Political Bias

It cracks me up to listen to these news channels. It reminds me of ESPN. When it comes time for the predictions, who do the "analysts" go with?

Tom Jackson: The Broncos (he played for Denver)

Keyshawn Johnson: The Buccaneers, Cowboys, Jets, or Panthers (teams he played for)

Michael Irvin: The Cowboys (who he played for)

Ron Jaworski: The Eagles (guess...)

Barry Switzer: Oklahoma (who he coached)

Lou Holtz: Notre Dame, South Carolina, and Arkansas (who he coached)

Bias much? On these channels, they'll interview a Republican Strategist and Democratic Strategist, or a contributor to the Clinton camp and one for the Obama camp. What do you think these men and women have to say?

Republican Strategist: Well, in either case, whether Obama or Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, they will probably lose to John McCain. Polls show this right now and that's how it'll probably play out. McCain can earn plenty of independent votes and even some Democrats.

Democratic Strategist: I could see both candidates' points here. Obama will probably be able to generate more younger voters, independents, and even some Republicans to vote for him than Hillary, but Clinton does have the advantage of being able to counter McCain's message of the war and national security to where the Arizona Senator has to engage in talks regarding other issues, where he isn't as comfortable. Either way, the Democratic candidate should win in November.

Oh, gosh, I'm so shocked! The Democratic Strategist is supporting the Democrat without much substance to the argument and the Republican Strategist is doing likewise with the Republican Candidate.

Clinton Camp: We're disappointed with Obama, because he went on the attack yesterday, and kind of went against his word of having a postitive campaign. Some of those attacks were vicious.

Obama Camp: Attacks? The Senator was just contrasting he from Hillary. There's a difference between what he did yesterday to what the Clintons did the two weeks prior.

Another shocker. The Clinton camp takes the side of Hillary and the Obama camp takes the side of their candidate.

Immediately when we see the label underneath the speaker, we can probably accurately guess what the person is going to say before they actually speak, depending on the question posed. Why even have them appear on these shows? Why not bring in fairly non-biased reporters, who are more interested in the news and facts, as opposed to these people directly involved in the campaigns, with their intent being to elect one candidate or the other. I find these "interviews," if you want to call them that, comical. I don't think I'll see the day when a contributor of a candidate speaks out against a viewpoint or decision made by the one they support. Although, I'd like to see it. It'd make my day, politically speaking.

Specificity

It kind of cracks me up to hear many Clinton supporters state that Obama has no substance when he talks and has not laid out any specific ideas or plans.

This makes me laugh, because, I've watched every Democratic debate, have heard many of the speeches by each candidate, and honestly? None of the three and now two, as Edwards has dropped out, has been very specific in regard to their ideas and plans if elected president. The most specific I've heard the three candidates get was in the South Carolina debate when they talked about their health care plans and to be perfectly honest, while Clinton and Edwards subtly attacked Obama as not having a universal plan as they supposedly do, Obama did specify his plan the most. There were still questions I had in regard to all three of the plans, but I do feel he was the most specific at the debate. Outside of those few minutes, however, I can't recall a point in any debate where any of the candidates were all too specific about what they were going to do if elected president. They were somewhat vague in what they planned to do with the Iraq War, all three stating they'd try to the best of their abilities to have the troops back home within the first year, but being careful not to guarantee anything. Edwards did guarantee that he'd have the troops home within a year, but wasn't specific on how he'd get that done and how he could balance ending the long-lasting war with protecting the country from the potential backlash. None of the three candidates were very specific in regard to immigration and Clinton waivered quite a bit when asked about allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. I haven't heard the candidates talk about gun control, abortion, capital punishment. They all have very similar economic ideas, but not terribly specific. Again, Obama wasn't too specific, but was a tad more specific than Edwards or Clinton. None of the candidates have been too specific about global warming, foreign oil, or education. They've all been very vague in the debates in regard to these issues.

So, please, I'll be the first to admit that Barack Obama hasn't been very specific during his campaign. But, please, we can't isolate him as THE candidate lacking substance and specificity. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lacked specificity in debates and if I had to pick one, I'd say that Obama has been a bit more specific than Clinton. This also is in regard to the attacks. While Obama has attempted to take time out to respond to attacks, such as his "present" votes, his comments regarding Ronald Reagan, and his Iraq War record, I've often times not heard those explanations from Senator Clinton. More times than not, I've heard her simply respond to an attack with an attack of her own.

The specifics will come out in full force pre-general election, but right now, candidates on both the Democratic and Republican sides are simply attempting to present their character, record, reputation, and personality to the public. They've all written rough drafts of potential plans in regard to education, the war, the economy, environment, etc., etc., etc., but we probably won't hear many final copies until the two nominees are selected. That's how it typically is most election years and how it is this time around as well.

1,000,000 Iraqis killed in war

Reuters wrote an article today in regard to a survey conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), which claims that anywhere from 946,258 to 1,120,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war. Those responsible for the study interviewed 2,414 adults face-to-face. Some, especially in Washington, may question the authenticity of the study, but it'd be humanly impossible to conduct a study on the deaths in the Iraq War which was 100% accurate. If these results are anywhere close to being accurate, it is a very disturbing and sad finding. It makes me contemplate, when is it time to say when? How can victory/defeat be measured in regard to wars such as this, which was based on false pretenses? How many lives must be lost in order for us to realize that it's time to pull out? Have we escalated the hatred for our country through the war? Is that hatred beyond reparation? Will we ever be able to be at peace with Iraq? The longer we're there, the more lives will be lost and through that, the more the hatred will expand and linger. As I see it, the sooner we're out, the better. Approximately 3,000 Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Slightly less than 4,000 Americans have been killed in the wars overseas. Combine the two and 7,000 Americans have been killed through the terror attacks and the wars waged. That can't even slightly compare to 1,000,000 fatalities suffered in Iraq. I can't even fathom that. That's 143 times the number of deaths suffered by Americans in 9/11 and the wars and 333 times the amount of deaths suffered on 9/11 alone.

Vermont Ballot: Should Bush and Cheney be indicted?

I read an article today, where it told the story of a town that goes by the name of Battleboro, Vermont. The required 5% of voters in the town, or 436 individuals, signed a petition, which basically asked the question: "Should President Bush and Vice President be indicted?" The petition passed by a 3 to 2 vote and will appear on the March 4th ballot.

It will read as follows:

"Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

I find the tone of the article and some of the quotes included in the article to be more interesting than the pending vote. Throughout the article, it appeared as if most people were critical of the petition and it appearing on the upcoming ballot. Yet, out of 111,892 people who have polled thus far, 56% (62,151) believe that both Bush and Cheney should be arrested, while 44% (49,741) believe they should be left alone. For an article that seemed to focus much more on the criticism of the petition and made the claim that MOST people were disgusted with it, I find it rather humorous that out of over 110,000 pollsters, 56% believe Bush and Cheney should be arrested.

Some of the responses to the petition were as follows and were included in the article:

"Has everyone up there been out in the cold too long?"

"I would like to know how I could get some water from your town. It's obvious that there is something special in it."

One Brent Caflisch, from Rosemount, Minnesota, said this, "Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont," It went on to say terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor, "cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet."

"Be American, not a sniffeling liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President. Vacation to VT CANCELLED!"

The only quote included in the article which sided with the petition and Select Board members read as follows, "I feel bad for people who are loyal to Bush who have lost a son or had one in the service and it's hard for them to admit the utter waste of it, and that it was caused by this man in the White House."

So, who reported this? Fox News or Rush Limbaugh? Four of the five included quotes (80%) criticize the petition, while Bush's approval rating is around 30% and 55-60% of people who polled in regard to this petition do in fact believe that the president and vice president should be arrested. Talk about spin. I love the comments too.

Talking about how there's something "special" in the water and how it may be too cold up there. The other two quotes take the cake, though. One said maybe terrorists will do us a favor and attack Vermont next, that the world would be better without these "wackjobs" and that those who voted in favor of the measure to be allowed on the ballot should be decapitated, videotaped, and it should be youtubed, basically. Eh, and he calls residents of Vermont "wackjobs"? He may want to look in the mirror to see a genuine "wackjob". ...and wishing a terrorist attack on anyone is awful. It's reminiscent of when Bill O'Reilly wished San Francisco to be the next terrorist victim, if there were to be another attack on our soil. This person is quite graphic too with the decapitation wishes. The other one said he/she was canceling a vacation to Vermont and that residents of the state weren't Americans, but "a sniffeling liberal town" and then praised Bush for the safety he's provided. Then I read a few comments by average Joes following the article and many of them said things such as, "Anyone who believes conspiracies are stupid" and "Bush is the greatest president ever. He will be judged historically."

Does the author of this article truly believe he/she wrote a fair and balanced article, one that coincides with what the general public actually believes in regard to our president and vice president? The quotes they included were ludicrous. Either this offer works for the president or he/she wants to. The quotes couldn't be any more derogatory, divisive, narrow-minded, or ignorant. Wishing a terrorist attack on a state because they are "liberal"? Labeling the state as "liberal" and then praising a president with an approval rating of 30%, whom has been labeled by many political analysts as quite possible the worst president in the history of the United States? Insinuating that there's something wrong with the water or that perhaps the cold weather has frozen their brains to halt its functioning?

Why aren't there any quotes with some substance, on perhaps why this petition was or wasn't a good idea? Labeling and generalizing people doesn't cut it as in-depth commentary. I mean, these quotes were reminiscent of the comments I read by the average Joes following the article, and if their IQ is reflective in any way of their typing/spelling/grammar/punctuation, the average IQ of these posters make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein.

Wishing the best for John Edwards and What I don't like about the Clintons.

