Interesting/Offensive Comments...

I've heard/read two comments in the past 24 hours that have either befuddled or angered me immensely.

Firstly, last night, a friend of mine and a major supporter of Hillary Clinton, said that he's shocked at how many females support Barack Obama, exaggerating in stating that 80% of Obama's supporters at the Caucus he attended two Saturday ago were college-age females. He followed this exaggeration by saying, "I think a lot of women are jealous of Hillary's success, as a woman, and that's why they're not voting for her."

What? Jealous? That was the first time I'd heard such a "reason". I've yet to see any kind of trend signifying that African-Americans aren't voting for Barack Obama because they're jealous of the accomplishments he's made or Mormons, who weren't voting for Mitt Romney, due to their jealousy of the devout Mormon candidate. I was speechless for a few minutes after hearing this comment. I still don't know how to genuinely response to such an asinine statement. Women fought for how long to obtain equal rights to men? They won't vote for a woman candidate for president, because they're "jealous"? I don't think so.

I read a comment today from an Obama supporter lamenting that Willie Nelso is a 9/11 truther, that anyone who is a 9/11 truther has the critical thinking skills of a 4th grader, and that no such individual is welcome to show support for the Illinois Senator. I contemplated replying, but decided there was no point, in the end.

Isn't Barack Obama's core message about unity? Democrats, Republicans, Independents, men, women, young adults, elders, middle-aged folk, rich, poor, middle-class individuals, black, white, Asian, Latino, Arab, Native, all uniting together for a similar cause? For change? I just found it very rude, ignorant, and hypocritical on this individual's part to lambast a group of people because of a belief(s) they share. I'm not a religious man, but am I going to exclude those who are? Those who are die-hard Christians, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, etc.? No, of course not. Nowhere in this world will I find a person whom shares EXACTLY the same beliefs as I. Heck, there are times when I question if a clone of myself would agree with all of my opinions 100% of the time, because minds evolve and devolve and people's viewpoints alter because of it. If a person believes in UFOs or ghosts, are they not welcome, according to this person, to being a part of the campaign? Just because some people don't hold the same beliefs on a topic as this individual, that gives him/her no reason to reject them entirely from the campaign and no reason to dismiss them all as "loons" or as having the critical thinking skills of a 4th grader. Do some conspiracy theories seem a bit too far-fetched to even be remotely plausible? Of course. But, I find it to be just as ignorant, if not more so, to immediately believe the federal government's "official" story as I do in believing a conspiracy theory. JFK? Oklahoma City? 9/11? Are any of the conspiracies 100% true? I doubt it. But, is there a chance that portions of them could be true? Indeed.

A friend of mine's father used to work for the CIA. He's always been a conservative man, but one time, he asked my friend and I, "Do you know why conspiracy theories exist?" We both, curious in how he'd respond, replied with a, "No..." He resplied with, "Because some of them or portions of some of them are true. I can't tell you which ones or I'd have to...", you know the rest of that line.

I've been a firm supporter of Barack Obama's for quite some time now and one cause that compelled me to him was how he preached unity to the people. I think America is a very unique and diverse land and if unified, our potential is limitless...and I think this individual's weak insinuations on some people's beliefs that not all of the questions have been answered in regard to 9/11 may rank him as a 1st grader in regard to his critical thinking skills. He may want a cookie, some milk, and for the teacher to read "My Pet Goat" tomorrow. It may be as complex a read as he'll understand.

Political Annoyances

- Cable News drives me nuts, but for whatever reason, I watch it. Fox is blatantly tilted to the right in its coverage, especially in its political commentary. It seems as if CNN stands for Clinton News Network. Reporter Jessica Yellin even said this weekend, when she wasn't aware that they were live, "Yeah, but she's an Obama supporter and that's the problem," when asked about an interview with the Washington Governor, Mrs. Gregoire. CNN is the only channel/news outlet which continually includes the superdelegates into the candidates' delegate count and the only news outlet that has Hillary Clinton still ahead of Barack Obama. Even including superdelegates, Obama leads Clinton in most of the numbers I've observed. Outside of Jeffrey Toobin, a lot of the commentors like to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on almost everything. This past weekend, if Toobin hadn't chimed in and said something along the lines of, "The Clinton camp can say all they want to that they expected to lose these three states and that Caucuses favor Obama, but the fact is, Obama is winning. A win is a win." If Toobin hadn't chimed in with those obvious observations, I can only imagine what the other commentators would say, probably echoing the Clinton camp, saying things such as, "Well, it came as no surprise that Obama won these three states. Clinton is and will be mainly focused on March 4th with Ohio and Texas waiting in the wings." Then there's the group over at MSNBC, which sadly enough, I probably dislike the least of the three major cable news' channels. I like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews is hit and miss. There are times when he's personable on the air and yet other times when he talks so dang much that he ruins a good flow to any conversation that was. Rachel Maddow is right on target at times and way out of line at others. Pat Robertson has a tendency to drive me crazy. He seems to have a thing for Hillary Clinton, yet won't admit to that.

