Welcome to the office as the leader of the world's most powerful nation (how much longer will we be able to lay claim to that title?), President-elect Barack Obama. A resounding victory over Senator John McCain was a decisive and clear mandate to begin the healing that really should not have to wait for your inauguration on January 20, 2009, which, to most people of this country and countries around the world cannot come fast enough.
However, going rather unnoticed to some degree was how you have already been anointed president by none other than that most loquacious asshole of all time, Rush Limbaugh, calling you, the day after your victory, a "Chicago thug." To emphasize his point, he repeated it in his very next breath. After all, his listeners deserve nothing but the best intellectual discourse from their leader.
Ah, but he wasn't finished. A week later he blamed the economic meltdown on you. Really. Any person with a fraction of intelligence who would believe that deserves to have Limbaugh as their spokesman.
But, enough of that idiot. The point of this is that you have just entered a new world, a world that millions of Americans have been waiting for a long time: eight years by many, two centuries by many others. Your campaign mantra of change, a change we can believe in, a yes we can, and a leader in the making, laid claim that the tens of thousands that turned out for you at your campaign rallies was not a fluke. That was proven when the polls that consistently had you ahead by an average of six percentage points over McCain held up on election day.
Voter suppression and vote balloting manipulation fell by the wayside as the turnout in your favor was too much for anyone to try to overturn. If exit surveys are to be believed, and I would hope that voters were honest in their responses, for every voter who voted against you because of your race, there were as many, if not more, who voted for you because of your race.
Personally, I voted for you because of who you are, and what you represent to me: integrity, intelligence, temperament, hope, inspiration, leadership, and an open and honest dialogue with the American people. If you were white, grey, green, purple, whatever, what is beneath your skin is what is important.
And, for me, as I said earlier in this modest report of mine, January 20, 2009, cannot get here fast enough.
Congratulations, President-elect Barack Obama. Finally, a return of intelligence to the White House. There is hope after all.
Peace.
Larry
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Where Have You Gone John McCain?
As I take pride in being an independent voter, always voting for the man (or woman, had one found her way to center stage) with honorable policies and principals and not get caught up in campaign rhetoric, I looked forward to the presidential primaries of 2000 to see if there was someone out there who I thought best fit those values.
Senator John McCain caught my interest early on with his "straight talk express," a bus ride of reporters on the campaign trail that was open to any and all questions, answers, comments, whether we approved or disapproved of what he said. It was refreshing to hear and see this approach, a maverick and honest approach that began to catch on here in the northeast.
I discounted his involvement in the Keating Five banking scandal of the early eighties as poor judgement by McCain that was shortsighted and regrettable and in the years following that scandal he appeared to have righted himself.
Proclaiming to be a fighter and loving the underdog status that the press knighted him with, he stole the show early in the 2000 Republican primaries with an upset win over George Bush in New Hampshire. NH's motto -Live Free Or Die - seemed to be a perfect fit for McCain and the state's voters, propelling him onward to South Carolina where the primary race, and McCain's political future, would change dramatically.
The Bush team, a group who would say and do anything to win, whatever it took, sent out a public message that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. I never thought this to be true and what followed was where I began to question the "fighter" he proclaimed to be. McCain had every right to be incensed, knowing full well that the charge was untrue (he and his wife Cindy had adopted a black child from Bangladesh after visiting that ravaged country, meeting many unfortunate and suffering children, fell in love with this child, and eventually took her home to Arizona).
McCain ruined my thought of possibly supporting him when he failed to fight back the charge by simply ignoring it. Bad advice? Poor decision? Whatever his reasoning, the fact that he did not fight back incensed me (if it were me I could not in all honesty just ignore it). Despite the courage he showed with his five and a half years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict, his lack of that fighting spirit with this outrageous charge left me with something less than any respect for him. And what of the devastation that his wife and family must have suffered? And what would he say to his child later on - "sorry dear, I didn't fight back?" "Why not, dad?"
Fast forward to the year 2008, a different McCain appeared before the voters - an older man but not necessarily wiser, very erratic, and not at all the person he appeared to be in 2000 He hired the same clowns who were instrumental in his 2000 derailment to run his 2008 campaign. Now, how smart and honorable is that really? Actually, quite dumb, and shows that he joined the ranks of those who will say and do anything to win, a position that I find very hard to accept.
I am not so naive to think that all, or any, politicians are honorable but his lack of fortitude and integrity in not standing up to this false charge showed me he lacks what it takes to be president - sound judgement, doing the right thing.
And what of his behavior during this campaign? He admitted he knows nothing about economics and proved it by hiring Senator Phil Gramm as his economic adviser who had the insensitivity to call us a "nation of whiners" when the economy began to tank. And to compound that outrageous insult McCain said "the fundamentals of our economy are sound."