First off, I'd like to wish the best for John Edwards and his family, his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, in particular, as she has been battling cancer. It's a shame that Edwards wasn't given as much air time as his two Democratic opponents, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Edwards is a man full of passion and I hope that if a Democrat is elected in November, he/she is as serious about ending poverty as Edwards is/was. I don't know if he's thinking about it, but if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I kind of hope that Edwards is his running mate. I'm a bit pessimistic in regard to Edwards joining either campaign, due to his family situation, but you never know, I guess.

In regard to the Clintons, I'm getting a bit fed up with them. This is a registered Democrat speaking. For the past 16 years, I've had to hear family members of mine (Republicans) and friends of the family (Republicans, we live in Nebraska, the 4th reddest state in the country) blame the Clintons for just about everything. Bill's been blamed for 9/11, the current economic troubles. Heck, I've heard people blame him for cold weather in the winter and blistering heat in the summer, like he actually plays the role of Mother Nature or God, whatever one wants to believe. I've heard the same people refer to his wife, Hillary, as a weak person, since her husband cheated on her and she stood by his side. These people don't know the whole story. They don't know any of the Clintons personally. All they know is what they heard via Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the like. I got rather fed up with the rhetoric. BUT, while I disagree with these people on their erroneous attacks, I am gaining a greater sense of why they may get a little aggravated with Bill and Hillary from time to time.

While I've heard the line, "They'll do anything to win," plenty in my lifetime, I think it certainly applies to the Clintons. I guess it depends on one's attitude. Some are like that. They don't care how they do it, so long as they win. Doesn't matter if they cheat, play it straight, hire another to cheat for them, etc., so long as they win, the end justifies the means.

Columnist Craig Crawford said the other day that the Clintons never interjected race into the campaign. I couldn't disagree more. The "fairy tale" line wasn't bringing race into the equation, I'll give him that. But, Hillary Clinton and especially Bill Clinton, have. Okay, so what did this following comment made by Clinton pre-South Carolina Primary have to deal with?

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."

Come on Mr. Crawford. What was Billy really trying to say and do? He was trying to make South Carolina out to be a very favorable state for Barack Obama, due to their heavy black population in the Democratic electorate, attempting to portray Obama as a black candidate, nothing more and nothing less.

Then, the day of the same Primary, Bill was asked something along the lines of, "So, what does it say about Obama that it takes two of you to bring him down?"

Clinton responded with, "Well, Jesse Jackson won here in '84 and '88. He ran a great campaign and Obama has run a great one as well."

Again, Mr. Crawford, do you seriously believe Billy Boy wasn't bringing race into the picture? He wasn't asked who Obama reminded him of or if Obama had much in common with one Jesse Jackson. No, he asked about the double-team Obama has had to face in Bill and Hillary and how does the former president respond? By comparing Obama to a rather polarizing African-American figure, again, attempting to paint the portrait that Obama is another black candidate, who only appeals to African-Americans.

Then, there were Hillary's comments in regard to Martin Luther King and Lyndon B. Johnson, when she said, "I would and I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act fo 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, 'We are going to do it,' and actually got it accomplished."

Right around MLK Day, when her main opponent is an African-American, why on earth would she say that? She'd have to know darn well that it'd infuriate African-Americans and perhaps push them over to Obama. Why would she do this, Mr. Crawford? I think it's because the Clintons have slowly been trying to cast Obama as a "black candidate," who can only appeal to the African-American crowd. This could play as a good short-term strategy for the Clintons, but could harm them come November.

Bill also wasn't honest in regard to Obama's Iraq War record. Obama was against it from the start. Clinton referred to it as a "fairy tale" and claimed that Barack stated in 2004 that when asked what he would've done if posed with a similar situation Bush was presented with in 2001, the Illinois Senator said he didn't know and that he now holds the same position on Iraq as the current president, George W. Bush.

What Obama actually said in '04 was this, "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case (for authorizing the war) was not made." So, while yes, Bill, the words "I don't know" were in the three sentence response by Obama, that small component doesn't give a clear depiction of the whole. Obama says that, in his perspective, the case for war wasn't made.

The Clintons also fudged with Obama's fairly recent remarks regarding Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. Bill/Hillary claimed that Barack stated that the Republicans had all the good ideas and that he was praising Reagan on his decisions and policies, when this was anything but the case.

Here's what Obama actually stated, "Reagan changed the trajectry of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally differrent path because the country was ready for it. The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party od ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."

Saying that a person is full of ideas and saying that they have good ideas is completely different. One can appreciate another's new ideas without actually agreeing with those ideas. In regard to Reagan, Obama wasn't saying that he agreed with the former president's policies, that he voted for him, or anything of the like. He just acknowledged the fact that Reagan was able to bring people of a different ilk together, much in the manner that Obama is campaigning to do.

Finally, at the State of the Union Address a couple nights ago, a photograph was taken of Hillary Clinton reaching out to Ted Kennedy, shaking his hand, with a giant smile on her face, as Barack Obama's back was faced toward her, while it appeared he spoke to Senator Claire McCaskill. Obama denied the alleged "snub," explaining that he was speaking to McCaskill and mentioned that the two of them (Clinton and Obama) had exchanged a wave when she entered the room. What did Hillary respond with today? "I reached my hand out. I want to be friends and I'm still reaching my hand out."

A handshake? Either Clinton saw Obama's back toward her and she took advantage of the opportunity to make him look bad, by acting gracious toward Senator Ted Kennedy with a big phony smile on her face or based on how the story was blown out of proportion by the media, she decided to capitalize on that with her statement. Either way, it's just another sly tactic by a Clinton attempting to garner support.

I almost forgot about the crying charade. Not one tear streamed down her face, but Hillary deserved a Razzie for her performance in New Hamsphire. Unfortunately, the phony show of emotion by Clinton won her some support from women. Humorously enough, though, the woman whom asked the question which sparked "emotion" by the New York Senator voted for Obama in the Primary.

What's their next move? I haven't the slightest, but I hope and pray that Obama dominates the debate tomorrow night and in a like manner, dominates Super Tuesday next week. I'm tired of the dirty politics. While their policies may drastically differ, their sly tricks, stubborness, arrogance, and overall attitudes resemble George W. Bush and there's nothing I want less than four to eight more years of a like-individual.

Identity Politics

I'm getting a little sick and tired about the identity politics swirling around the two remaining Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is dividing the party and could potentially hinder the party's chances at winning in the general election come November. If Obama wins, will that anger white women enough to vote for John McCain? If Clinton wins, will that anger the African-American community enough to not show up at the booths? Will Clinton's and Obama's strong supporters be too angered at their candidate's defeat to vote for the other in November?

I think it'd be a very smart move on either of their parts (Obama or Clinton) to assign the other as their running mate when the nomination is decided. This would keep the excitement alive in both the women's and African-American communities, as it would mark the first time that a woman or African-American would be president or vice president of the United States. BUT, if Hillary wins the nomination and decides to go with Joe Lieberman as her running mate or if Obama wins and assigns the duty to Joe Biden, this could alienate some voters on election day.

Of all the years that the Democratic candidate should be able to guarantee a victory on election day, this would be it, yet, they may AGAIN find a way to blow what seemed to be the inevitable. Democrats had the popular vote in 2000 with Al Gore, yet lost to the courts. John Kerry won every debate against George W. Bush and a lot of momentum going into election day in 2004, yet found a way to lose Ohio and the overall election. After 8 years of George W. Bush lies, wars, overspending, indifference to meaningful issues, all but pushing the middle class in with the lower, a Democratic victory is all but a given, right? No, of course not. While recent NBC studies have shown the general public preferring a Democratic President as opposed to a Republican one by a 51-34% margin, John McCain leads Hillary Clinton by a 46-44% count, while McCain is tied with Barack Obama at 42%. While this could be a historic year for the Democratic Party and for America, in electing our first woman or African-American as president, it could also be a historic defeat, as there would be no excuse for the Democratic candidate to fall to the Republican this November. Unfortunately, with the inner division taking place, while identity politics could potentially help make history in our country, it could very well divide the party enough to suffer another general election defeat.

Political Notes

- At president George W. Bush's final State of the Union Address last night, a photograph was taken with Barack Obama's back to Hillary Clinton, while the New York Senator reached over to shake Ted Kennedy's hand, who was seated next to Obama. Some are calling this a "snub" by Obama. He, of course, denies it. Judging by the photo and what the Illinois Senator suggested happened, it did appear as if he was speaking to Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Senator. A "snub" by either candidate, to me, would make no sense whatsoever, especially with the way the 24-hour "news" media is nowadays. Why would either of the two candidates intentionally ignore the other at a nationally televised event? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If it is in fact true, that Obama "snubbed" Clinton, then it was not a wise move on his part, but I just can't see how he or any candidate would intentionally ignore another on national television, where the entire country can view them. I'm going to just believe for a moment that these candidates have SOME common sense and it was not an intentional "snub" by the presidential candidate.

- It cracks me up when Republicans use the hated "L" word. No, I'm not talking about love, lust, linger, or even leprechaun. I'm talking about "liberal". Oooooh. Over the past few days, Republican frontrunners John McCain and Mitt Romney have referred to the other as too liberal in one manner or another. McCain believes Romney is too "liberal" when it comes to his economic history and future plans and Romney believes McCain is too "liberal" in regard to his tax plans and his "leniency" toward illegal immigrants. Does that seven letter word truly turn Republican voters away from a particular candidate? It seems like when all else fails, interject that seven-letter L word toward your opponent and all is well again, or so they think...