- British author Doris Lessing, who won the Nobel Laureate in 2007, came forward today about the prospect of the U.S. potentially electing a "black" president. She said Obama would get assassinated, no question about it and that the U.S. would be in better shape if Hillary were elected. Lessing, 88 and white, has been labeled as a feminist writer during her career. What an asinine thing to say! Are there still racists in the United States? Yes. If Obama were elected, being the fact he's an African-American, could that increase the chance that there's an assassination attempt? It's difficult for me to say, but if I were to hypothesize on the matter, I'd say yes. But, there will be substantially less threats in 2009-2012 than say in 1964-1968. He'd have great security and protection wherever he traveled. I have news for Ms. Lessing... Every president is in far greater danger on a daily basis than the average person, whether it be the president of France, Iran, or the United States. I'm sure President's George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush received threats while they were in the White House. The same would probably be true for Barack Obama, but to insinuate that an assassination would be inevitable is ignorant and ridiculous. I sincerely hope she apologizes to Obama in the near future.

- I'm a big supporter of Barack Obama. I went to a rally of his last Thursday and attended the Nebraska Caucus in support of him on Saturday. But, I have to tell you, while I've been annoyed with supporters of every other candidate, I've become annoyed with a few Obama fans as well. First off, there are a select few that seem to thing the man is perfect and that they must resemble him in every way, being el perfecto. I check out his homepage once a day and may browse members' commentary to see if they have any pertinent news to share in regard to the campaign, if Obama received any quality endorsements, what the latest polls show, etc. If someone makes a wisecrack or criticizes another candidate in any way, then one person usually lectures them on how they need to always be positive, follow in Obama's footsteps, and basically be perfect. I truly hope Obama wins the presidency. I would rather not see our troops in Iraq for another 100 years (McCain), don't want two amendments added to our Constitution in regard to gay marriage and abortion rights (Huckabee), and honestly, want to end the 20 year run two families have in the White House (Bushes and Clintons, Hillary in this case). But, some people need to lighten up. Also, there's a petition going around, which basically states that the superdelegates shouldn't decide who the Democratic nominee should be, that the voters (pledged delegates) should decide the outcome. I signed the petition, as did a few others from the Obama homepage, but some complained about the petition, since it read something along the lines of, "We believe that the pledged delegates should decide the outcome and not the superdelegates, and we are prepared to support whomever the voters decide the nominee will be." Some Obama supporters complained, because they said they'd never support Hillary. Give me a break. That's not the point. The most important thing is that we have the voters decide the nominee. What, did they want the petition to read, "We will support the superdelegates only if it vaults Obama to victory, but if it aids Hillary to a win, we want the practice abolished. If the pledged delegates favor Obama once the Puerto Rico primary is complete, then we support this petition, since he'll be ahead, but if not, then we don't." The voters should be the ones deciding who receives the nomination. I want Barack Obama to win the nomination more than just about anything, BUT, just as I don't want to see Clinton win the nomination due to the superdelegates, I wouldn't want Obama to win in that manner either. Just as in the Republican Party, I'd want the winner in the Democratic Party to be the candidate with the most pledged delegates. What, does that make me anti-Obama now? I want the guy to win, but want him to win with some dignity. I want the Atlanta Braves to win, but I want them to win without guys cheating by using steroids and other muscle-enhancing drugs, which gives them an unfair advantage against their opponent. These supporters truly need to look in the mirror and ask what's most important, for their candidate to win, regardless of how the victory is attained or to place some dignity in the Democratic Party in how we/they select the nominee for the general election. Regardless if it's Obama or Clinton, if the "winner" is vaulted to that status via superdelegates, chaos will ensue and John McCain will win the presidency.

The Fickle Media

As usual, the media cracks me up. Just how fickle can they be? Wait, wait, don't answer. Unfortunately, I already know the answer to that question.

