Race in the Race, The End is Near.....

Many bloggers have accused HRC and her husband of using race as a campaign tactic. I have been hesitant of accusing them of this. Possibly it was unintentional. With HRC quoting a recent AP report that she is more electable because she can deliver the hard-working white vote and Barack can't, I have changed my mind about the Clintons. They are playing the race card with the Super Delegates and voters of West Virginia and Kentucky. Okay, the AP report said this was true, but HRC as a democratic candidate should avoid talking about this in this way. She could have said the AP says that I am more electable among the working class and just let the press sort it out. I am encouraged that many Americans are blind to color, and I believe Obama has appealed to all races because of his message of unity. We have seen politics being used as a game to score points and as a way to get financial support from lobbyists and special interests to continually getting elected. In the meantime, us voters are left holding an empty bag. My hope is that the Super Delegates will come forward and support the true democratic candidate, the candidate for all people, Barack Obama.
The networks are getting tired of saying HRC is a viable candidate. They gave her many benefits of doubt before the last elections. Clintonion math is getting extremely foggy at this point and the networks are beginning to see the end of the Clintons. Yes, they will continue to cover HRC's negative statements, but it is time to move on to John McCain as Barack's adversary.

HRC is a Great Panderer, Supported by MSM, RNC, and Rush Limbaugh...

Barack has great support from Caroline and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry, and Gov. Bill Richardson, and his many campaign members. But HRC has some major support from the MSM, the RNC, and Limbaugh.
The MainStream Media wants this Democratic Primary to continue until all the candidates are out of 'air time' money and out of public interest. For example, CNN was floating the idea that Hillary might get all those 313 delegates out of Florida and Michigan. Which makes no sense to anyone following this process even remotely. The Clintons aren't even floating this one!
The Republican National Committee through many of its surrogates have been praising HRC and knocking Obama. Before this election process, they were vehemently attacking HRC like the heat from a thousand Suns. The vast right wing conspiracy major supporter, Richard Mellon Scaife is now an ally of HRC. Do you remember where HRC went when the media was questioning her credibility about the Bosnia Sniper Fire story? That story went away didn't it? A new one emerged, Barack's former pastor became the front and center story because HRC wanted the media attention away from her credibility and I believe Mr. Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review helped.
Rush Limbaugh aka druggie, the leader of the 'dittoheads' has told his listeners to register democrat and vote for Hillary. Not because she is the best democratic candidate, but to cause mayhem in the Democratic Party's Primary. He wants this to continue to the DNC convention in Denver. Rush wants a floor fight that will cause a split in the party. If HRC wins because of the Super Delegates influence, many of Barack's supporters will not vote for HRC. And if Barack wins because of his lead among pledged delegates, most states, and most popular vote, HRC's hard core supporters will not vote for Barack. Ann Coulter, a hard core right winger says she will work to help HRC win.
As you have read, we are really the underdogs here and not because of the Clinton name brand alone. Name recognition is important because many voters don't dig very deep when choosing their candidate. Another factor that HRC has, is her incessant pandering to the voters. This Gas Tax Holiday is a great example of that. She proposes to remove the federal gas tax(18.4 cents for gas & 24.4 cents for diesel per gallon) marked for bridge and road construction and maintenance, and to fund it by taxing the oil companies for it though their windfall profits' tax. I'm not an economist, but I know this. If you tax or increase prices to a corporation, they pass it on. Take a guess to who?? I'm for the guy with the 'right' answers for America, not the 'right' answers to get elected!
Obama 2008...Yes, We Can....

Ambush At The OK Corral with Mud Wrestling....Debate?? What Debate??