- So, Hillary Clinton now wants the Florida delegates to count. Even though all of the Democratic candidates agreed before their campaigns began that the delegates in both Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, Hillary is speaking up in regard to the issue. Why is this? It's fairly obvious, isn't it? With the race seemingly being so close, she wants every delegate to count. But, what's the problem? The candidates agreed that there'd be no campaigning in the two before-mentioned states. Hillary Clinton was the only big named Democrat on the Michigan ballot. Why should any candidate be given so many potential delegates when not one single candidate was allowed to campaign in that state? This is not to say the citizens of Michigan and/or Florida don't matter. Of course they do. But, it'd be reminiscent of "The Distinguished Gentleman," starring Eddie Murphy. There's no campaigning, just name recognition. The candidates aren't allowed to travel the state, give speeches, lend some insight to citizens on what their ideas are. So, what will be more apt to occurring? Voting Jeff Johnson (in this case, Hillary Clinton), the name you know. We can't say, in hindsight, perhaps the Democratic candidates should've been permitted to campaign in these two states. It was disallowed and because of that, why in the world should the delegates count?

- I find it rather humorous on many's attitudes toward the candidates. As far as I see it, John McCain is the only Republican with a legitimate chance to win the general election. I'm not just saying this because I'm a registered Democrat. I genuinely believe this. Why? He is THE one Republican who will be able to even the playing field with his Democratic opponent, as McCain will receive some votes from Independents and could even receive a few votes from some more conservative Democrats. He also resides in a battleground state, in Arizona. If he is the candidate, he will win a batteground state, without question, and be a leg up on his opponent. Mike Huckabee would do very well in the southeast and probably the plains states, but I don't think he'd do as well in the battleground states, such as Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, etc. Mitt Romney would fare well in the typical red states, but I have to wonder if he'd receive some unprecedented contests in the southeast. Being a devout Mormon, I have to wonder if this would hinder him in the southeast. I also don't see him doing well in the battleground states. Do I even have to include Rudy Giuliani in this? After his loss today, he will probably drop out of the race, so I won't even include him in this discussion. But, there we have it. The ONLY Republican candidate with a legitimate shot to win in November is John McCain. Yet, many die-hard conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, for example) believe, if elected, he will destroy the Republican Party. So, what do these people truly want? Would they rather have McCain, a Republican, be elected president or a Democrat, in either Clinton or Obama? I'm a tad confuzzled on this matter.

On the other side of the aisle, I think either Clinton or Obama would win against any Republican candidate outside of John McCain. However, I find it funny that Hillary Clinton seems to be the front-runner when Obama may be the safest choice. Even a recent poll indicated that a McCain/Clinton match-up right now would wind up in a 46-44% Republican victory, while McCain/Obama would result in a tie of 42% a piece at this juncture. Hillary Clinton is such a polarizing figure, in some part due to her husband, the former president. If she squares off against McCain, the Arizona Senator will win his home state, a battleground state at that, and he will be able to win more Independent votes than is typical for the Republican Party. This would pay huge dividends in battleground states, such as Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Florida. Independents have been supporting Barack Obama over Clinton all throughout their campaigns and he's more apt to winning over moderate to liberal Republicans than Clinton. While many die-hard conservatives may not like John McCain and while die-hard Clintonians will believe in Hillary over any candidate not named Bill, John McCain and Barack Obama are the safest picks for each respective party to earn the next presidency. As the recent poll showed, the two potential presidential nominees are knotted at 42% a piece.

- Rudy Giuliani's "strategy" was quite...how do I put it? Stupid. He didn't campaign one bit in the first six states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina) and has invested his entire potential presidency on the state of Florida. Some analysts and many Giuliani supporters are saying it was the way to go, because Rudy has a solid base in Florida and the sunshine state has many more delegates than any of the previous six. BUT, a candidate can't do that and seriously expect to win. What? In a NFL season, should the Detroit Lions slack off in their first six games en route to a 0-6 record before facing the San Francisco 49ers at Ford Field, because they feel it'll be their best chance of the season to win? They go into the game with anything but momentum on their side, with anything but team chemistry on their side, and with anything but a good record to go with that. Can their owner, coaches, and everyone involved with the team genuinely expect that they'll bounce back from a 0-6 start to make the playoffs? Ridiculous.

Random Notes

- Ever been to Wingstop? I've gone to Buffalo Wild Wings a few times and perhaps I've just gotten used to the size of their wings, which are really, nugget-size. My mom and I went to Wingstop the other day and ordered some boneless wings, just as I tend to do at Buffalo Wild Wings. Typically, at BWW, I'll order 12, with three separate sauces (four per, for mathematicians out there). So, we did likewise at Wingstop, ordering approximately 20 boneless wings (10 each). Little did we expect that these things were more the size of chicken tenders than nuggets. Sadly, they got one order wrong, so they gave us 8-10 extra. So, there we were, just the two of us, with approximately 30 chicken tenders laid before us. Safe to say, we didn't even get them half eaten. Next time, I'll/we'll make sure to order a smaller amount.



- A local chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women) released a statement today, calling Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton the "ultimate betrayal" of women across the country. Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama. Heck, she was the Kennedy who got the ball rolling, as she was the first of the three to endorse the Illinois Senator. These comments are ludicrous. This local chapter basically stated that Kennedy (Ted) is just another man not willing to give a woman the opportunity to lead the country. So, what? Every woman that votes for Obama, or anyone else besides Clinton is betraying women all across the nation? How does that work? If any African-American doesn't vote for Obama, is that betraying blacks all across the country? If Clinton received the Kennedy endorsement, would the NAACP have spoken up and called the Massachusetts Senator a racist? Ladies, just as you have every right to vote for whomever you'd like, Mr. Kennedy and everyone else in this country (of age and legal, of course) has that same right. I think it's rather ridiculous for an organization devoted to women's equality basically telling women that they MUST vote one way and one way only. That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?



- Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedenberg's third film, "Meet the Spartans," debuted at #1 on this past weekend's chart. When I saw that, I about ODed on advil. I saw their first film, "Date Movie," and have since decided to bypass their most recent pair, "Epic Movie" and now "Meet the Spartans". Can their be a permanent ban on these guys from ever associating themselves with a film ever again? Please? I can appreciate different types of music, art, film, etc. Most times, I'll say that one's liking of a certain art is based on taste. Often times, it's rather subjective. I love '80s rock and some hate it. That's fine. Some may enjoy Picasso and others prefer Monet. Again, no problem. Some may enjoy romantic comedies as opposed to dramas and vice versa. Once again, that's not a big deal. BUT, I can't for the life of me understand how someone could enjoy these films. I sat through "Date Movie," its entirety. I've sat through some pretty rotten films, "Gone Fishin'" being one of them. But, I think I can safely say, without question, "Date Movie" was THE worst movie I've ever seen. I'm not one to throw commentary like that around with every film I view as some do. I don't change my mind every weekend and one up myself from the previous week, claiming that THE film I saw was THE best or worst of all time. No, I'm not like that. So, I am genuinely stating that I believe "Date Movie" to have been the worst movie I've ever seen. I have to take that with a grain of salt (two grains), because I've yet to see Seltzer and Friedenberg's other two films. I'm just curious on who sees these movies and who enjoys them. It saddens me to no end that this movie was successful in its opening week at the box office, because what does that mean? A fourth installment will be made! "Action Movie," "Romance Movie," "Drama Movie" or whatever other clever title they can muster. Please, for the love of all cinema-goers in the world, please Mr. Seltzer and Friedenberg, enjoy the money you've (gulp) earned and take a long, lustrous vacation.



- Think your weather is bizarre? Inconsistent? Crazy at times? Unless you live in Nebraska, you don't know what you're talking about. Get this. It's January 28th. We're in the middle of the winter season. Today, it reached the 50 degree mark. It was gorgeous, feeling more like a late fall day than the middle of winter. Tomorrow? January 29th? Just 24 hours later? A high of 14, with a wind chill of -15 degrees. Tomorrow night? A low of -4 with winds of 25-35 miles per hour. I'm not sure what that would calculate in terms of the wind chill, but how's that for a 24-hour swing? 50 to -15 wind chill, a 65 degree turnaround in a single day. My family and I have been fighting colds the past few days. We in Nebraska may want to refer to tomorrow, January 29th, as National Cold Day, because there are going to be a lot of them state-wide.

usawakeup.org/ should wake up themselves!

No, this isn't a blog praising the site, so if you're a member or a proud supporter of http://www.usawakeup.org/, I'd recommend you leave now, so that you aren't too ticked by the time you start reading this...

Are the supporters gone now? Okay, good.

An uncle of mine sent me an e-mail with a link to this site and I had a hunch before clicking on it, but as I expected, it was a site dedicated to right-wing views. I'm not sure if my uncle realizes it or not or perhaps he does and he's simply trying to convert me, but I am anything but a righty when it comes to my political views. I respect his right to agree with extreme conservatives, but I also have the right to my own belief system and to disagree with him on these issues. Now, on to the site.

It was quite disturbing for me. I perused it quite thoroughly and what did I come to see? The site read like something I imagine a hybrid of Rush Limbaugh and David Koresch (sp.?) would write. The site claimed that it's main intention was to warn Americans of the true threat of radical Islam, but it also got into illegal immigration, Hillary Clinton, etc.

The site claims that Muslims began a 20 year effort to destroy the West and this mission began in 2000. So, according to this page, the West will be no more in 2020.

It claims that all mainstream media outlets are controlled by the left. (although, it didn't mention Fox News, which was VERY surprising...)

The author, if you want to call him/her/them/it that, stated that they don't list their names on that site, because they've already received a great deal of hate mail.

The author also said that conspiracy theorists have insulted their views for not believing into the 9/11 conspiracy-hype and that left-wingers have attacked them for their conservative views.

The site praised Newt Gingrich, who's had a few nutty ideas of his own throughout his political career.

It ranted on Islam and made the claim that the Qu'ran's mention of "killing the infidels," proved that Islam is a vicious, hateful, and evil religion. It, of course, doesn't mention similar such scriptures in the Bible. I guess those don't count...

The site proclaimed that no Democrat carries with them the values that the makers of the site seeks in a president and then went on to bash Hillary Clinton for a while.

It complained about the Patriot Act potentially not being continued in the future and about foreigners having Habeas Corpus rights.