Before the Iowa Caucus, pundits about handed Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination. After the Iowa Caucus win, Barack Obama couldn't be stopped. Following New Hampshire, Clinton was back and was on her way to the White House. Following Nevada, Clinton was rolling and only she could stop herself. After South Carolina, Obama had momentum on his side, but may be in trouble with white voters. In the week leading up to Super Tuesday, Clinton was the favorite. Slowly, but surely, however, Obama started gaining ground and some analysts believed that the once "inevitably decisive" Super Tuesday would be anything but decisive. Even then, Clinton was favored to win by at least 100 delegates. That'd be a best-case scenario for Obama. After Super Tuesday, which saw Obama win the state battle 13 to 8 (with New Mexico still being too close to call) and winning the delegate battle by anything from 2 to 20 delegates, many pundits are now saying that Hillary stopped Obama's momentum and that she was the true victor on Super Tuesday. One analyst (a Clinton supporter) even compared Clinton the Giants and Obama to the Patriots.

It's amazing how quickly the majority of analysts, anchors, and pundits swing from side to side on who is winning, who has the momentu, and who will probably win the Democratic nomination. The coverage is rarely fair and balanced. It's either overly-positive toward Clinton, overly-negative toward Clinton, or overly-positive toward Obama. There isn't much grey area with these guys (and gals). What really cracks me up is, yes, I agree that the ratio of positive to negative coverage favors Obama, when it comes to individual pundits, Hillary receives more praise than Obama.

Pat Buchanan: outspoken conservative pundit on MSNBC, who regularly favors Clinton over Obama and claims if he wins, Obama will lose 40 states in the general election.

Craig Crawford: columnist, whom regularly appears on The Countdown and Live with Dan Abrams, regularly favors Clinton over Obama.

Wolf Blitzer: The CNN-Mr. Do-It-Everything-Yet-Say-Nothing refers to Obama as the "junior Senator from Illinois" and Hillary as "the New York state Senator."

Dan Abrams: Anchor of his own show on MSNBC, Live with Dan Abrams, complains that the media's coverage of Obama is too positive and Hillary's too negative.

Chris Matthews: host of Harball on MSNBC, got into trouble with past comments regarding Hillary Clinton and how he feels that she's only the New York state Senator because then President Bill Clinton cheated on her and the country (state) feels sorry for her. So, after news of that broke, he's attempted to make it up to Hillary with more of a positive spin on Mrs. Clinton.

CNN round table ("the best political team in television"): Outside of one analyst, the group typically favors Clinton over Obama.

While anchors' coverage may have favored Obama, in terms of the more positive coverage he's received, the majority of "analysts," pundits, and op-ed/columnists favor Clinton. Many others just swing from side to side depending on the most recent result(s). It's reminiscent of sports' analysts and writers. When the New York Giants started the year 0-2, many were saying, "Tom Coughlin should get fired. He should just resign. He's done." They then won six straight and what were the writers and analysts saying? "What a great job Coughlin has done. He has officially saved his job!" Now what are they saying about the Super Bowl-winning coach? Take a wild guess...

It's sad to see much objective reporting and/or journalism anymore. I see that in Tim Russert, in Howard Fineman, and in a few others, but in the majority of these Bill O'Reilly clones? Objective journalism is simply an oxymoron.

Super Tuesday for Barack Obama, regardless of what certain pundits say...

I remember before the Iowa Caucus, I was heading out and received a call from a long-time friend. He mentioned what he'd heard regarding the polls and I had heard similar numbers. Obama had an outside shot at Iowa and maybe New Hampshire, but would get swept the rest of the way. He had no chance. Hillary would dominate and clinch a victory on Super Tuesday, at the very latest. At that time, I was just kind of accepting that as a fact. I had seen the rest of the polls. Obama was down and down huge in most every other state. He then won Iowa by a 38-30-29% count, with Hillary finishing third. He finished second in New Hampshire to Senator Clinton and many pundits said, "Well, this is the beginning of the end for Obama." He still trailed by a wide margin in many states and still, I felt pessimistic about him being the Democratic nominee for president come November. He lost in Nevada and dominated in South Carolina. Even with the win in South Carolina, many said, "The Clinton's strategy worked. They attempted to push him to looking like just another African-American candidate who'd appeal to only African-Americans." This would hinder his performance amongst whites, Latinos, Asians, etc. So, in other words, he was finished.

