refused to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright again today.  He, once again, compared him to a family member.  Again I'l say it: you don't choose your family, you're more or less stuck with them, but you do choose your pastor.  You do choose what church you attend.  Obama chose Wright and stuck by him for 20 plus years.  

Why is that a problem?  Jeremiah Wright is a man who preaches hate and bigotry.  He claims that the U.S. government introduced AIDS to kill off African Americans.  He claims that the U.S. deserved the tragedy that was 9/11.  He claims that god should damn, not bless, this great country.  

Obama can say he wasn't there to hear Rev. Wright make those remarks live.  He can say that he rejects them now that it is the politically necessary thing to do.  But even today, while giving that great speech, Obama didn't explain why he stuck by Wright for 20 years.  Surely he had heard of those remarks.  Surely Obama has been present for some of Wright's many outlandish and incendiary statements.  Why didn't he reject the comments then?  Why didn't he stop attending the church then?  Why wait until now, when the press brings up the story?   It's a little known fact, but Oprah Winfrey used to attend Trinity United Church.  She stopped attending, however, many years ago when apparently Wright began preaching his vulgar, hate-filled sermons.  If Oprah could recognize when something just wasn't okay, she got up and left and never came back. Why didn't Obama do the same?  I'm going to stay on top of Obama until he answers that question because the American people deserve an answer.

Another thing Obama said that I have a problem with is his game of blame the media for taking Wright's remarks out of context.  Exactly how much context do you need when someone says "god damn America"?  Or AIDS being created by our government to kill African Americans?  For Obama to blame the media is simply outrageous.  He has gotten the smoothest ride by the media of anyone who every ran for President.  Trust me, I know the media can be unfair at times.  This just wasn't one of those times and Obama is wrong for trying to make it one.  

Abrams and Gregory's New Shows: A Quick Review

Today was the debut of David Gregory's new show on MSNBC, Race for the White House.  In essence, the show features 6 segments discussed over by a 4 member panel.  Tonight's panel was great, with Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd offering their opinions and views. Okay, maybe Robinson and Todd are no good, but I hope Maddow and Scarborough remain regulars, as both got into several heated arguments with each other that were both highly substantive and highly entertaining.  

The biggest surprise for me, however, was how well David Gregory fit into his new role as host.  Think of him as a more lively, more personable Tim Russert, or a less lively, less opinionated Dan Abrams.  As long as the panelists stay as good and the segments stay as lively as they were today, Race for the White House could prove to be a huge success for MSNBC. 

Verdict with Dan Abrams also debuted tonight.  Nothing much to note here, as Verdict pretty much follows the same format as Abram's old self titled show, but again I must say that I love the "On Their Trail" segment. Abrams, although he blatantly injects his opinion into topics, is never tilted towards one candidate, or for that matter, one ideology, over the other. On one issue he might agree with Obama; the next McCain; the next Clinton.  It's just really refreshing to get commentary without a clear bias behind them.  

With that being said, I encourage all of you to check out MSNBC's new primetime lineup.  Gregory's show looks very promising, Matthew's is getting better, and Abrams continues to "tell it as he sees it".  (The only downside is the none-stop bias of Keith Olbermann, formerly the best MSNBC host.)