It gave links to books written by: Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and David Limbaugh, amongst othes and on topics ranging from why liberals/Democrats are destroying America to the evils of Islam. Yes, it was a fair and balanced site, to be certain.

Movies that it mentioned? "The Islamic Mein Kampf" and "Jimmy Carter's War Against the Jews".

Other links? WMD (War to Mobilize Democracy), links on terrorism, Islam, immigration, and 9/11 conspiracy "myths".

A grand number of headlines revolved around the Clintons and in a very negative manner.

It defined liberalism as, "...it's the easy way out, if you want to escape reality, just keep your head buried in the sand, or somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine."

Wow, what can I say in regard to this site? I must admit, I'm curious as to who the creators are. I won't send any hate mail. That's not my style. But, I am curious. When I read through the page(s), it sounded like some angry college kids involved in the far right fraternity, or something along those lines. Some portions were humorous, because it kept harping on how the mainstream media has a liberal political agenda and yet it preached it's own neo-conservative one. Kind of a double-standard there, is it not? I'm not a huge fan of the mainstream media, but I don't understand how they can be called the ultra left or controlled by the left. Fox News is anything but liberal. Fox News is about as liberal as I am emu. The other major news channels? Such as MSNBC and CNN? Yeah, they talk about Democratic or "liberal" candidates, but they also speak about Republican or "conservative" ones. Tonight, as the South Carolina Democratic Primary is taking place, the channels are mainly focusing on the Democratic candidates and what tonight's results may mean in the future. On Tuesday night, as the Republican Florida Primary will be held, they will mainly be speaking about the candidates on the right.

It also spoke out against Hitler, the Holocaust, and preached about how Hitler was able to follow through with his extremely ill intentions. It compared Osama bin Laden and the Muslim population to Hitler and that if we didn't stand up soon, we'd have a Holocaust-type event in the United States. Then it spoke out about Christian rights and against most others' rights. The sneak and peek (no warrant necessary) in the original Patriot Act should be permitted according to them. We should return to the McCarthy era where Habeas Corpus rights are not granted to everyone, foreign and domestic. It sounds as if these individuals want there to be more rights in the federal government, so long as that government is uber-conservative in their values, yet is warning us that if we don't watch our backs, we'll soon see a federal government with extensive powers that will be able to control us in the same manner Hitler was able to during the Holocaust. Another double-standard there, and a very scary one at that.

This site made all Muslims out to be evil and that's purely ignorant. That'd be the same as a Muslim overseas believing all Christans to be evil. Holy books, such as the Bible or the Qu'ran were originally written a very LONG time ago and have been modified and translated countless times since their initial production. There are also countless interpretations to the books. Believe me, if there weren't, if there was actually one interpretation, one answer, someone would be extremely rich.

This sounded like a lengthy campaign ad if Rush Limbaugh were to run for president or perhaps Sean Hannity. I mean, if someone truly believes we are in danger and that "radical" Muslims present an imminent threat, okay, that's fine, but why disregard the argument entirely by making it sound like some kind of neo-conservative political agenda-related rant? Point out the numbers, from viable sources, without any bashing of a candidate(s) and one party's views on one issue or another.

Why does it often times sound like a war, a battle, a competition to uber-conservatives? It's us vs. them, Christianity vs. Islam, Republicans vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, everyone vs. the Clintons, etc., etc., etc. It's funny, as the author(s) to this site claimed that liberalism is the easy way out, when it seems that the makers of this site and perhaps others who think similarly, have very simplistic views on people and life, in general. There are no shades of grey. It's black or white, true or false, right or wrong. The easy way out? I'll let them ponder that one over.

Lovely commentary...

I was keeping up-to-date with news via MSNBC.com. I read an article regarding tensions between the African-American and Latino communities and how it may be difficult for Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, to garner much support from the Hispanic community. I then read some comments posted by the average Joe Schmos following the article. One guy stated and I quote:

"Unfortunately race will always be a factor in everyday life, but I do believe that White Democrast/White Liberals tend to be more racist than your average conservative; they resent blacks becoming successful in life, since it gets harder for the democrat/liberal to use race as an issue. The Clintons through this presidential race have shown their contempt for Barack Obama because he is black, (they thought the black vote would be easier to get). It is a shame that blacks are ignoring Barack and running to the Clintons, this may be the only chance they get for electing a black president, but I do believe that many blacks tend to look at whites as their savior (sort of a white master/black child mentality). The Latino vote and also the Asian vote will not be there for Barack, it showed in Nevada and will in Florida/California/Texas, etc. Both Latinos and Asians feel they have nothing in common with blacks so their vote will go to Clintons. Understand that the Civil Rights movement fell into the lap of JFK, he like the Clintons were not interested in blacks, but that was an opportunity that JFK exploited, even though LBJ passed most of the civil rights bills; JFK gets the credit, just like Bill Clinton get credited as being the "unofficial" first black president, even though he put more blacks in prison than any other president before him. Obama can have a chance if blacks would unite but I doubt they will, as we have seen in every day life, blacks complain about racism but they never unite for anything meaningful and stick to it, rather they will just cry "racism.""

Wow, what a ridiculous post. First off, I think this guy needs to understand what the definition of "liberal" actually is. It means, "tolerant," "generous," and "accepting of change." Alright, so how are those who see themselves as tolerant, generous, and accepting of change more racist than those who, as definition states it, are typically less tolerant and accepting of change? That makes...sense. Now, if he wants to make the argument that some Democrats are racist, okay, fine, no argument here. But, Democrats are typically more liberal than Republicans and are therefore, usually more tolerant and accepting of change. There are definitely racists in the Democratic community, but to label Democrats as more racist than Republicans and liberals as more racist than conservatives, is ridiculous. If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, whom does he think will vote for the Illinois Senator most frequently? Republicans? The red states in the southeast? I don't think so. There may be some more moderate or liberal Republicans who'd vote for Obama, but he'll garner the most votes from Democrats and Independents, the blue states in the northeast, northwest, and far west. I can't see (m)any true conservatives voting for the Illinois Senator. The majority of his support will be from the moderate to more liberal voters.

I find it funny how this person gets on Democrats and liberals' cases for allegedly being more racist than conservatives, yet he lays out a couple of racist remarks in the comment. He said:

"It is a shame that blacks are ignoring Barack and running to the Clintons, this may be the only chance they get for electing a black president, but I do believe that many blacks tend to look at whites as their savior (sort of a white master/black child mentality)."

This may be the ONLY chance that African-Americans have an opportunity to elect a black president? What year is this? Is it really...2008? Sometimes I wonder... You know buddy, there have been other African-Americans who've run before and there will be others who run in the future. If Obama doesn't win this time around, chances are, he'll run again in the future. If an African-American is elected president in the next few years, I could see Colin Powell running for president. So, please, this isn't an all or nothing situation for the African-American community. This isn't an all or nothing situation for women in this country to elect a woman as president. Look at the diversity of the candidates at the start of the campaign season: an African-American, a woman, a Baptist minister, a devout Mormon, a Latino-American, a former POW, a New York City Mayor, a libertarian congressman, and a former VP candidate from South Carolina. This is a very diverse crowd and shows solid progression in the U.S., I believe. We are not as far along as some European countries, but further along than some other countries, fortunately.

This young lad also said the following:

"The Latino vote and also the Asian vote will not be there for Barack, it showed in Nevada and will in Florida/California/Texas, etc. Both Latinos and Asians feel they have nothing in common with blacks so their vote will go to Clintons."

Barack has had some issue in garnering much support from the Latinos, but it's not due to having "nothing in common" with blacks. As I read today in an article written by a man who's studied and will be publishing a book regarding the tensions surrounding African- and Latino-Americans, he said much of that tension has to do with the two poorest minorities in the country battling with one another for opportunities to work and opportunities to survive in this country, in the middle of an economic crisis and an ever shrinking middle class. Asian-Americans aren't typically involved in that friction with other U.S. minorities. On average, Asian-Americans make the most annually of ANY ethnic group in the country. Yes, even more so than Anglo-Americans. So, while I'm uncertain how the Asian-American vote has been spread thus far into the primary/caucus season, I can say that Obama is not dealing with the same problem in that community as he is with the Latinos.

Finally, this eloquent individual stated:

"Obama can have a chance if blacks would unite but I doubt they will, as we have seen in every day life, blacks complain about racism but they never unite for anything meaningful and stick to it, rather they will just cry "racism.""

This individual had the nerve to label two groups of people as racist and he concludes his commentary by stating this? Claiming that blacks never unite and stand by anything meaningful? What an ignorant statement! It floors me and almost makes me laugh at how a person can rant for a couple paragraphs about how liberals and Democrats are more racist than conservatives and then exclaim that blacks would rather "cry 'racism'" as opposed to standing along side one another in regard to an issue of importance. Heck, I don't even really need to comment on that quote. I can treat it like a George W. Bush quote, where I just quote the person and let the reader come to an obvious judgment. Out of the entire commentary, those final couple sentences are what made my jaw drop more than any other. That'd be like if Don Imus complained for an hour on his radio program that certain groups of people are racist and sexist against Rutgers Lady Scarlet Knights basketball players and at the very end, he belts out that they're nothing but, "raggedy hoes" or whatever terminology it was he used. Oh, okay. That completely destroyed the initial argued he was trying to make. I'm going to head out now, drive around in a van and speak over a loud mic on how celebrities are all racist and then conclude my speech by making derogatory comments about them.

South Carolina Democratic Debate

That was quite the interesting debate we had a couple nights ago in South Carolina amongst Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.