While Obama led in delegates, 63 to 48, over Senator Clinton, Super Tuesday appeared to be leaning heavily in Clinton's favor. While it may not be a "decisive" victory, it'd all but wrap up the nomination for the New York Senator. But, following Bill Clinton's controversial words, Hillary's attacks, and the negativity press that ensued, members of Congress began to endorse Obama with more regularity, including Massachusetts Senator, Ted Kennedy. Clinton was still favored to win in the majority of Super Tuesday states, but the gap was gradually closing. Hillary led in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Arizona, New Mexico, Minnesota, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alaska, and Oklahoma. She led big in many of those states, 20-30 percentage points, in states like Massachusetts, California, New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. She also led by double-digits in Missouri, Connecticut, Arizona, and Minnesota.

Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama nationally by approximately 13% and in recent days, that lead has shrunk in most polls to 9% or less. They were even tied in a couple polls. But, even with this recent "surge" of Obama, most pundits believed Clinton would win Super Tuesday by 100 delegates. That'd be a "good" night for Obama and keep him in the race. Obama's camp stated just before and on Super Tuesday that if they were able to split the delegates, they'd be thrilled with that and most pundits agreed.

So, what happened on Super Tuesday? Obama won 13 states: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Alaska, Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia. That's the same Minnesota where Obama trailed by double-digits just a week and a half ago. That's the same Connecticut that favored Clinton by double-digits a week and a half to two weeks ago. That's the same Delaware where Clinton led, even in polls on February 5th. That's the same Alaska and Alabama where she led. It's the same Missouri that Clinton led by 11% a week and a half ago. He won 13 states and New Mexico is still not out of the realm of possibility. So, at the very worst, Obama won 13 out of 22 states, giving him, at worst, 15 state victories total. At best, Hillary won 9 states on Tuesday, giving her 11 victories overall and 13 if one includes Florida and Michigan. Before the Iowa Caucus, I was told and I observed polls which backed up the pundits' statements, that Obama would win, at the most, two states: Iowa and New Hampshire. He had no chance in the northeast, the northwest, west, rockies, midwest, southeast, or mid-atlantic states. Added to those wins, Clinton won California by just 10% (52-42), did not eclipse 60% in her home state of New York (57-40), where Obama received 40% of the delegates, won by only 10% in New Jersey (54-44), won by just 15% in Massachusetts (56-41), won by only 9% in Arizona (51-42), and by only 13% in Tennessee (54-41). She led by 30% in Massachusetts just a couple weeks ago, where Obama garnered only 22% of the vote. She was up over 20% in New Jersey, 30% in New York, 15-20% in Arizona, 20% in Tennessee, and 20-30% in California. The only two states where Clinton dominated were in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Oklahoma is one of three states Obama didn't visit in his run-up to Super Tuesday and a state where he/they only spent approximately $400,000 in ads. Arkansas is the home state of the Clintons, where Hillary's husband, Bill, was governor for a good period of time before his presidency. In all of those states Hillary won, Obama was held under 40% in only two, the two I just mentioned. That wasn't the case in Obama's victories. Hillary was held under 40% in the following states: Idaho (17%), Utah, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Alaska, and Georgia. In 9 of the 13 states Obama won, he dominated. The only four states where he didn't, were in Connecticut (51-47), Delaware (53-42), Alabama (56-42), and Missouri (49-48).

The Hillary camp wants to project the night as a victory for them, that they were the underdog, and that by winning New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, it proved they were ready for the general election and Hillary Clinton would be the Democrat best suited to defeat whomever the Republican nominee is come November. They also want to make it seem as if Super Tuesday halted Obama's momentum.

What kind of world are they living in? Remember when Obama was said to be lucky if he won a single state? Remember when every pundit and analyst about guaranteed an easy landslide victory for Hillary Clinton? What was supposed to have been a deciding Tuesday for the Clinton camp, became a hard-fought tussle, which saw their opponent, Barack Obama, win more states and pull in more delegates than their candidate. The final tally from Super Tuesday has not been concluded, but both the Obama and Clinton camps agree that Obama will come away with a few more delegates, anywhere from 2 to 20 more than Senator Clinton. Obama was going to win his home state of Illinois and had a pretty good chance at winning Georgia, but no other state was a guarantee for the Senator. Connecticut and Delaware were basically in Clinton's backyard. He trailed in Minnesota and Missouri, the bellweather state. Alabama was a toss-up state, which showcased a 5% lead for Clinton in at least one poll going into Super Tuesday. Colorado and Utah were both toss-ups. One couldn't have been sure in Caucus states such as Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, or Alaska. She won the majority of her home states or neighboring states to those home states. She won in Arkanas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. She also won in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Finally, California could be construed as a third home to the Clintons, where she was victorious, along with Arizona. So, please, don't tell me that it's any kind of shock or upset that Hillary Clinton won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Tennessee. Her best win of the night, in my opinion? Arizona, which was considered to be a toss-up state. She did lead in most of the polls I saw, but most of those polls had her up by 5% or less going into Super Tuesday.