How foolish did he look when he said he was not going to attend a scheduled tv debate with his opponent Senator Barack Obama, flying instead to Washington, (with his Superman's cape - my words), to "address the nation's economic problems," and being publicly rebuffed by his own party's House of Representatives in failing to develop a plan that he could present to the people? He attended a meeting with George Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen, and other economic and political leaders, including Obama. He further embarrassed himself at this meeting by not asking one question, not uttering one word, while Obama asked incisive questions all throughout the meeting. He then retracted his cancellation and went ahead with the debate. How presidential did that look?
And his supposedly experience in world affairs? "We'll stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary." "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." "A league of democracies," excluding the likes of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, to name a few. Great policy statements. Shows his hand on how he would face world problems.
After pledging to run an honest and fair campaign, every week, sometimes every day, he came up with a new policy, a new sound bite, a new lie or distorted statement about Obama. Although not entirely saintly himself, Obama stayed on message, defended the accusations as clearly as he could, energized the voters as never seen before in our history, save except for the John Kennedy years, and fought off the negative charges thrown at him by the McCain campaign who was hoping that something would stick and derail Obama as McCain had been thrown off track in 2000.
McCain continued to show his lack of judgement with his first major decision as the Republican candidate by choosing as his running mate a governor who, just two years earlier, was a mayor of a small town in Alaska and proclaimed to having foreign policy experience because she could see Russia on a clear day from her state. Now that is impressive. This, after saying earlier that his choice as veep "must be ready to step in on day one, in a heartbeat, because I am old."
And what of that 3AM call? I wouldn't want that irascible old man running around the White House in the dark, looking to press the button that would change the course of history for years to come.
The only similarity of the McCain 2000 and the McCain 2008 is in name and political party. Any and all attempts to meld the two is deceiving and fruitless.
Sorry John. We deserve better.
Peace.
Larry
Senator John McCain caught my interest early on with his "straight talk express," a bus ride of reporters on the campaign trail that was open to any and all questions, answers, comments, whether we approved or disapproved of what he said. It was refreshing to hear and see this approach, a maverick and honest approach that began to catch on here in the northeast.
I discounted his involvement in the Keating Five banking scandal of the early eighties as poor judgement by McCain that was shortsighted and regrettable and in the years following that scandal he appeared to have righted himself.
Proclaiming to be a fighter and loving the underdog status that the press knighted him with, he stole the show early in the 2000 Republican primaries with an upset win over George Bush in New Hampshire. NH's motto -Live Free Or Die - seemed to be a perfect fit for McCain and the state's voters, propelling him onward to South Carolina where the primary race, and McCain's political future, would change dramatically.
The Bush team, a group who would say and do anything to win, whatever it took, sent out a public message that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. I never thought this to be true and what followed was where I began to question the "fighter" he proclaimed to be. McCain had every right to be incensed, knowing full well that the charge was untrue (he and his wife Cindy had adopted a black child from Bangladesh after visiting that ravaged country, meeting many unfortunate and suffering children, fell in love with this child, and eventually took her home to Arizona).
McCain ruined my thought of possibly supporting him when he failed to fight back the charge by simply ignoring it. Bad advice? Poor decision? Whatever his reasoning, the fact that he did not fight back incensed me (if it were me I could not in all honesty just ignore it). Despite the courage he showed with his five and a half years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict, his lack of that fighting spirit with this outrageous charge left me with something less than any respect for him. And what of the devastation that his wife and family must have suffered? And what would he say to his child later on - "sorry dear, I didn't fight back?" "Why not, dad?"
Fast forward to the year 2008, a different McCain appeared before the voters - an older man but not necessarily wiser, very erratic, and not at all the person he appeared to be in 2000 He hired the same clowns who were instrumental in his 2000 derailment to run his 2008 campaign. Now, how smart and honorable is that really? Actually, quite dumb, and shows that he joined the ranks of those who will say and do anything to win, a position that I find very hard to accept.
I am not so naive to think that all, or any, politicians are honorable but his lack of fortitude and integrity in not standing up to this false charge showed me he lacks what it takes to be president - sound judgement, doing the right thing.
And what of his behavior during this campaign? He admitted he knows nothing about economics and proved it by hiring Senator Phil Gramm as his economic adviser who had the insensitivity to call us a "nation of whiners" when the economy began to tank. And to compound that outrageous insult McCain said "the fundamentals of our economy are sound."
How foolish did he look when he said he was not going to attend a scheduled tv debate with his opponent Senator Barack Obama, flying instead to Washington, (with his Superman's cape - my words), to "address the nation's economic problems," and being publicly rebuffed by his own party's House of Representatives in failing to develop a plan that he could present to the people? He attended a meeting with George Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen, and other economic and political leaders, including Obama. He further embarrassed himself at this meeting by not asking one question, not uttering one word, while Obama asked incisive questions all throughout the meeting. He then retracted his cancellation and went ahead with the debate. How presidential did that look?
And his supposedly experience in world affairs? "We'll stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary." "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." "A league of democracies," excluding the likes of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, to name a few. Great policy statements. Shows his hand on how he would face world problems.