It was billed as a Constitutional Debate in Philly last night, and it was hosted by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC news. To me it was more like Ambush at the OK Corral with Mud Wrestling following shortly, and hosted by Abbott and Costello of the comedy hour. Since it was at the Constitutional Center, they decided to post Constitutional Amendments after each break which were many, but they never talked about them!! They might have as well have posted the Ten Commandments and highlighting IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness... because they weren't using that one either. I expected a Lightning Bolt to visit Hillary at anytime! Many bloggers thought the same: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html
I thought George Stephanopoulos was reading from talking points handed to him by either a Rag Magazine(The National Enquirer, Star, Globe, etc..) or Sean Hannity. The first 30 to 45 minutes were spent digging into the mud. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary one tough question during this time, and Barack got the rest. I was proud of Barack, he answered all the mud throwing questions, and ended it with saying, all these are distractions and this is to my point that many Americans are wanting something different from their leaders not the same old stuff that divides us. Hillary remained silent and smiled when Barack put her on the spot for dodging a plan to bail out Social Security question, AGAIN, yet she had no problem criticizing his plan. Barack punched back after HRC went on and on about Barack's associations and even associations of associations. I believe she politically added Farrakhan and Hamas to scare white voters. He finally put an end of HRC's rant of being on the same Education Fund Raising Board as William Ayers, former Weatherman Underground Group member by saying, it is quite different for me being on a fund raising board, and your husband pardoning 2 Weathermen(serving 98 year sentences) in January 2001. HRC declined to respond thanks to Charles Gibson offering her an option and a way out. Instead of a debate, we got an ambush by ABC and HRC. After HRC answered the Sniper Fire Ducking Incident politically correctly, Obama was asked to respond, he took the high road and excused Hillary's memory problem. This "'debate'" appeared scripted and only Obama never got a copy of the script. Despite all of this, Barack did well. The last part of this debacle was about issues. Obama looked like Commander-In-Chief giving his answer about ending the Iraq War. ABC did a terrible job of helping undecided voters to make a good decision in selecting a nominee. This 'debate' was undoubtedly slanted towards HRC. I think the clear winner is Obama, and Clinton the loser because you need to be for something and not against someone or something to be considered a legitimate leader. We voters are looking for someone who looks positively ahead. We already have had our negative years and are sick of it!! If PA voters can't distinguish between hog wash and real sincerity in moving them forward, then they are going to have to cling to their Religion and Guns a lot longer. Yes, We Can......
In a lighter moment, could you imagine HRC in a skin-tight wrestling suit! Even if you loved Hillary, you wouldn't like that!! Please excuse me, I think I threw up a little in my mouth!!!

FIRES IN INDIANA!!! An Office and a Pair of Pants...

www.politFact.com

One of Clinton's campaign offices was destroyed by fire in Indiana. Fortunately, no one was injured. There was one more fire in Indiana yesterday, and it was Bill Clinton's pants! The Clintons were injured, politically. Speaking in front of a campaign event he said, "... there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995." This earned Bill, The Pants On Fire Award.

Link to Hillary's Original Bosnia Sniper Fire Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102989.html

Link to Bill's Version of the "Truth": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/428/

Lie, lie, lie, lie, and false!!!!! Firstly, Hillary repeated her Four Pinocchio(under sniper fire in Bosnia) story at least 3 times, secondly, she gave the stories during the day, thirdly, she told the story 3 times that can't be a misstatement, fourthly, she only apologized a week after it was discovered that the trip was videotaped and played repeatedly on TV, and lastly, her trip was in 1996 not 1995. One can only wonder what the Clinton campaign is running on as far as credibility. She lied about sniper fire ducking in Bosnia in 1996, and her husband later further lied about it even more! Her campaign strategist, Mark Penn had to step down because he supports the Colombia Free Trade Agreement as a lobbyist, and her husband, Bill Clinton, still an integral part of her campaign has taken $800,000 in speaking fees for supporting it. Pennsylvania has been seriously hurt by NAFTA like agreements. The Clinton joint tax returns shows they are very wealthy. They made between $109-$111 million since leaving the White House. Many of Hillary's potential voters are barely surviving, making less then $50,000 per year. How can these voters honestly relate to these two?? How can anybody??