I will say that even though I've been more supportive of the Obama campaign than the Clinton one, neither Barack's Wal-Mart nor Hillary's slum landlord comments were necessary. I don't believe this about the debate's entirety, but those two lines definitely benefitted John Edwards and the Republican Party. There's no need for that. This goes out to both Clinton and Obama. They can slam one another's inconsistencies on their actual voting record all they want, but why bring up these red herrings, which take the viewers away from the issue being discussed? I hope those low personal blows came to a start and a halt on Monday night. We'll have to wait and see on that.



The rest of the debate was less personal, but just as fiery and combative. Clinton and Obama duked it out over Obama's Iraq War record, over his "Reagan" and "Republicans'" comments that he stated a week ago, on Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois Legislature, "universal" health care ideas, etc.



Alright, like I said, what both Obama and Clinton did with their low personal blows, I don't agree with, but the rest of the debate? I grew angrier with the Clinton(s) and felt that both Edwards and Obama handled themselves in more of a presidential manner than Hillary.



First off, I found it laughable when Mrs. Clinton stated that Obama was difficult to debate with, because he always has an explanation for every criticism he receives. I find that very humorous, because, at least he attempts to clear the air with an explanation as opposed to her strategy, which is to answer an attack with another attack. Now, strategically, which is the better way to win over voters? I honestly don't know. But, from my perspective, I'd much rather hear a politician's clarification of a criticism than to hear them follow the critique up with an attack, not giving any kind of reason or rationale for what they were criticized. I also found it funny how Clinton claimed Obama can't take accountability for anything. Wasn't she the one who supported the Iraq War from the start and refuses to admit that it was a mistake to do so? At least Edwards can admit he made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. I respect his honesty much more so than her denial and fudging of the truth. At least he can look Americans in the eyes and say, "You know what? I made a mistake." So, how Hillary has any room to talk about another lacking accountability is beyond me.



I also found it humorous how she and Edwards attacked Obama in regard to his "present" votes. They knew that a "present" vote is different than not voting at all and is different than taking a pass, but more U.S. citizens don't know that. So, they knew darn well that Obama's "present" votes would present an easy target for them to throw darts at. Yet, ironically enough, Hillary has missed more votes than Obama has voted "present". To his credit, Obama didn't go after the New York Senator for that, but still, I thought that was pretty low by the two other candidates.



Partially to Hillary's credit, at one point, she did KIND of admit to making a voting mistake. She voted for a bill but claimed she hoped it didn't pass. There is some question in regard to her actual feelings about this, though, because most everyone knew going into voting for it, that it was very anti-consumer. There wasn't near as much ignorance going into the voting for that bill as there was for the U.S. Patriot Act back in October of 2001. So, if she is truly being honest, I will give her credit for honesty in admitting a mistake here.



Hillary and Edwards tag-teamed again when it came to their health care plans, stating that their plans were both universal and Barack's was not. I've been curious in researching the differences in the three's plans and dissecting them. Well, we're not going to know until it happens, so right now, it's partially speculatory. BUT, many analysts who've thoroughly dissected the three plans actually believe that, in the end, Obama's plan will cover more Americans than either Clinton or Edwards'.



Clinton refused to back down with how she and her husband fudged statements regarding Barack Obama's views on the Iraq War and also his commentary on Ronald Reagan and Republicans. The Clintons and Edwards were all over Obama directly following his claim that Reagan was a transformational figure in politics during his tenure, whom was able to reach out to Independents and Democrats, who may have disagreed with him in some respects, but were willing to push those disagreements to the wayside in favor of the president's overall agenda. Obama didn't say he was a Reagan follower, that he voted for the former president, or anything of the sort. It's obvious that Obama wants to attract Independent and Republican voters. He's trailed Hillary amongst Democrats, so he felt this was the best way he could gain ground in the polls and in the end, earn the Democratic nomination.

The Clintons' criticism of Obama not having enough experience was legitimate. Experience isn't always the top priority of a boss, or in this case, the American citizens, but it does always play a factor. Some people are more willing than others to take a chance on the new kid on the block, because they feel the kid holds more potential than the other, while others will bypass that potential in favor of the more experienced individual, whom may hold more stability in the employer's eyes. But, like I said, it's a legitimate criticism on Obama. Why the Clintons went from a legit criticism to stretching the truth time and time again, utilizing tactics that Karl Rove would be proud of, is beyond me.

What kind of affect will this debate hold on the three candidates and the perception of them? I'm only one voice, so I couldn't say with much accuracy what the overall impact will be. From my perspective, it hurts Hillary, helps and hurts Obama, and helps Edwards. Edwards was the odd man (person) out in this debate. While Hillary and Barack were getting on one another's case, Edwards was over by his lonesome, drinking water, and looking like the mature candidate of the group. Unfortunately, for him, I don't see this "maturity" aiding him enough to place him back in contention for the democratic nomination. Some of the attacks on Obama may have provoked further questioning by the public, especially in regard to his "present" votes. So, that may hinder him, until he's able to thoroughly explain to the public a good deal of background information in regard to the process and persuasive reasoning on why he voted in the manner he did. But, at the same time, I think Obama earned some more believers, because for the first time throughout his campaign, he showed a fight. He didn't just shake his head at Hillary's accusations, but actually fought back. I do think Hillary was hurt in this debate. Most of American, who pays any attention to politics, had heard Obama's statements regarding Reagan and republicans. When he explained himself on Monday night and took a few shots at the New York senator and her husband, saying such things as, "Sometimes I don't know who I'm running against" and "some people will say anything to win," I think this reminded some people of how notoriously dishonest the Clintons are. This may have reminded them of the Lewinsky scandal, where former President Bill Clinton valiantly stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" It also showcased how Hillary Clinton rarely, if ever gives an explanation to a criticism. She just goes on the attack following a critique. This may have put further doubt in the minds of some who were on the fence of whom to support.

Sadly, when John Edwards stated, "Are there not three people in this debate?" Sorry John, but, following the South Carolina Primary, I have a feeling there will only be two. So, I will treat the following commentary assuming that much. While Obama seems to be competitive in the southeast, some atlantic coastal states, and a few others, including his home state of Illinois, according to the polls I've seen, Hillary Clinton has the edge at this current juncture. In saying that, I think an Obama victory and a convincing one at that in the South Carolina Primary, will be critical. He needs a boost, some momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Between the South Carolina Primary and Super Tuesday, I think Obama needs to get back on his game. Bill and Hillary Clinton have taken him out of his rhythm. With all of the falsities they're spewing onto the public, Obama has spent more time responding to these lies, in attempt to clear his record, as opposed to telling the American people what he is truly going to do if/when he's elected president and why the people should vote for him. The media has also been spending too much time talking about the heavy black population in the South Carolina electorate, which has pushed some white voters away from Obama. The Obama camp needs to try to reach out to more than just young voters and African-Americans, because they're not going to be able to win the democratic nomination if they focus on those two groups of people. Hillary's dominating amongst women, whites, and latinos. Obama needs to close the gap amongst those three groups. He's running about even amongst men with Clinton. He needs to concentrate on women, as they play a larger part in the democratic electorate than men and he needs to make up some ground amongst latinos, especially in the southwestern states, such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. How he does this exactly, I haven't the slightest, but he'll need to find some kind of way to reach out to all democrats, regardless of their ethnic background, if he wants to have a shot at the presidential nomination come November.

The media needs to know now!

That's right. Listen to these guys off and on throughout the week. Every state is a must win for one or more candidates! The problem being that we're through 4-5 states with 45-46 left to go. Many political "experts" claimed that Mike Huckabee HAD to win in South Carolina in order to have a shot at being the Republican nominee come November. Well, he finished second to John McCain, so now what are they saying? "Well, he could still have a shot in Florida." Hillary Clinton NEEDED to win in New Hampshire, the second state of the Caucus/Primary season. Barack Obama NEEDS to win South Carolina next Saturday, even though he could hypothetically lose and yet still have a lead in the delegates over Senator Clinton. Let's settle down here, guys (and gals). That'd be like me obsessing over EVERY single game in a major league baseball season.

I'm an Atlanta Braves fan, so from game 1 through game 162, the Braves NEED to win them all, right? Ha. Now, toward the very end of the season, we'll know how many the need to win, if any, to have a shot at making the playoffs, but how can we claim that game 26 and/or game 93 were the make it or break it games for the Bravos? Accordingly, how can we say that New Hampshire was a make it or break it state for Clinton or that South Carolina is/was such a state for Huckabee and/or Obama?

The only reason I see the media's point when stating Obama NEEDS South Carolina is from a momentum standpoint. As of right now, Obama has 38 delegates to Clinton's 36, but Clinton has slight momentum on her side and if she defeats Obama in a state where roughly half the Democratic electorate is African-American en route to Super Tuesday (which features New York and New Jersey, amongst other states), Obama could be in some serious trouble. But, again, is it the end all for Obama if he loses in South Carolina? No, of course not. He could potentially lose, yet be leading Clinton in delegates heading into Super Tuesday. He'd feel much better heading into February 5th with another victory under his belt, but still, let's not get carried away here.

Analysts are also saying, "Well, if McCain wins in Florida, will he be the Republican nominee come November?" There are many more delegates in Florida than in the previous states, but let's get real here. States like California, New York, Texas, amongst others are still on the slate. McCain would have a great deal of momentum heading into Super Tuesday if he were to win in Florida, but again, just because he wins in the sunshine state (one of them), doesn't guarantee an overall victory for the Arizona Senator.

I think one of the major problems with the media's anxiety is the 24-hour news' cycle. These guys (and gals) have so much time on their hands to spout facts and opinions, and recycle those same facts and opinions time and time again, that perhaps they get a little bored and want something new to discuss. How would that occur? Candidates begin dropping from the two parties and eventually, our Republican and Democratic candidates for November are known. Then they can debate and analyze with a bit more precision, in knowing who the two candidates will actually be, as opposed to speculating and hypothesizing on the matter. But, please, calm down folks. Results are continually coming in and we'll know sooner or later who the final two candidates will be in November.