After pledging to run an honest and fair campaign, every week, sometimes every day, he came up with a new policy, a new sound bite, a new lie or distorted statement about Obama. Although not entirely saintly himself, Obama stayed on message, defended the accusations as clearly as he could, energized the voters as never seen before in our history, save except for the John Kennedy years, and fought off the negative charges thrown at him by the McCain campaign who was hoping that something would stick and derail Obama as McCain had been thrown off track in 2000.
McCain continued to show his lack of judgement with his first major decision as the Republican candidate by choosing as his running mate a governor who, just two years earlier, was a mayor of a small town in Alaska and proclaimed to having foreign policy experience because she could see Russia on a clear day from her state. Now that is impressive. This, after saying earlier that his choice as veep "must be ready to step in on day one, in a heartbeat, because I am old."
And what of that 3AM call? I wouldn't want that irascible old man running around the White House in the dark, looking to press the button that would change the course of history for years to come.
The only similarity of the McCain 2000 and the McCain 2008 is in name and political party. Any and all attempts to meld the two is deceiving and fruitless.
Sorry John. We deserve better.
Peace.
Larry
Monday, October 27, 2008
EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About It!
The above words will bring back memories to many: some pleasant ones, some not so pleasant, and to many others, devastating, reflective, and, well, you choose the appropriate meaning.
To those who lived the years of the first half of the 20th century, they are etched in everyone's memory banks and does not require any mind twisting to figure out the meaning. After all, living the 1910's World War 1, the "over there" war (for those of you who may still be with us - bless you), the roaring and prohibition "wars" of the 1920s, the great stock market crash, depression and food lines of the 1930s, and the "great war," World War 11, and its aftermath of the 1940s, the words should hold meaning as no others to reflect the lives and culture of America and its people during those years.
And the babyboomers say "so?"
Well, here's so. And after I explain it, you might say "so?" again. Or "you must be kidding." But to those who remember it, it is a flashback to another time, when time seemed to stand still, to a shared family time, when sacrifice and caring meant something, and when helping your neighbor and/or a stranger was considered the thing to do.
Picture any of the above happening in a non 24/7 internet world, and trying to get the news of the day, most of which was a world shaping event.
Picture a young boy, age maybe 10, 11, but no older than 16 perhaps, dressed most certainly in shabby clothes, a billy cap perched on his head, clutching under one arm as many newspapers as he could hold, and in the other outstretched hand one copy of a newspaper of the day, and shouting out "extra...extra...extra...read all about it," bringing to Americans the news of the day. And in those days, almost every day had a shocking story to tell.
Queuing up to him would be a line comprised mostly of men (as I said, it was a different time, that is, until December 7, 1941), with a nickel in hand (5 cents - a day's wages for some, and yes, it was a different time), waiting anxiously to read the news as it was "happening." Off to the side would be others, who clearly did not have the nickel to spend, for they would also play a big part of this important picture.
"How so?" For, as one who had the money walked off to the side to read the newspaper, he or she would always, and I stress always, share the newspaper with those who were less fortunate. The sight of two, three, or perhaps more people, often times entire families or strangers, standing on the sidewalk, sharing a park bench, sharing "their" one newspaper, is a picture that is almost impossible to put into words. I am not qualified to do it justice but if I can somehow convey this image to you, then I have at least done it some good.
"Big deal," the boomers bellow. Well, my young ones, in those days there was no television, no internet (as the current oval office idiot would call it), not many telephones, and horror of all horrors, no cell phones or blackberries.
But wait, "what about radios?" Yes, almost every home or apartment had one. And yes, they did get their news by that "modern" invention. But it usually took place in the home with the family gathered around it once supper was finished (yes, in those days, one of the family requirements was to eat together as a family - as I said, it was a different time).
But "what about movie theatre news?" Ah yes, the movies. They are a story for another day. But for this story, audiences were treated to news clippings in between the two feature movies, on film that was flown in overnight from the battlefields and seas, (yes, two movies, and they had audio - how about that? - and, yes, it was...).
Sometimes, one longs for "the good old days," even if it was during periods of war, hunger, human and racial injustices, and of difficult economic times.
"Wait a minute, this sounds like today. Weren't you talking about the first half of the 20th century?" (funny how things change many times but yet somehow they remain the same). Yes I was. I was merely pointing out one tiny segment that is unknown to more than half the population of the United States.
But if you read carefully the themes that each generation lived, gone to a large degree is the sharing and caring, helping your neighbor or stranger, and family togetherness. Norman Rockwell painted many scenes that played out in those years. But he did not do one about the "newspaper boy." Too bad, especially for those who did not live those years.
That one scene captures all that was good in those times.
Peace.
Larry
To those who lived the years of the first half of the 20th century, they are etched in everyone's memory banks and does not require any mind twisting to figure out the meaning. After all, living the 1910's World War 1, the "over there" war (for those of you who may still be with us - bless you), the roaring and prohibition "wars" of the 1920s, the great stock market crash, depression and food lines of the 1930s, and the "great war," World War 11, and its aftermath of the 1940s, the words should hold meaning as no others to reflect the lives and culture of America and its people during those years.