Also, the argument that she won the blue states which Democrats have to win come November? Give me another break. I could be the Democratic nominee and win states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. When's the last time they voted Republican? The northeast and northwest are blue, all the way. Obama won Connecticut. I couldn't say for one second that Hillary wouldn't carry that state if she won the Democratic nomination. Polls also show her in a much tighter race with John McCain in the state of California than Barack Obama would be. She did win the battleground state of Arizona, but guess what? John McCain is from where? Arizona, so regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, McCain will carry that state in the general election. BUT, Obama won the following battleground states: Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota may be moving more into that direction, as well. If he is the Democratic nominee, he will win in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and most likely, California. But, he brings something else to the table that Hillary doesn't. He has won red states, some with rather heavy African-American populations, including Georgia and South Carolina. Many pundits claim that a Democrat doesn't have a chance in the world to win one of these states. I wouldn't be so quick to judge. Democrats have been much more enthusiastic in the Primaries/Caucuses than Republicans and if that contiues in the general election, Obama could surprise some people in the southeast. Don't forget, there were more Democratic voters in the South Carolina Primary than Republican ones. That's almost unheard of. This could also be the case in the mid-atlantic states, in Virginia and North Carolina. He could also cause some problems for Republicans in the smaller red states, where younger voters could potentially off-set the older, more conservative crowd, in a state without a heavy population. This is the case in states like: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North and South Dakota, and even Nebraska. Nebraska is a very red state, but with only a million people, if the young voters are extra motivated, the state could go blue for the first time in a long while.

Hillary doesn't have a chance in some of these states. While many conservatives are not happy at the prospect of having to potentially vote for John McCain, they will not vote for Hillary Clinton and may be more motivated at having the opportunity to vote against Hillary than Obama. Obama also lures in more Independents and liberal to moderate Republicans than Clinton.

Super Tuesday was supposed to be the conclusion to the Democratic battle for the nomination. Instead, we're neck and neck. Regardless of what pundits now want to say regarding momentum and the victory last night for Hillary Clinton, they should press the rewind button in their noggin's hippocampus to a month or two ago before the Iowa Caucus, fast-forward again to the current time and then give an honest viewpoint on what transpired last night. Obama's campaign garnered $32 million in January alone, compared to $13 million for Clinton. She even admitted today that she loaned $5 million from her own pocket to the campaign and that many of her workers won't be getting paid this month. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign has earned $3 million today alone from online donors and are on pace to make another $30 million in February. The Clinton campaign also said today they won't be spending much money in the upcoming few states: Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, D.C., Maryland, Maine, and Virginia. These are all states which Obama could potentially win. I'm fairly confident on all of them outside of Maine, although, with so many Independents there, I give a slight edge to Obama. If Obama wins the majority of those states, he'll have the lead going into March 4th, where Ohio and Texas come into play.

Regardless of what pundits want to say, Obama carried that momentum over into Super Tuesday and beyond. There's a reason why Clinton wants to debate Obama four more times between now and March 4th. She's running low on money, wants to limit Obama's rallies, and put herself in the public eye, as she will be unable to do much of due to her financial situation.

Momentum is all on Obama's side right now, no ifs, ands or buts about it. For the second time in the past week, it appears as if the heavy favorite is being taken to the final quarter, final seconds of what appears to be a nail-biting finish.

MTV Dialogue

I honestly had not watched MTV in years. I don't use the term "years" lightly. I seriously have not watched the channel formerly known as Music Television for probably 5 years. But, tonight, I found the nerve to tune in for an hour and a half to a dialogue with four presidential candidates appearing via satellite, to answer young voters' questions: Republicans Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Each candidate had about 20-25 minutes to answer questions people in the MTV audience asked, along with some questions that were posed online via MySpace.com and MTV.com.

I'm an Obama-supporting Democrat, but of all four candidates, I thought Huckabee did the best job. He gave off that friendly, laid back, southern vibe. He also answered the questions without quite as much fluff as the other three, including a solid response in regard to his "fair tax" idea.