Matthews, Wolf, Russert, oh my...

The 24-hour news cycles crack me up. Not just the recycling of news throughout the day, but the television personalities.

Wolf Blitzer of CNN is something else, isn't he? First off, the name. Wolf Blitzer. What makes him so special that he should be referred to as Wolf Blitzer? Heck, what does that even mean? It sounds like a defensive formation in football or a blitz package called upon by the defensive coordinator for a linebacker or safety with the last name of Wolf. Does the guy ever get excited? I can't stand the likes of Bill O'Really and Sean Hannity, but at least they'd tick me off as opposed to make me fall asleep. If I'm ever in need of a nap, I just pray that "The Situation Room" is on CNN and I'll be out in a matter of minutes. The guy repeats himself constantly. With that voice and his job (nothing), he's like a hybrid of Ben Stein and Pat Sajak. Speak in a montone voice and tell the contestants what prize they won. It's as simple as that! Also, how many times is he going to refer to his panel as the best group in television? What, does he hope the mere-exposure effect will take place and just because he repeats the phrase 9 times in a half hour, the viewers will begin to believe in the best news team on television? S**t, now he's got me saying it. I don't even know if Wolfy is cognizant of what is transpiring half the time. Earlier today, he was interviewing a CNN contributor, who was stationed at a caucus at Caesar's Palace. Obama supporters were clearly on the right side of the room (our right), as they were chanting...O-bam-a and holding signs with the senator's name and Hillary's supporters were on the left side, as they held up Clinton signs and chanted her name. The CNN contributor even said, "As can clearly be seen, Obama's supporters are over here on the right and Senator Clinton's are on the left." Not even two minutes later, Mr. Blitzer chimes in with, "So, is it safe to say that Obama's supporters are on the right side and Clinton's are on the left?" The best news team in television right there!

How about Chris Matthews of MSNBC? I don't think it'll be possible for he to ever wed, whether it be to a man or a woman. Why? I think he's in love with himself. The guy will not stop talking! I feel sorry for co-hosts, guests, and MSNBC contributors whom have to share air time with this guy. Matthews seems to believe that he's a hybrid of Socrates, Martin Luther King, and Shakespeare. He's a poetic, philosophical, inspiring man and with the more jabber he gives, I'm sorry, offers the American people, the more we can, I mean will, learn. Here's my written impression of a Matthews interview. In this scenario, he'll be interviewing Barry Bonds.

Matthews: Welcome Barry. It's great to have you on the show.

Bonds: Thanks. It's good to be (interruption)

Matthews: Now, Barry, what do you have to say to all of your, for lack of a better word, bashers? (brief pause) There has been talk all around the league, now Congress, and I mean, nationally, all over the country, that you, most likely, played baseball while on some kind of illegal substance, whether that be, HGH, steroids, or whatever? What do you have to say to them?

Bonds: Well, (interruption)

Matthews: Because, I mean, gosh, if I were in your shoes right now, I just don't know what I'd think or do. I can't even imagine, breaking the all-time home run record and all the while I'm making my mark in history, there are allegations running wild that I cheated to help aid me in setting those historic marks.

Bonds: (sighs) Yeah (interruption)

Matthews: I mean, what do you have to say to all of them, to all of us? Because I won't deny it Barry, we, the media, are one of the main culprits in how these rumors spread. Just the other day, I was speaking to commissioner Bud Selig and it was very interesting to hear his insight on steroids in baseball, on your breaking of Hank Aaron's record this past year, and what he was going to do in attempt to tackle this problem. Oh okay, well, I just heard that we've got to wrap this chat up. Thanks a bunch for joining us Barry. Best of luck to you in the future.

Bonds: Thanks for having me on.

Think I'm exaggerating? Watch the guy some time. I can't even imagine this guy being a moderator at a debate. The candidates will need to come more focused than ever, because one question from Matthews may take up to five minutes and the candidate will need to think back to the opening few words of the five minute tangent. If they ask Matthews to repeat, the hour or two-hour long debate may only be able to field one or two questions to each candidate.

So, how did they attain these jobs again? Did they win a bet? Do they have connections? Did both Ben Stein and Pat Sajak put in some good words for Wolf Blitzer while MSNBC needed to fill up an hour time slot for a show which wouldn't slate many guests? I haven't the slightest, but am curious to find out.

Will honesty backfire on Obama?

I was watching the Dan Abrams show on MSNBC the other night and what was the opening topic? Illinios Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's honesty and if that honesty will backfire in the end. Initially, the talk revolved around the answer Obama gave at the televised debate in Nevada last week. When asked what their biggest weakness was, Obama modestly stated that he has a messy desk. New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina congressman John Edwards then said responded with gibberish such as, "My biggest weakness is that I'm impatient, impatient for the American people who've had to put up so much under the Bush Administration and when I become president, that's going to change." Those were the paraphrased words of Hillary. Edwards' response was even more pathetic, as he stated something along the lines of, "I have a tendency sometimes to get a little too emotional when I talk. I just feel so much emotion for this great country of ours and want to do so much to alter its course in a positive direction, that I can't help but get emotional and angry sometimes. That emotion is displayed due to my great love of my country, America." Then, later in the week, Obama made the statement that former president, Ronald Reagan, made a big difference in the political landscape. He was able to inspire and unite unlike Richard Nixon and/or Bill Clinton. He also said that, for a time, the Republicans were the party of ideas. This isn't even to mention admitting in his memoir that the senator had experimented with drugs as a teenager.

Defending Obama, Abrams exclaimed that we shouldn't harp on politicians who are honest, because honesty let's us in on who that politician actually is. What is their personality and character? It can be displayed much more clearly when the politician is actually honest with the citizens, as opposed to speaking in euphemistic BS gibberish, as Clinton and Edwards did at the debate. With three guests on the show, one of the three agreed with Abrams, but the other two did not. The other two claimed that if and when a politician speaks out, even in an honest manner, he/she has to be ready for criticism. Abrams was persistent in saying, "Yeah, but if/when we continually attack an Obama for being honest, aren't we just making the candidates that much more tentative on being honest with us?"

What resulted in Obama's honest moments this past week? After what appeared to be a rather calm debate following some heated moments during the week? Hillary went right on the attack, saying she was "taken aback" by Obama's needing an organizer and claimed that it sounded rather reminiscent of our current president. She and her husband and John Edwards went on the attack regarding the Ronald Reagan commentary, even though Hillary has listed Mr. Reagan as one of her favorite presidents in U.S. history.

I'm getting rather fed up with political spin. I'm also getting rather fed up with Bill Clinton. Who's running for president? Who's been going on the attack of Obama when things aren't looking well for Mrs. Clinton? Bill. Hillary stages a fake tear or two and Bill emphatically lies to the public (again). They'll do absolutely anything to win, won't they? After Obama's victory in Iowa, Billy Boy called Obama the biggest fairy tale he's ever heard of, and then defended himself, by saying that Obama's Iraq War record and views were the fairy tale he was speaking of. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but this is the same guy who asked the question, "What is is?"

What's been the Clinton strategy thus far? Complain, attack, complain, stage a cry session, attack, attack, whine, whine, spin, spin, spin, lie, rejoice.

Not long ago, the Clintons had no problem with how the Nevada Caucus was set up, but after Obama received the Culinary endorsement? Let's complain about it, because something didn't go our way. Nothing to complain of before the Iowa Caucus, but after the third place finish in Iowa and polls suggesting that Obama was going to run away with the New Hampshire Primary? Let's whine, stage a cry, attack, and spin.

The Clintons have been continually taking Obama's words out of context and spinning them harder than a figure skater on a mission to become the dizziest person in the world during a routine. They claim that Obama hasn't always been against the Iraq War and in 2004, he said, "I don't know" in regard to what he wouldn't done at the outset of the war and that his views weren't very different than George W. Bush's. "I don't know." Those are three words at the start of 2-3 paragraphs worth of material. That'd be like if I were running for office and I picked those exact same three words from a previous interview to make the claim that my opponent would've disowned his son had he been gay. In the interview, when asked the question, my opponent said, "I don't know. That's a very difficult question to answer. My son isn't gay and unless I were actually put into that situation, I can't, with all honesty, know how I would react." So, to spin the statement, I use that at a rally, claiming he said and I quote, "I don't know." Give me a break.

Bill Clinton lies to the entire country about an affair he had with an intern and he has it in him to spin another candidate's words around, making that person out to be dishonest? He was disloyal to his wife (who knows how many times) and yet he comes to her aid during this campaign, by lashing out at her opponent time and time again? I thought Bill Clinton, for what it's worth, was a pretty solid president, but I can't say I respect him much as a person and that respect is dwindling on a daily basis.

I sincerely hope that Obama's honesty does not hinder him in any way, because frankly, I'm sick of the political nonsense that most candidates spew our way. A couple days ago at a rally, Obama jokingly said something along the lines of, "Well, if I knew what kind of game was going to be played, I would've said that my biggest weakness is always having to help old ladies cross the street." Even though honest politician seems to be an oxymoron, I'm much more content with a candidate that seems more forthright and honest on a fairly consistent basis than one who spits out the same old garbage we've heard 100 times before, garbage we could probably ourselves recite word for word.

Huckabee getting himself into trouble...