When Will It End??

According to DNC rules whomever makes it to 2025 delegates, wins the nomination. Delegates are made up of pledged(won from votes from primaries and caucuses) and unpledged/super(commitments from elected and appointed party officials). Neither Clinton or Obama can make it to that number with pledged delegates, they must rely on the super delegates or unpledged delegates. Maybe super delegates are unpledged, but many have sure committed to a candidate. Hillary because of her own and her husband's long association in the Washington political process have made many loyal political friends and super donors. Barack had to build new political associations and donors from the scratch because he is new to Washington. He decided to make it a grass roots effort with many donors with small donations. It has been an uphill battle, but he has pulled within about 32 delegates of Clinton in super delegates. Most of the difference is her lead among the DNC party officials. Apparently most of the remaining super delegates are waiting for the outcomes of the remaining elections. Most of the political pundits have come to the conclusion that Clinton can't win on pledged delegates. Obama has the clear lead of about 167 pledged delegates. He also leads in the total vote count by another substantial number. Senator Clinton has said that pledged delegates don't need to vote for who they are pledged for. Technically she is correct, but delegates are elected on the basis of loyalty to their candidate. It is very unlikely they would change their vote. Why would Hillary make such an odd statement? I believe in an act of desperation, it is to give her supporters a reason to stay with her, and to keep the super delegates in check. So far that is working. While they are on hold, she believes that she must go very negative on Barack, and she has. I believe that worked for her in Texas and Ohio. New polls out indicate that Hillary's negative ratings have risen significantly while Barack's have remained about the same. It is uncertain that her huge embellishments of that 1996 Bosnia trip have been factored in. Going negative has helped Clinton in the short term, but it appears she may pay the price in the long term. In conclusion we are going to watch the elections play out to June 3 unless the Super Delegates decide to pick a candidate. I believe that will happen after North Carolina on May 6. Barack will be within 200 delegates of winning and I believe the Super Delegates will take him over the top to win the nomination! Currently, I feel that the super delegates think they owe the Clintons some more time. We have seen Clinton super donors threaten Speaker Pelosi because of her stand about super delegates following the will of the people: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/27/2008-03-27_hillary_clintons_wealthy_pals_warn_nancy.html

The super delegates know that Obama has passed the Presidential test; He has the most votes, most pledged delegates, and most states, and not many could have survived that huge Rev. Wright sermon onslaught like Barack did. For many that was the defining moment. Hillary's defining moment was the 1996 Bosnia sniper fire story. Who would you trust to be your President?....

2025-The Magic Number May Be Reached May 6

According to DNC rules whomever makes it to 2025 delegates, wins the nomination. Neither Clinton or Obama can make it to that number with pledged delegates, they must rely on the Super Delegates or unpledged delegates. Maybe Super Delegates are unpledged, but many have sure committed to a candidate. Hillary because of her own and her husband's long association in the Washington political process have made many loyal political friends. Barack had to build new political associations from the scratch because he is new to Washington. It has been an uphill battle, but he has pulled within about 34 delegates of Clinton in Super Delegates. Most of the difference is her lead among DNC party officials. Apparently most of the remaining Super Delegates are waiting for the outcomes of the remaining elections. Most of the political pundits have come to the conclusion that Clinton can't win on pledged delegates. Obama has the clear lead of about 167 delegates. He also leads in the total vote count by another substantial number. Senator Clinton has said that pledged delegates don't need to vote for who they are pledged for. Technically she is correct, but delegates are elected on the basis of loyalty to their candidate. It is very unlikely they would change their vote. Why would Hillary make such an odd statement? I believe in an act of desperation, it is to give her supporters a reason to stay with her, and to keep the Super Delegates in check. So far that is working. While they are on hold, she believes that she must go very negative on Barack, and she has. I believe that worked for her in Texas and Ohio. New polls out indicate that Hillary's negative ratings have risen significantly while Barack's have remained about the same. It is uncertain that her huge embellishments of that 1996 Bosnia trip have been factored in. Going negative has helped Clinton in the short term, but it appears she may pay the price in the long term. In conclusion we are going to watch the elections play out to June 3 unless the Super Delegates decide to pick a candidate. It has been reported by Ed Schultz of the Ed Shultz Radio show that some super delegates have been strong armed by the Clintons to hold off committing to Obama. That may buy the Clintons some more time, but that will not affect the final outcome. I believe that will happen after North Carolina on May 6. Barack will be within 200 delegates of winning and I believe the Super Delegates will take him over the top to win the Democratic Presidential nomination! Yes, We Can....