I felt that Obama was not quite as solid as Huckabee, but better than both Paul and Clinton. He provided a bit more fluff than Huckabee, but still gave off a fairly friendly vibe, and answered the questions in a decent manner, including one I hadn't heard brought up before, dealing with gay marriage/civil unions.

I'd give Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton a tie for third on the afternoon. Paul is the least known of the six remaining candidates and took this as an opportunity to basically ask the young voters to give him a chance. Portions of his answers seemed well thought out, but it felt as if part or all of his answers resorted to asking/telling the young voters to look him up and give him a chance on Tuesday. Clinton gave the most fluff of all. I'm not sure if she answered one question posed to her in a straight-forward manner. When asked about why she refuses to admit she was wrong about her Iraq War vote, she basically bypassed it by saying, "You know, what we have to worry about is not what has already happened, because that's done and over with. What we have to worry about is what we're going to do now." When asked about what she had to offer outside of her experience that distinguishes her from Obama, she spoke for approximately 3 minutes in a complete circle and finished the response by talking about her experience. The final portion of each candidate's dialogue consisted of them speaking for about a minute on why the young people should vote for them. Hillary took the first 30 seconds by talking about her 1 hour online Q & A session tomorrow, which she mentioned on CNN and MSNBC, and from what I hear, the Disney Channel, ESPN, and The Playboy Channel.

I don't think the candidates were quite as informative as they could have been, but give kudos to MTV, as it was a new experience, something different, which made the most of our new technological expansions, which most of my generation is in tune with, and utilizing that to spread information to my generation in attempt to provoke them/us to get involved and get out there and vote. I'm not a fan of MTV, but am glad they did this.

Spygate returned...

The story of Spygate arose earlier this year when New York Jets head coach, Eric Mangini, made it known that the New England Patriots stole defensive signals from the Jets' sideline. Patriots' head coach, Bill Belichick, met with Commissioner Roger Goodell, was fined $500,000 and the Patriots had to give up their 1st round draft pick in the upcoming NFL Draft (although, they do receive the 49ers' 1st round pick, which is 7th in the upcoming draft). The Patriots gave Goodell six tapes which contained "spyware," if you want to call it that, and destroyed the tapes. The story had not gotten much attention until a day or so ago, when Arlen Specter, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, brought the issue up, believing that there is some information we, as a public, haven't been told about the situation and suspicious on why Goodell was so quick to destroy the tapes.

Today, news broke that the Patriots may have spied on the St. Louis Rams, tape recording their practices, before their 20-17 Super Bowl victory over the Rams. Golfer Matt Walsh, whom worked with the Patriots under Belichick until recently, also came forward about some potential illegal activities by the coaching staff. While he didn't mention anything specific, he basically said if the Senate called upon him to testify, he would and if he was guaranteed he wouldn't get penalized/in trouble with the law for what he said, he'd do so.

After reading these articles, I read some commentary, mainly by Patriots' fans, blasting anyone who is suspicious about the potential new findings or anyone who believes "spygate" could potentially tarnish Belichick and the Patriots' legacy as "haters," and attempted to legitimize what their favorite team allegedly did, by saying, "Everyone did it," "They're still the best," "Give the players some credit," "It wasn't illegal until this past season," and "Walsh is just trying to receive his 15 minutes of fame."

I'm sorry, but how is this NOT news? How is this NOT a big deal? Potentially spying on a team before a Super Bowl (and who knows when else) and gaining a clear advantage through this? If the Pats hadn't been caught already, I'd be more skeptical about these most recent stories, but since they have, I'm more curious and suspicious on the matter.

Walsh lives in the New England in the area with a wife and child. Why in the world would he come out with this information if he were lying? Why would he potentially put his family in danger based on lies? That doesn't make any sense to me. It sounded from the article that he has some information that could get both the league and the Patriots into some serious trouble. The only person/people he's trying to protect right now are he and his family.

I have a feeling we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the spring and summer months. The legitimacy of professional sports are seriously being questioned. From referees being involved in gambling in the NBA to steroids in baseball to spying in football, the integrity of the professional sports world has come into serious question. I'm on no mission to tarnish the New England Patriots' or Bill Belichick's accomplishments, but want to believe in the integrity of the NFL. I want to believe that in every game, it's 11 on 11, with the only tapes aiding the clubs throughout the week being from games past, as opposed to practices of that very week. Perhaps that's just me being naive', but that's what I want to believe, that dignified coaching, player preparation, and player execution is what truly wins football games, without illegal substances enhancing players adrenaline or abilities or spying giving a team/coach extra information going into a contest, which they shouldn't have.