And the babyboomers say "so?"
Well, here's so. And after I explain it, you might say "so?" again. Or "you must be kidding." But to those who remember it, it is a flashback to another time, when time seemed to stand still, to a shared family time, when sacrifice and caring meant something, and when helping your neighbor and/or a stranger was considered the thing to do.
Picture any of the above happening in a non 24/7 internet world, and trying to get the news of the day, most of which was a world shaping event.
Picture a young boy, age maybe 10, 11, but no older than 16 perhaps, dressed most certainly in shabby clothes, a billy cap perched on his head, clutching under one arm as many newspapers as he could hold, and in the other outstretched hand one copy of a newspaper of the day, and shouting out "extra...extra...extra...read all about it," bringing to Americans the news of the day. And in those days, almost every day had a shocking story to tell.
Queuing up to him would be a line comprised mostly of men (as I said, it was a different time, that is, until December 7, 1941), with a nickel in hand (5 cents - a day's wages for some, and yes, it was a different time), waiting anxiously to read the news as it was "happening." Off to the side would be others, who clearly did not have the nickel to spend, for they would also play a big part of this important picture.
"How so?" For, as one who had the money walked off to the side to read the newspaper, he or she would always, and I stress always, share the newspaper with those who were less fortunate. The sight of two, three, or perhaps more people, often times entire families or strangers, standing on the sidewalk, sharing a park bench, sharing "their" one newspaper, is a picture that is almost impossible to put into words. I am not qualified to do it justice but if I can somehow convey this image to you, then I have at least done it some good.
"Big deal," the boomers bellow. Well, my young ones, in those days there was no television, no internet (as the current oval office idiot would call it), not many telephones, and horror of all horrors, no cell phones or blackberries.
But wait, "what about radios?" Yes, almost every home or apartment had one. And yes, they did get their news by that "modern" invention. But it usually took place in the home with the family gathered around it once supper was finished (yes, in those days, one of the family requirements was to eat together as a family - as I said, it was a different time).
But "what about movie theatre news?" Ah yes, the movies. They are a story for another day. But for this story, audiences were treated to news clippings in between the two feature movies, on film that was flown in overnight from the battlefields and seas, (yes, two movies, and they had audio - how about that? - and, yes, it was...).
Sometimes, one longs for "the good old days," even if it was during periods of war, hunger, human and racial injustices, and of difficult economic times.
"Wait a minute, this sounds like today. Weren't you talking about the first half of the 20th century?" (funny how things change many times but yet somehow they remain the same). Yes I was. I was merely pointing out one tiny segment that is unknown to more than half the population of the United States.
But if you read carefully the themes that each generation lived, gone to a large degree is the sharing and caring, helping your neighbor or stranger, and family togetherness. Norman Rockwell painted many scenes that played out in those years. But he did not do one about the "newspaper boy." Too bad, especially for those who did not live those years.
That one scene captures all that was good in those times.
Peace.
Larry
Here We Go
Written on 10/24/08
Before I go into my usual rant let me say right up front that I would give anything - well, almost anything - for someone to say that "you're wrong Larry, you don't know what the hell you are talking about" re the following.
I have written before that the Republicans have three game plans to turn to in ensuring a victory in this year's presidential election ( there must be a reason that John McCain is smiling). The first was voter suppression currently being challenged in as many as nineteen states and is a plan concocted as long ago as 2000. Remember that fiasco?
The second is just now getting national attention - voting machine/ballot manipulation.
Early balloting is underway in twenty-nine states. And if the complaints and horror stories that have been recorded so far is any indication of what to expect in this election, which is projected to be a record turnout, the 2000 balloting mess will seem like child's play by comparison.
Voting machines misalignment, voting machines not recording the vote correctly, if at all, casting votes for Democrats recorded in the Republican Party's column, many machines not functioning at all, long lines to cast a vote of three hours or more, untrained poll workers, are just some of the complaints so far.
On and on and on and where will the merry-go-round stop? Only the Republicans know for sure.
Remember the old catch phrase "we can send a man to the moon but we can't - " (you finish the sentence)?
Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969. Almost FORTY YEARS ago.
We can do wondrous things with our computers, we can do incredible scientific and medical research, we can do so many things that are seemingly impossible (except to provide affordable health care for everyone and to ensure that the bank/stock brokers are playing the game fairly, but those and many other stories are for another day) that it stretches beyond our imagination.
We have more power in our cell phones than what was available for the computers that guided us to the moon.
And we can't design and build a voting machine that works properly?
Because we don't want to. I say "we" loosely because the contracts are controlled by the government (Bush and his clownsmen are still in charge last I looked) and are given to corporations that support the Republican agenda.
So until some Democrats grow some testicular fortitude this will continue to be a problem.
Or until Barack Obama's lead becomes so large that it would be impossible for anyone who has any brain matter about him or her (I guess this rules out the Republicans) to even think that such a large lead could be overcome without the voting machines being tampered with.