The Bottom Line is Leadership.....Obama vs. Clinton

It is easy to get side tracked by these peripheral issues; Revotes in FL & MI, Ferraro's Controversial Remarks, Former Pastor's Sermons, etc. It sells newspapers, magazines, and soap on TV. We, Americans have a history to be proud of, but is that all we have? If we can set aside our racial and sexist biases, take off those blinders that we have lived with too long, and to move America forward instead of anchored in our old ways of anger, misunderstanding, and divisiveness, I believe our best days are ahead of us, not behind us. I think in the end if most people sit down and make a sound decision based on the facts, this is what they will come up with:

The Hillary Clinton campaign has said that because she has more experience in Washington, D.C. over Barack, she or even McCain would make a better President and Commander-In-Chief. "Who would you want to answer that 3 am phone call?" I'm going to make a list for each democratic candidate. I'm honoring Hillary's recent complaint with the news media, so I'm starting with Barack.

Here are Barack's leadership credits:

• In the most important decision that any lawmaker had to make in many years, Barack spoke out against the decision to go to war in Iraq while many lawmakers were about to make one of the biggest mistakes in foreign policy. The Clinton folk like to say that he couldn't vote to authorize that war. He was an Illinois state senator. What makes their argument hollow, is that he was starting his run for U.S. Senator and his Republican opponent and the country's wind were taking us to war. He made a speech before anti-war protesters on October 2, 2002. He said "I don't oppose war in all circumstances... but what I do oppose is a dumb war." "What I am opposed to is a rash war." The Iraq war is a 'dumb' and 'rash' war and he gave the reasons why we are stuck there today; "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda." Now that is true courage and perception, and the right decision. I am a Vietnam era veteran and I know why leadership at the top military position is so important. We(Vietnam War veterans) took the oath to protect the Constitution and follow the lawful orders of the Commander-In-Chief. We kept that oath and in the end had to accept defeat. That is what happens when you have the wrong leader to take you to war.
  
• Barack spoke out at the beginning of this Presidential campaign that if he was Commander-In-Chief, and if he had good actionable intelligence, he would take out Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Pakistan failed to act. He was immediately criticized by Clinton and others for his bold approach. Well, several weeks after Mr. Obama's statement, we did take out an Al-Qaeda target in Pakistan. Do you think the President was listening?


• Barack recently stated that his relationship with Tony Rezco was a bad decision. Is that a minus for leadership? Initially, I would say yes, we are certainly hearing alot of negative rhetoric from the Clinton camp. But after that decision, he helped pass the state of Illinois' first major ethics reform bill in 25 years, and he helped lead the fight in the U.S. Senate for ethics and lobbying reform and a bill was signed into law. He has run his Presidential campaign from small donations and many contributors. Even the other side has complimented his grass roots effort at raising money. Sometimes we make mistakes, and it is important to realize them, but what you do to correct them is more important. How you bounce back. No one died from this mistake. This should be a plus plus.


• The ability to speak plainly and with one voice. No one disputes Barack is a great orator, and when other voices in his campaign echoed words of divisiveness or of confusion, he was quick to respond.


• When lesser campaigns face elimination, they resort to negative campaigning. Barack started hugely behind two good opponents, but he never resorted to mud slinging. "Just the facts, Mam" appeared to be his campaign slogan.