Tomorrow's an odd day in Super Bowl history. On one hand, we have the opportunity to witness history, as the New England Patriots look to finish the season a perfect 19-0. Yet, at the same time, it has to linger in the back of my mind, was this title, perfect record attained fairly? That'll be a question I hope to have answered in the next few months. It's been a sad and embarrassing time in professional sports of late, between the NHL bankruptcy and strike to the George Mitchell Report in the MLB to referees admitting to gambling on basketball games in the NBA to this potential disaster in the NFL. I hope that problems get solved and our four most popular sports can garner back some integrity we've lost over the course of the past few years.

A Bush Third-Term?

In the middle of Primary/Caucus season, I simply have to wonder, why would anyone want to vote Republican in the fall? If Bill Clinton had been the president for the past 7+ years, I'd be asking the same thing about the Democrats. Who would want to vote Democrat in November?

Honestly, outside of Ron Paul, who of the Republicans will differ much overall from George W. Bush's policies? John McCain, especially with a Democratic-led Congress, could make some progress in terms of environmental issues, but he'll be just as stingy in his war efforts, if not more so, than the current president. Mitt Romney may attempt to make some slight changes in regard to the economy, but is in favor of making the tax cut for the elite permanent, which in turn, damages the middle class. He may be in favor of some more private benchmarks than McCain, but will still press hard in favor of the Iraq War. Mike Huckabee will continue the Iraq War and may even add two new amendments, prohibiting abortion and gay marriage rights. Honestly, in all three potential scenarios, wouldn't electing a Republican in November really be extending the Bush term at least another four years? Why would we, as a country, want that? What has Bush done during his tenure that has been positive? Depending on whom you ask, we're either in or potentially headed toward a recession. Our image around the world is worse than it's been in years. The hatred of this country expands on a daily basis around the globe. U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying by the day, nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers, and approximately 1,000,000 Iraqis. There's the mortgage crisis. Katrina. New Orleans still isn't fully recovered from that disaster. The most wealthy have attained more wealth and the middle class is shrinking on a daily basis into what is the lower class. The Constitution, to quote the present, "Is just a piece of paper," and has been treated as such, with the passing of the Patriot Act (sneak and peak and all), unwarranted wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus in the Military Commissions Act, etc. The No Child Left Behind Act has been anything but pleasing to schools and teachers across the country. Many environmentalists claim that the Bush administration has set us back at least 25 years due to their abuse of the environment. The economy, housing, education, environment, image, war, freedoms have all taken dives. That's not even taking into account all of the scandals or potential scandals: Valerie Plame, unwarranted wiretapping, illegal wars, Gonzo-gate, the Downing Street Memo, Gitmo, Guantanamo, the post-9/11 transports and torture, etc., etc., etc. After all of this, how can we look in the mirror and say, "Yeah, I'm going to vote for another four years of this"? Five of the past seven administrations in this country have been Republican and the two which weren't, during the Clinton years, were with a rather conservative Democrat who had a Republican-led Congress to work with. It's about time we alter our direction. Only 31% of the country approves of the job President Bush is doing. Just a minority of the people believe we are on the right track as a country. Keeping all this in mind, how/why is it that John McCain currently leads Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in their potential match-ups? Based on two polls I've seen, McCain leads Clinton by an average of 5 points, leading in both polls. In those same two polls, he leads Obama by an average of 3 points, leading one and tied in the other. Yet, by a 51-34% margin, the public prefers a Democrat to a Republican in the general election. I hope that number holds up in November as opposed to the other two polls I saw. The last thing I want to see is a third term for a Bush-esque candidate.

California Democratic Debate and other notes

It was a neat experience to observe the California Democratic debate last night. Right from the start, when the two candidates took their respective seats, every viewer could see that we were down to two candidates, a woman and an African-American. Regardless of who wins the nomination, we will have a first in American politics, as it will be either the first time in our history that we have a woman as a presidential candidate or an African-American as one of the final two candidates come November. That was a historical moment as the candidates sat down beside one another and I'm proud to have been able to witness it.