I believe that it is imperative that if Obama and his supporters want to feel "comfortable" (oh how I hate that word in such an important election) his poll numbers must reach double digits and continue to climb unabated.
Why can't we have an honest and fair election? And we call ourselves a democracy? And we are intent on spreading our "democracy" to the rest of the world?
Some example we are setting.
Peace.
Larry
Before I go into my usual rant let me say right up front that I would give anything - well, almost anything - for someone to say that "you're wrong Larry, you don't know what the hell you are talking about" re the following.
I have written before that the Republicans have three game plans to turn to in ensuring a victory in this year's presidential election ( there must be a reason that John McCain is smiling). The first was voter suppression currently being challenged in as many as nineteen states and is a plan concocted as long ago as 2000. Remember that fiasco?
The second is just now getting national attention - voting machine/ballot manipulation.
Early balloting is underway in twenty-nine states. And if the complaints and horror stories that have been recorded so far is any indication of what to expect in this election, which is projected to be a record turnout, the 2000 balloting mess will seem like child's play by comparison.
Voting machines misalignment, voting machines not recording the vote correctly, if at all, casting votes for Democrats recorded in the Republican Party's column, many machines not functioning at all, long lines to cast a vote of three hours or more, untrained poll workers, are just some of the complaints so far.
On and on and on and where will the merry-go-round stop? Only the Republicans know for sure.
Remember the old catch phrase "we can send a man to the moon but we can't - " (you finish the sentence)?
Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969. Almost FORTY YEARS ago.
We can do wondrous things with our computers, we can do incredible scientific and medical research, we can do so many things that are seemingly impossible (except to provide affordable health care for everyone and to ensure that the bank/stock brokers are playing the game fairly, but those and many other stories are for another day) that it stretches beyond our imagination.
We have more power in our cell phones than what was available for the computers that guided us to the moon.
And we can't design and build a voting machine that works properly?
Because we don't want to. I say "we" loosely because the contracts are controlled by the government (Bush and his clownsmen are still in charge last I looked) and are given to corporations that support the Republican agenda.
So until some Democrats grow some testicular fortitude this will continue to be a problem.
Or until Barack Obama's lead becomes so large that it would be impossible for anyone who has any brain matter about him or her (I guess this rules out the Republicans) to even think that such a large lead could be overcome without the voting machines being tampered with.
I believe that it is imperative that if Obama and his supporters want to feel "comfortable" (oh how I hate that word in such an important election) his poll numbers must reach double digits and continue to climb unabated.
Why can't we have an honest and fair election? And we call ourselves a democracy? And we are intent on spreading our "democracy" to the rest of the world?
Some example we are setting.
Peace.
Larry
Why Is John McCain Smiling?
I don't know about you, but for someone like Senator John McCain to be smiling that smile, that sinister smile, as he trails in just about every poll, suggests to me that perhaps he knows something that we voters don't know.
There must be something more to the "we have Obama just where we want him" than meets the eye of the voter.
Could it be that he really believes what he is saying on the stump, that he loves being the underdog, that he has been there before, and that he is going to pull off the upset of all upsets?
Is there something behind that Mona Lise smile - is he smiling with us, or against us?
Or maybe he knows that he is going to win, that it is just a matter of going though the motions.
I have written before that he and the Republicans have three game plans ready be implemented to ensure that McCain wins the election.
The first of three is already underway - voter suppression.
The Republicans have managed since 2000, with the help of the Democrats seemingly ignoring the importance of the issue, to make inroads in having their representatives placed on the state election registration boards, and establishing rules that govern the eligibility of voters to vote. In many states if there is not a perfect match of drivers license, social security number, and registration information, a voter will find that his or her vote will not count, even if they somehow manage to find their way to the voting booth.
This clearly is aimed at Democratic voters, many of whom are minorities who don't have a drivers license, many seniors who don't drive, urbanites who see no need to have a license, etc.
And it doesn't stop there. If someone were to register on one document with an initial, and on another document spelling out the name, that voter would be denied his/her right to vote.
Oh, how many times have I filled out forms involving job applications, health information, etc., and not used my middle initial. We all are guilty of it.
But not to get away from the subject at hand, with new voters registering at a five to one ratio, Democrat to Republican, this will certainly impact the election. It has already been declared that twenty percent of new voters in Colorado will not be able to vote. And it took the Ohio State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that would have denied 200,000 voters their voting rights.
To put the Ohio voter suppression in perspective, Senator John Kerry lost the Ohio vote to George Bush in 2004 by 119,000 votes
As many as fifteen states may find many of their voters being denied their right to vote.
For as simple as an initial. Or a clerical error. Really now.
And McCain goes around bragging about putting "country first.?" And he and his running mate are questioning Senator Barack Obama's "patriotism?" This is unconscionable.
I said before the Republicans have three game plans to steal this election. The other two are voting machine/balloting manipulation and creating a terrorist threat.With the success that the Republicans appear to be having with voter suppression, game plans numbers two and three may not be needed.