• Many argue that experience should be how we chose Presidents. We all know that is the first question they ask you when you go for a job interview. There is no one running for re-election, so we don't have that answer. Let's look at experience by looking at some former presidents. John F. Kennedy was too young, therefore too inexperienced and too catholic, Abraham Lincoln had an unnoteworthy Congressional record, and George Washington had just his rank of general. Many say they were among our greatest presidents.


• The Obama campaign has remained above the fray of 'politics as usual' by a leader that leads by example, not hyprocrisy.

Now its Mrs. Clinton's turn:

• She was Senator of New York when that bill titled: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " came before her to vote on. She voted 'Aye'. She later explained that she was voting for inspectors or diplomacy for Iraq. She never read the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) and she had stated on the Senate floor that Hussein had given comfort to Al-Qaeda. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html To sum it up, she thought she was voting for diplomacy, never read a very important government report that revealed contradictory information given by the administration, and thought Al Qaeda was or had been in Iraq. Is this the kind of leader you want answering the call?
  
• She voted 'Aye' to an amendment that calls on the U.S. State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization in Iran. This was being pushed by the Republicans in the Senate. It was a non-binding resolution, but many Democrats thought it was saber rattling which may give the Bush administration reason to go to war with Iran. They had been talking of bombing Iran. I think this was another ploy to feel out the sentiment of the Senate for war with Iran. I believe this would have been a great opportunity for Clinton to resolve her bad decision to go to war with Iraq. She chose to make a similar mistake. There is an old 'Texas saying' "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
  
• When her campaign for President appeared doomed, she resorted to negative campaigning. No longer depending on her campaign platform issues to sway the voters, she looked for some tools that Karl Rove has used; politics of fear, twisting statements, and guilt by association. The red phone ad, the confused Canadian memo about NAFTA, and the indictment of Tony Rezco. Karl Rove is smiling somewhere.
  
• Senator Clinton has been running on her 8 years of foreign policy experience as First Lady in the Whitehouse, but when asked what she did to affect foreign policy, she came up with some pretty good whoppers. The most memorable one is her 1996 Bosnia trip which she said that she had to dodge snipper fire. She told this story 3 times, before someone decided to do some fact checking. Unfortuneately for Hillary that trip was video taped. There was no running to cars, ducking snipper fire, or running for cover as she stated. She wasn't even wearing a flack vest. In fact her daughter Chelsea was there and they had a meeting on the flight line where an eight year old girl presented her with a letter and a hug. Then she met with some high schoolers. All this outside and in the open. I saw no panic of any kind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4 After the video tape surfaced, Clinton said she was mistaken. A good leader must have creditablity. Clinton appears to have none. Even more troubling about this incident, Chelsea Clinton had backed her story.

• Hillary and Bill are actively campaigning for her Presidency, but when looking at them together I am reminded of all that went wrong in Bill's presidency not just those better economic times that we all desperately want to return; Loss of Many Good American Jobs From NAFTA, A Failed Health Care Plan, A Painful Impeachment Trial, Monica, Paula, Gennifer, and That Finger Wagging Statement "I didn't have sex with that woman". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related I'm not sure America wants to return to that time.
  
• Finally, Hillary was actually given a formal task by President Bill Clinton. She chaired the "Task Force on National Health Care Reform" in 1993. By 1994, it was dead, it never even came to a vote in a Democrat dominated Congress. Many fingers point at Hillary for its defeat. She had secret meetings with the health care companies. She wouldn't listen to leaders in the Democratic congress. She couldn't even bring members of her own party together to support her. Good leaders listen and bring people together, not divide them.

I put a lot of time into looking at these two candidates. I looked at John Edwards, too before his demise. Gender doesn't matter, race doesn't matter, or just talk doesn't matter. I hope this may help you make a decision. I don't pick leaders lightly and you shouldn't either.
Sincerely,
Gary Lee Former Air Force Sgt.