In regard to the debate itself, it differed a great deal from the harsh tone at the South Carolina debate. Both candidates performed well throughout and while there was some conflict here and there, the candidates didn't throw any low blows, such as the "Wal-Mart" or "Rezko" lines from the previous debate. While there were differences made between the candidates, in regard to health care and immigration, the two candidates both made good points to their cause and were much more specific than in previous debates. So, through the first hour, I'd say that neither candidate had an advantage in the debate, but that all changed once the topic switched to Iraq. While Obama looked poised and comfortable on the topic, in knowing that he was against the war from its outset, Hillary looked uncomfortable and wound up digging herself into a deeper hole. It appeared as if she didn't understand the Levin Amendment, which would have held off military action in favor of more diplomatic and investigative measure. Clinton refused to admit she had made a mistake, made some odd reference to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, which had analysts scratching their heads afterward. Obama was also quick to point out that the measure was labeled "Use of military action in Iraq". So, in other words, anyone who voted for the measure knew they were voting for war. As Rachel Maddow pointed out after the debate on MSNBC, Maddow was driving while listening to Hillary Clinton give her approval of the measure and Maddow was in tears. She (and others) thought Clinton's "reasoning" was complete nonsense. For Hillary to say that she basically didn't understand the amendment, it made her sound like an "idiot," as Maddow stated so eloquently. Clinton was basically defending the flawed intelligence for the war and it amazes me, as last night was the 18th Democratic debate, that Clinton has not found a better way to reason with the American people about her vote. There is an easy way to go about this, admit she made a mistake. She can either do that and say, "You know what? I was wrong. It won't happen again and as president of the United States, I will do everything in my power to avenge for that mistake and take this country into a positive direction again." That's it. It's either that or attempting to answer around questions by not admitting she made a mistake and actually giving credence to those that most Democrats aren't typically fond of. I think the debate was a draw in almost its entirety, except for when the Iraq War got brought up.

In the end, I don't think either candidate will earn a big boost due to the debate. I think Obama did slightly better and what he has to hope for is perhaps an expanded support from Latino-Americans based on some of his immigration talking points, he has to hope that the debate didn't slow down his momentum much, and has to hope that due to his immigration talking points, that it doesn't hurt him amongst whites and African-Americans. On Hillary's side, I think all she truly wanted to do was slow down Obama's momentum. She was fairly pleasant for the majority of the debate, made some good points, didn't low-ball Obama at all, and just hopes that it was good enough for her to hold onto the lead after Super Tuesday.

- In other news, it's sad for me to gaze about at the remaining Republican candidates, other than Ron Paul, whom honestly has no chance at winning the nomination. Mike Huckabee is personable, but with whom I don't agree with in regard to his policy ideas. John McCain was the only legitimate Republican contender whom I felt I could potentially vote for. But, I've lost some respect for the Arizona Senator in recent days/weeks. While I've never been a fan of Mitt Romney, in large part due to his negativity and smear tactics, McCain has been doing likewise of late. Both campaigns are pointing at the other, saying, "We're tired of the falsities," yet they must have a short-term memory, because their very own candidate partook in similar charades. I respect McCain as a human, but can't see myself voting for him, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. He keeps attacking Romney, claiming that the Massachusetts Governor said that we should set public timetables for the Iraq War, but that wasn't the case. John either needs to look a bit more closely at the actual quotes or to stop talking about it completely, because, to those that actually research what these candidates say and attempt to discover what was factual and what wasn't, they'll all come to realize that McCain's harping about Romney believing in public timetables is a farce. I can't stand Romney and I'm saying this. I'm now unsure on who I'm rooting for in the Republican Party, because I think McCain may be getting a bit old, senile, and delusional, especially in regard to the Iraq War. He's admitted that he's not too cognizant regarding the economy and that's Romney's strong-suit. With how our economy is in such disarray, it's difficult for me to choose between the two. Either way, the two need to stop with the name-calling ("liberal"), the attacks, and smears. If they keep that up for the general election and the Democrat remains above the fray, the Democrat should win with ease, because the public doesn't go for that, as Obama and Clinton learned from the South Carolina debate.

- The Clintons are drawing some more negative news in the past couple days. First was in regard to Bill Clinton's tie to the donor from Kazakhstan. Last night, there was a report that Phillip Rezko, the "slum landlord" that Hillary referred to in the South Carolina debate that had donated to Obama in the past, also has donated money to the Clintons in the past. Finally, a Hillary Clinton surrogate, Len Nichols, said this in regard to a recent Obama ad about health care, saying, "It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, (Illinois)... I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage."

I haven't heard too much about this in the mainstream news and the Clintons better hope it stays that way.