So I do not put any faith in the polling data that show Obama leading, in some cases by double digits.
It may not matter.
This may not be the greatest presidential election upset of all time - it would be the greatest highway robbery of all time, making the 2000 debacle seem like child's play.
Peace.
Larry
There must be something more to the "we have Obama just where we want him" than meets the eye of the voter.
Could it be that he really believes what he is saying on the stump, that he loves being the underdog, that he has been there before, and that he is going to pull off the upset of all upsets?
Is there something behind that Mona Lise smile - is he smiling with us, or against us?
Or maybe he knows that he is going to win, that it is just a matter of going though the motions.
I have written before that he and the Republicans have three game plans ready be implemented to ensure that McCain wins the election.
The first of three is already underway - voter suppression.
The Republicans have managed since 2000, with the help of the Democrats seemingly ignoring the importance of the issue, to make inroads in having their representatives placed on the state election registration boards, and establishing rules that govern the eligibility of voters to vote. In many states if there is not a perfect match of drivers license, social security number, and registration information, a voter will find that his or her vote will not count, even if they somehow manage to find their way to the voting booth.
This clearly is aimed at Democratic voters, many of whom are minorities who don't have a drivers license, many seniors who don't drive, urbanites who see no need to have a license, etc.
And it doesn't stop there. If someone were to register on one document with an initial, and on another document spelling out the name, that voter would be denied his/her right to vote.
Oh, how many times have I filled out forms involving job applications, health information, etc., and not used my middle initial. We all are guilty of it.
But not to get away from the subject at hand, with new voters registering at a five to one ratio, Democrat to Republican, this will certainly impact the election. It has already been declared that twenty percent of new voters in Colorado will not be able to vote. And it took the Ohio State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that would have denied 200,000 voters their voting rights.
To put the Ohio voter suppression in perspective, Senator John Kerry lost the Ohio vote to George Bush in 2004 by 119,000 votes
As many as fifteen states may find many of their voters being denied their right to vote.
For as simple as an initial. Or a clerical error. Really now.
And McCain goes around bragging about putting "country first.?" And he and his running mate are questioning Senator Barack Obama's "patriotism?" This is unconscionable.
I said before the Republicans have three game plans to steal this election. The other two are voting machine/balloting manipulation and creating a terrorist threat.With the success that the Republicans appear to be having with voter suppression, game plans numbers two and three may not be needed.
So I do not put any faith in the polling data that show Obama leading, in some cases by double digits.
It may not matter.
This may not be the greatest presidential election upset of all time - it would be the greatest highway robbery of all time, making the 2000 debacle seem like child's play.
Peace.
Larry
Friday, October 10, 2008
Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee
As I watched the debate on Tuesday night it became apparent to me early on that I felt I was watching a boxing match.
The entire scene brought me back to the year 1964, when boxing was considered one of our most popular "sports" and a world heavyweight championship title fight between the challenger, Muhammad Ali, 22 years young, and the reigning champion, Sonny Liston, 12 years his senior.
For those of us who are not followers of the fight game, a title bout is scheduled to go fifteen rounds of three minutes each, with one minute rests in between rounds, provided no one scores a knockout - putting your opponent down and out, unable to get up and continue - before the end of fifteen rounds. Points are awarded for style, effort, punches landed and avoided, etc.
Ali predicted he would win the fight by employing a strategy that would totally befuddle the older and stronger and more experienced Liston by moving about quickly, deftly, elusively, making Liston miss his knockout punches, and hitting Liston with sharp, accurate blows, not putting him down but scoring the points needed to win.
The strategy called for Ali to - float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Ali won, a new champion.
Watching the debate, as Senator John McCain, the older veteran, circled the stage and stalked his opponent with a hunched over, grizzled, and angry look about him, I thought of Liston in that 1964 fight. He attacked, he swung wildly and angrily, and missed more blows than he landed. And the more he missed the more frustrated he became.
And of course the younger Senator Barack Obama was the epitome of Ali as he moved about so carefully, so methodically, so calm and cool, with his calculated punches landing ever so sharply, piling up the points as the fight wore on, satisfied that his plan was working and would serve him and his supporters well.
So, was there a winner Tuesday night? A tie? What did the performance of each candidate say to you? Did you see it as I did? Was I just reliving a momentous moment in sports history? Am I completely out of touch with reality? Am I being biased?
Who appeared to have the "steadier hand on the wheel?"
Who would you want to be receiving that "3 AM call?"
With two debates in the history books, with each "fight" of five rounds recorded, next Wednesday's debate will be the final "five rounds." By consensus of the experts and polls, it appears that Obama is currently ahead on points.
Will McCain be able to land the knockout punch that he will certainly need to win? Will Obama continue his successful strategy and maintain his lead?
Or will McCain and his fellow Republican strategists resort to the three remaining game plans in their arsenal : voter suppression, voting machine manipulation, and the fear factor - manufacture a "terrorist threat?"