With his latest sermons on the campaign trail, from basically telling those that don't like the Confederate Flat to shove a pole in their a** to exclaiming that we need to alter the Constitution to make it more in line with God/The Bible, Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, may win some votes in South Carolina and some other southern states, but will more likely than not hinder his chance at becoming the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election. He made further commentary yesterday in regard to his statement about altering the Constitution. I'm just paraphrasing, but he basically said the following, "Altering the Constitution to make abortion illegal is not radical. What's radical would be to allow marriage between two men, between a man and an animal, between a man and an underage woman, or between a man and three women." So, he simultaneously took shots at Mitt Romney and the Democratic candidates, and compared both Mormonism and gay marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. At first, I thought I liked this guy, not necessarily his politics, but his character and personality. The more this guy talks now, the less I like him. He may be able to garner some votes in the southeast and perhaps some parts of the midwest, but overall, I see his drivel backfiring. The northeast, northwest, southwest, far west, and perhaps some of the plains states won't take too kindly to the preacher's babble. I tried to be fair to Republicans, especially after these 7+ years of Mr. Bush, but with Huckabee's recent commentary, Romney's constant flip-flops and negativity, Thompson's Dick Cheney impersonation, Giuliani's constant references to 9/11, and Paul's low percentages in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, I see John McCain as the only Republican I'd even think of voting for in the November election and honestly, I think I'd pick Obama, Edwards, or Clinton over him, so it looks like I'm going Democrat this year, unless something major happens between now and November, which alters my mind a tremendous amount. The chances of that occurring are at about 0 - 2.5%.

Just some thoughts...

-Well, I'm narrowing my list of whom I could potentially vote for in the '08 election by the day. Another person I wouldn't vote for is Mike Huckabee. Until recently, he just spoke like a compassionate conservative, who could get along with just about anybody. But in recent days, he's come across as quite the religious zealot and regardless of how nice the person seems to be, I'd rather not see a Pat Robertson in the White House. Huckabee has stated that the Constitution should be more in line with God/The Bible, and may need some changes to coincide with that. He's also "kindly" bashed those whom are not supporters of the Confederate Flag, which happens to be the state flag and reside at the state capital in South Carolina. He's also done some preaching during his campaign in South Carolina, literally. Overall, he seems like a nice guy and I wouldn't mind talking to him at a bar while inebriated, but not someone I want to lead this country. Just as I'd rather not see the pastor at my mother's church lead the country, I feel similarly about Mr. Huckabee.

-I got into a small argument with a friend the other day. It wasn't really an argument. But, I was befuddled, to say the least. A bartender asked my friend and I what we thought of Barack Obama's chances at winning the presidency. I paused, attempting to garner my thoughts, so I could give a thorough response, but my friend isn't really one for doing such things. He said, "Not to sound racist, but Obama is going to have troubles in some states that are typically blue, such as Alabama. John Edwards is the only Democrat who has a chance at winning the election." Stupid on both counts. First, referring to Alabama as a blue state is like would've been like calling Cal Ripken a Seattle Mariner back in his playing days. Alabama has not voted Democrat in a presidential election since 1956. Once I spoke up, in amusement, saying, "Alabama is a blue state?" He responded with, "They voted for Clinton twice." I didn't have the stats to back me up right there, but I doubted this was valid. He obviously got Alabama mixed with Arkansas, as Arkansas voted for their former Governor during both of his presidential runs in '92 and '96. But, even then, Arkansas has voted Republican in 7 of the past 10 elections, with two of those Democratic votes being for their former Governor, Bill Clinton. So, which ever way he wants to cut it, the southeast is anything but full of blue states, just like the northeast is anything but full of red ones. Then, to say that John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate to have a legitimate shot of winning in November is ridiculous. Why did he say this? It's obvious. Edwards is the leading white male candidate amongst the democrats. Clinton is female and Obama is African-American. Edwards is so far back of the two, though, he doesn't have much of a chance at representing the Democratic Party. So, in my friend's frame of mind, the Republicans have the election won. The turnout for the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary was irrelevant, where the ratio of the Democratic to Republican turnout was at approximately 2:1. Regardless of who the candidates are, whether they're male, female, androgynous, white, black, green, or purple, if the ratio is anywhere similar to what it's been in the early going here, the Democratic candidate will come out victorious.

-Another old friend of mine told me he could never vote for a woman, because women don't have what it takes to lead. I pointed out that women have been elected as leaders to other countries and been successful. He responded with, "Yeah, but it's different here." What does he truly mean by that? I just decided to change subjects, so I don't really know, nor do I really want to know. Either way, such statements trouble me. If someone doesn't agree with Hillary Clinton's politics, that's fine, don't vote for her. But, when someone simply doesn't vote for her because she's a woman, that's what bothers me. Although, I could go the other way too. I don't think a person should simply vote for an African-American or a woman, just because they are an African-American or a woman. If one agrees with what they have to say and believes they'll do a solid job in office, leading us in a positive direction, then vote for them, regardless of their gender or ethnic background.

Is the media really that stupid?

I shouldn't even have to ask that question anymore, because on many accounts, the answer is a resounding yes!

Many journalists and analysts are more fickle than a pet. They just go wherever the wind gusts take them and accept it as so for that moment in time, until the next gust comes along and they have to change their story and attitude entirely.

I've seen/heard this in regard to sports. After Michigan's first game of the regular season this year, many sports' journalists and analysts were calling for 13-year head coach, Lloyd Carr, to be fired. Here's a guy who has won at the school every single year he's been there and even has a national championship on his resume'. Things got worse after the Wolverines' second game, when they were pummeled by Oregon by 32 points, dropping them to 0-2 on the season. Analysts then were claiming that there was absolutely no reason not to fire Carr right then and there. All of his previous victories in Ann Arbor went for not. Michigan then won their next eight games and some claimed that U of M was back! Carr should receive an extension. This may have been his best coaching job yet! But, then they lost their final two games to Wisconsin and Ohio State, en route to a disappointing 8-4 season. After their late struggles, many in the media believed he should be fired at season's end. Others were uncertain. Michigan then capped Carr's career off with a 41-35 upset win over defending national champion Florida in the Capital One Bowl. Rarely did I hear/read of a commentator who was consistent all the way through. It was competely and utterly ridiculous.

That brings me to some recent political commentary. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic front-runner for the past year or so, it seemed. But, following Barack Obama's upset win in the Iowa Caucus, suddenly the media felt that the Clinton era in politics had come to a total halt. But, after her win in New Hampshire, she's the front-runner once again and can't be stopped! Ridiculous.

Many times, it seems that most in the media attempt to blow any story up to make it larger than life, when in reality, it probably shouldn't even be mentioned amongst the other headlines in "today's news." The media has attempted to rationalize Hillary's victory in New Hampshire in any possible manner that they can. First, they told the tale of Hillary's emotional moment a day earlier, where she almost teared up, as being the reason for her monumental comeback. The day of the primary, Clinton's camp had her down 11 points to Senator Obama, while Obama's camp had him up 14 points. What, are they trying to tell me (and others) that a near teary moment for Clinton was responsible for a 13-16 point turn-around in a single day? Give me a break. Every person I've talked to, Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian, have told me they thought her "moment" was staged, calculated, and used as a way to garner support from female voters. Even the woman who evoked that "emotional" response by Hillary voted for Obama in the New Hampshire Primary, because she too was more moved by his speeches than her little "moment," when she seemed to be human again, before divulging her true intent, which was to tell the audience that she was ready for the presidency and Obama isn't. I could see her "moment" earning her 1, 2, maybe 3 points in the primary, but 13-16? Yeah, right... I then read an article today claiming that the reason for Clinton's huge 24 comeback was because her name was listed first on the ballot, showcasing the primacy effect. Studies have indicated this to be true to an extent, but on average, this results in a 1-2% bump for that candidate, again, not 13-16. Then, I've read reports that in many of the hand-held ballot precincts, Barack Obama came out on top and in the electronic voting machine precincts, Hillary was victorious. Chance of voter fraud? Regardless on if it's a conspiracy or not, I think it's a much more likely reason for the miracle win in New Hampshire than a staged emotional episode or the primacy effect on the ballots.

Good news in regard to that potential conspiracy, as Democratic presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, has spoken up in regard to a New Hampshire recount. He's raising some money in order to hopefully follow this all the way through. In a way, I hope the tally comes back the same, as I want to have faith in the voting system, especially with the November election not too far away. Yet, at the same time, I hope that there is a different result, so we can explain how Clinton pulled a 13-16 point comeback in 24 hours and so we can somehow edit the faults in the voting system so that it may be closer to perfect by November than it has been previously.

"Friends'" misperceptions...

Ever know a person for an extended period of time and you reach a point where you realize that the person doesn't really know you? This could be a relative, a friend, a boyfriend, a girlfriend. I've run into this more times than I care to count, especially in recent months.

It feels as if I've been typecast as the counselor, the listener in both my family and amongst my circle(s) of friends. No longer do I have a voice. What I have are the ears to listen to others' voices. That's what's expected. If I speak up at any point, it leaves others in a state of surprise.

Just last night, a person whose known me for 15-20 years, referred to me as an introvert and a homebody. I responded by saying I wasn't sure what I was, an introverted extrovert or an extroverted introvert. I enjoy reading a good book, writing, and having some alone time, but also enjoy going out, traveling, spending time with friends and family. Perhaps his definition of "homebody" for an eligible bachelor is wanting to spend any time at home during the evening hours. I like going out about every other day/night, on average, but just as with most people, I need some time to unwind, relax, and rest up in preparation for more work and time outside of the homestead. I can't be going out every single night after a hard day's work, from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. (or later). Also, it's not like they offer much diversity in what we do in the evening hours. It's not a question of what will transpire. It's a question of which bar to attend that evening. That gets old. Call me an introverted homebody, but I need some diversity in my nightly activities. Film, reading, writing, going out to eat, theatre, working out, taking my dogs for walks, museums, sports, bars, etc. As the work routine is fairly regular on a daily basis, it's nice to be able to shake up that routine somewhat in the evening hours.

It gets a tad frustrating, as it seems that not many people truly know me nor are they willing to get to know me. Did my old friend last night truly take me for an introvert because he 100% believes I'm not social in the least bit, reserved, and would much rather stay at home than go out on any given night? Does it deal more with the fact that through the years, he's typecast me as his counselor and therefore, when associating with one another, his voice can be heard much more frequently than mine? A combination of the two? Are other factors involved?