Float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Tune in - it should be one hell of a fight.
Peace.
Larry
The entire scene brought me back to the year 1964, when boxing was considered one of our most popular "sports" and a world heavyweight championship title fight between the challenger, Muhammad Ali, 22 years young, and the reigning champion, Sonny Liston, 12 years his senior.
For those of us who are not followers of the fight game, a title bout is scheduled to go fifteen rounds of three minutes each, with one minute rests in between rounds, provided no one scores a knockout - putting your opponent down and out, unable to get up and continue - before the end of fifteen rounds. Points are awarded for style, effort, punches landed and avoided, etc.
Ali predicted he would win the fight by employing a strategy that would totally befuddle the older and stronger and more experienced Liston by moving about quickly, deftly, elusively, making Liston miss his knockout punches, and hitting Liston with sharp, accurate blows, not putting him down but scoring the points needed to win.
The strategy called for Ali to - float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Ali won, a new champion.
Watching the debate, as Senator John McCain, the older veteran, circled the stage and stalked his opponent with a hunched over, grizzled, and angry look about him, I thought of Liston in that 1964 fight. He attacked, he swung wildly and angrily, and missed more blows than he landed. And the more he missed the more frustrated he became.
And of course the younger Senator Barack Obama was the epitome of Ali as he moved about so carefully, so methodically, so calm and cool, with his calculated punches landing ever so sharply, piling up the points as the fight wore on, satisfied that his plan was working and would serve him and his supporters well.
So, was there a winner Tuesday night? A tie? What did the performance of each candidate say to you? Did you see it as I did? Was I just reliving a momentous moment in sports history? Am I completely out of touch with reality? Am I being biased?
Who appeared to have the "steadier hand on the wheel?"
Who would you want to be receiving that "3 AM call?"
With two debates in the history books, with each "fight" of five rounds recorded, next Wednesday's debate will be the final "five rounds." By consensus of the experts and polls, it appears that Obama is currently ahead on points.
Will McCain be able to land the knockout punch that he will certainly need to win? Will Obama continue his successful strategy and maintain his lead?
Or will McCain and his fellow Republican strategists resort to the three remaining game plans in their arsenal : voter suppression, voting machine manipulation, and the fear factor - manufacture a "terrorist threat?"
Float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Tune in - it should be one hell of a fight.
Peace.
Larry
Lingering Thoughts on the Vice Presidential Debate
With last Thursday's "debate" between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin now history, the most anticipated debate since they began in 1960, and drawing the most viewers, did it live up to the hype? Did it answer our questions? Did it raise more questions than it answered? Did it underscore the importance of the vice presidency? Did it highlight the weaknesses and strengths of both candidates? And what they would bring to their administrations?
On all accounts, you betcha.
The contrasts between Biden and Palin were on display and never more apparent right from the beginning: Biden, with his confident presence, having been in the Congress for 35 years and having gone through so many of these debates, versus Palin, and her relatively short political career, early butterflies, and having the enormous pressure of disproving the negative press and shortcomings in recent tv interviews, and having to prove that she belonged on that stage.
It also became apparent as the questions were presented by Gwen Ifill that Biden was determined to be very disciplined, to be respectful of Palin, and that his answers and comments were those that he could recite in his sleep. Say what you want of Biden, he knows his stuff, he is confident, and as vice president he is ready to step in on "day one" if necessary.
Palin was determined to prove that McCain's choosing her as his running mate was not a political gimmick, that she was not going to be intimidated, and that she has the intelligence and grasp of issues that qualify her to be ready on "day one." Say what you want of Palin, she has "testicular" fortitude.
Darn right, you betcha, wink.
However, it was very obvious that she lacked in depth knowledge of many issues, and her answers, when she chose to answer the question at hand, were standard fare, very repetitive, and often incoherent, preferring to continually bring up the issue of energy which she appears to have a lot of experience.
Give her credit though for this: she is intelligent, she is charismatic,she is confident, the tv cameras love her, and her personal story of family and meteoric rise to be at the side of possibly the next president is very compelling. She and McCain may fall short this year but she has a future in politics that may play out to the dismay of the Democrats in the future. There may be but a handful of people in the world who would be able to cram in so much information in such a short period of time and be able to stand up before a record shattering tv audience and try to convince the American people that she is ready from "day one."
Having said that though, if it were not for the fact that the Republicans made an issue of Ifill's writing a book that might bring into question her objectivity and impartiality to her moderating the program (note: this was known to the producers, organizers, and the Republicans as far back as August 2008, no one had a problem with it, and the book was not about Obama but about blacks during the years of Obama being in the political spotlight), Palin's "I'm not going to answer that question" and going back to her repetitive talking points, Ifill or any other moderator might not have been so forgiving.
Did the debate answer at the very least who appears to be more ready to step in on "day one?"
Darn right it did. You betcha. No wink here people. This is serious.
Peace.
Larry
On all accounts, you betcha.