A lot of my friends don't understand how I could move away from the only place I truly know, as I'll be moving to Ohio in the near future. But, if they could truly see things from my perspective, they'd gain a much grander cognizance of why with each passing day, it's appearing to get easier and all that I've known in my past and even in my present are slowly, but surely fading into my past where they belong.

Hillary and Obama

Decisions...Decisions...

Where do I start? Just as all of the political analysts are baffled at Hillary Clinton's 39-37% victory over Barack Obama last night in New Hampshire, I have to say, I'm confused and stunned, as well.

Why? Well, let's see here. In Iowa, one of the whitest states in the country and very much a battleground state come the presidential election, Obama garnered 38% of the Democratic vote compared to just 29% for Hillary Clinton, which placed her third, behind both Obama and John Edwards. Before the New Hampshire Primary, Obama's camp had him up 14 points and Clinton's had her down 11. So, how in the world did she come out with the victory? I haven't the slightest, although, there are already reports of a miscount, that Obama won 38% to 34% and that many of Hillary's voters were not in-staters. But, regardless, the further this transpires, the less I want Hillary to win. I just receive a bad vibe, like there's something dirty going on. I don't care that she's indeed a woman. I could care less who's in the White House, so long as they get the job done and move us in a positive direction. But, I cannot stand her negativity, the falsities surrounding the Clinton's commentary, and how polarizing a figure she is.

The last thing we need in November of 2008 is to elect ANOTHER polarizing president. George W. Bush may have claimed at the outset that he was a "uniter, not a divider," but that was about as true as Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in regard to Monica Lewinsky. What we need is a uniter and I just can't see Hillary Clinton as that kind of president. Walk into any room with more than five people...blurt out the name Hillary Clinton, and just see what kinds of looks and comments you receive. I'm guessing approximately half the people give you snarls, dirty looks, or explicit language and the other half give you smiles, cheers, and complimentary commentary. There's little to no chance that if the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton will receive any Republican votes. Even though about 80% of Democrats still, to this day, support former president, Bill Clinton, not many Republicans feel the same way.

Just as I can't stand the negative ads and attacks emanating from Mitt Romney on the Republican side, I can't stand that same negativity from Hillary Clinton. It seems as if she and Bill feel that the country owes them the presidency. Why? ...and what are these 35 years of experience she's talking about? She's been senator for what, 7 years, along with being the first lady for 8 years? According to my calculator here, that's 15 years. Where are the other twenty? I'm tired of the negativity and the ingenuity. Come on. That emotional "crying" scene this past week? Give me a break. That outburst she had during the last Democratic debate, this past Saturday? She just snapped. What, if Edwards or Obama got emotional during a Q and A session, would voters flock to them in the next Caucus/Primary?

Hillary and Bill keep complaining that the media have given Barack Obama the easy road. What the heck? Until Obama's victory in the Iowa Caucus, almost everyone in the mainstream media was riding the Hillary bandwagon in the Democratic party. There was no mention of Obama having much of a chance or John Edwards or anyone else. It was Hillary Clinton of the Democrats vs. the victor of the Republican party. Hillary gets down in the polls and suddenly she and her husband complain about it? What? The media owes them to ride it easy throughout their campaign and should vet all the other candidates thoroughly? Hillary loves to talk about her "experience," yet, what comes with additional experience? Additional scrutiny. The longer the track record, the more there is to scrutinize. It's not that novel a concept.

We're only two states into this thing and I'm already sick and tired of the Clinton's. This is coming from a registered Democrat. I have to say, if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I may vote Republican, depending on who their nominee is. If it's John McCain, Ron Paul, or even perhaps Mike Huckabee, I may end up voting for one of them over Hillary. Mitt Romney would be my last choice in the Republican Party for the same reason Hillary Clinton would be my final choice in the Democratic one.

Fellow Democrats and Independents, let's also think about this, in the long run. If we truly want to see a Democrat in office following the eight years that are/were George W. Bush, who will be able to reach the most voters? Who's more of a uniter? Who's less polarizing? Barack Obama, without question. He's won with the Independents in both states thus far. He'd be more prone to winning Republican votes than Hillary. If the Democratic turnout is far superior to the Republican turnout on election day, then either one of these two candidates could/should win, but if both parties show up to the booths in equal amounts, Clinton could be in much deeper trouble than Obama. I'm just tired of seeing negative campaigning being rewarded. Hillary, Bill, if you truly want to debate Obama on the issues, do so. Debate, don't attack. Debate! Voters also shouldn't be voting for Hillary just because they liked Bill. I saw a poll last night which showcased how this is a possibility. If Obama faced Bill Clinton, 3/4 of Obama voters would still vote for the Illinois senator, BUT on the other side, if Hillary faced off against her husband, a large majority of Hillary voters would have voted for the former president, Bill Clinton. They're two different people. It would make no sense to vote for W. for the simple fact he was H.W.'s son, just as it would make no logical sense to vote for Hillary because she's married to Bill.

And hey, for Republicans out there who don't want to see Hillary in office and aren't too enthused about any of the Republican candidates, go to the Caucus/Primary and vote for Obama over Hillary, just to ensure that your party doesn't face her in the presidential election. Hillary does not deserve to be rewarded for her phoniness, crudeness, negativity, and polarization. I truly hope that she's not rewarded for such words and behaviors.

The Goods and Bads of Politics

I'm getting excited again in the world of politics. I haven't been this excited in a long time. Why? Well, I was somewhat excited before the 2004 election, in hope that W. would get knocked out of his throne, but with John Kerry as the Democratic candidate, that didn't happen. I was again excited in November of 2006, when the Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate, but then came to the realization that the government would be at a stalemate until the next President waltzed into office. Now I know that George W. Bush will not be president as of January 20th, 2009 and I have a feeling, so long as a couple of these candidates aren't elected, that more will get accomplished in Washington. But, just as politics can excite me, it can aggravate me, as well.

We have a very diverse field of candidates this year, from a Baptist minister (Mike Huckabee) to a Mormon (Mitt Romney) to a Libertarian (Ron Paul) to an actor (Fred Thompson) to an African-American (Barack Obama) to a woman (Hillary Clinton) to a former POW (John McCain) to a former running mate of John Kerry (John Edwards). It's a very diverse field and I like that. But, the more diverse the field of candidates, the more angry haters will speak out against those candidates and in the worst of scenarios, actually act upon that hatred.

I hear and read the most negative of comments toward Democratic nominees Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Why? Because if elected president, Clinton would be the first woman leading the nation and Obama would be the first African-American to do the same. Both have needed extra security to events and there is word that Obama has received threats, especially after the victory in Iowa. I've read some comments claiming that "no self-respecting man would ever vote a woman into office" and "no white man or hispanic would vote a black man into office." I've also read/heard comments, saying, "If Clinton/Obama wins, there will be a record turnout on election day, and they won't be voting for Clinton/Obama."

At a time when I and many others are feeling a sense of history right now, of a rough chapter in American history finally coming to a close, and feeling a sense of joy because of that, I also am saddened when I read and hear such commentary. I don't care if I'm a Republican, Democrat, man, woman, or what skin tone I have, I think it's utterly ridiculous to make such ignorant commentary for the simple fact that a candidate is not a male and/or not white. Even an old friend of mine last night, said in regard to the top two Democratic candidates, "I'd always vote for a black man in front of a white woman." Why must it be about innate characteristics of a human being as opposed to their beliefs, their character, what they stand for? Who cares that Hillary Clinton in indeed a woman? Who cares that Barack Obama is an African-American? That is not what's important! What's important is, who do we truly believe will be able to move this country in the proper direction over the next four to eight years? Who will provide the most positive changes, while maintaining the best security? If one doesn't believe the best choice is Clinton or Obama because of their policies, ideas, or perhaps an inconsistency they've displayed a time or two, that's fine. But to discount these two candidates before even listening to them speak or reading up on them is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

I think the younger generations truly have an opportunity to make a difference, to make history with this election. We weren't around during the '60s Civil Rights' Movement. We weren't around during the struggles of women and African-Americans in their attempt to garner equal rights as white males. We don't know how difficult it was back then for these groups of people, but at the same time, we're also less likely to hold a judgment on them. One reason that more females (especially younger ones) were more apt to voting for Obama than Hillary in Iowa is what I just mentioned. They weren't around for the feminist movement, during the time when women were first given the right to vote, so they don't see things from that older perspective. They don't see this as the first time in history a woman could be elected president. They believe that this year is just the first of many opportunities for a woman to be elected to the front office. We're probably of a similar mentality to Obama. The majority in my generation don't really look at this as an opportunity to elect the first African-American to become our nation's leader. It's just the first of many opportunities, but there's something new and fresh about Obama. Regardless of how closely the two of their voting records are, two families have held the crown for the past 20 years. If Hillary is elected, that trend would continue and total 24 to 28 years. George H.W. Bush was in office for four years, followed by Bill Clinton for eight, and George W. Bush for eight more. Many want to see a new name in office other than Bush or Clinton. I think Jeb Bush would run into similar problems this year. It wouldn't matter what his credentials were, the majority of Americans would be reluctant on voting him into office. The negative ads and attacks won't win our generation over either. One thing that attracts us so much to Obama is his positive spin on everything, his inspiring words, his truly giving the vibe that he wants to unite what has been divided these past 7+ years under Bush. Experience, as Hillary has fed us, is extremely important, to any job, but right now, at this point in our history, many of us are looking for a fresh new start following the eight grueling, disastrous years known as the Bush tenure and for whatever reason, agree with it or not, Barack Obama appears to be the candidate with which our generation and perhaps others see that as the most possible. I just hope and pray that whoever wins the Democratic nomination, whether it be Obama or Clinton, that neither one is sent death threats and are protected throughout their campaigns and potential tenure(s) as president.