The contrasts between Biden and Palin were on display and never more apparent right from the beginning: Biden, with his confident presence, having been in the Congress for 35 years and having gone through so many of these debates, versus Palin, and her relatively short political career, early butterflies, and having the enormous pressure of disproving the negative press and shortcomings in recent tv interviews, and having to prove that she belonged on that stage.
It also became apparent as the questions were presented by Gwen Ifill that Biden was determined to be very disciplined, to be respectful of Palin, and that his answers and comments were those that he could recite in his sleep. Say what you want of Biden, he knows his stuff, he is confident, and as vice president he is ready to step in on "day one" if necessary.
Palin was determined to prove that McCain's choosing her as his running mate was not a political gimmick, that she was not going to be intimidated, and that she has the intelligence and grasp of issues that qualify her to be ready on "day one." Say what you want of Palin, she has "testicular" fortitude.
Darn right, you betcha, wink.
However, it was very obvious that she lacked in depth knowledge of many issues, and her answers, when she chose to answer the question at hand, were standard fare, very repetitive, and often incoherent, preferring to continually bring up the issue of energy which she appears to have a lot of experience.
Give her credit though for this: she is intelligent, she is charismatic,she is confident, the tv cameras love her, and her personal story of family and meteoric rise to be at the side of possibly the next president is very compelling. She and McCain may fall short this year but she has a future in politics that may play out to the dismay of the Democrats in the future. There may be but a handful of people in the world who would be able to cram in so much information in such a short period of time and be able to stand up before a record shattering tv audience and try to convince the American people that she is ready from "day one."
Having said that though, if it were not for the fact that the Republicans made an issue of Ifill's writing a book that might bring into question her objectivity and impartiality to her moderating the program (note: this was known to the producers, organizers, and the Republicans as far back as August 2008, no one had a problem with it, and the book was not about Obama but about blacks during the years of Obama being in the political spotlight), Palin's "I'm not going to answer that question" and going back to her repetitive talking points, Ifill or any other moderator might not have been so forgiving.
Did the debate answer at the very least who appears to be more ready to step in on "day one?"
Darn right it did. You betcha. No wink here people. This is serious.
Peace.
Larry
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Hillary Clinton 2008 - R.I.P.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have taken the people of the U.S. on a roller coaster ride since the early 90s. Though Bill's tumultuous presidency was often rewarding, it was often disappointing. But always one hell of a ride. If you could stomach it.
Hillary was the ever supportive mate. At least that is the picture she took pains to convey in public. Many of us would give up much, temporarily at least, to be the proverbial fly on the wall as the two of them went at it over everything political to Bill's awful addiction to chasing every skirt that wasn't nailed shut.
It wasn't a secret of any kind, despite her denials, that she eventually would want to start her own political career. Winning a lop-sided victory for the US Senate in New York made it very clear that it was just a temporary victory. Hillary had her sights on something bigger - the US Presidency.
But one thing was clear to most of us. Hillary was committed to one goal - becoming President - at any cost. Even if it created a division within the Democratic party, a division that could possibly cost the general election the Dems "can't lose." That she would say anything, and do anything, to achieve this goal was written all over her face. After all, she learned at the seat of the grand master - Bill.
Considering that as late as January of this year Hillary was the presumptive Democratic nominee to where we now find her in what must be considered a very precarious position boggles the mind. Yes, there were all the gaffes, the poor planning, the in-fighting among her surrogates, Bill's screw-ups and need for attention, every week a different face, a different message, on and on and on. Through all of this drama Hillary and her supporters have managed to make it a very close primary race.
Last Friday Hillary uttered some very damaging words, words that will go down in political history as one of the most horrendous, hurtful, and outrageous comments ever. Said for the third time, but this time it grew legs so fast that it went around the world in minutes, Hillary said she was in the race until June because "things happen in June. Bill was nominated in June of '92. And Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June." Political suicide.
Her supporters are defending her, that Hillary was making a historical reference. If so, making any reference to an assassination of any kind, of anyone, successful or attempted, in a political race, and one so charged with passion from the outset is obscene.
"Things happen in June." So Hillary is staying in the race because "things happen in June?" And her opponent just happens to be Barack Obama, a "skinny black kid with a funny name," a black that many hateful Americans would prefer he not be around?
I am sorry but I refuse to think that Hillary just misspoke. This thought was on her mind, has been on her mind for a long time, and just lends credence to the now well earned "Hillary will say anything, will do anything."
Whether intended or not, it truly goes beyond the pale.
Hillary's "apology" was weak and lacked feeling. "If I offended anyone" is not an apology. Get real. And her "deer in the headlights" look as she spoke was not one of regret for any hurt she may have caused but a look of "oh shit, I have just screwed my political career, big time."
There is a bit of sunshine in all this mess. Hillary has just made some political decisions easier for many - voters, super delegates, and Obama. Hillary can forget the nomination. Hillary can forget being offered the vice-presidency as Obama's running mate.
The Clintons have taken us for a roller coaster ride for a long time. The ride is coming to an end.
Peace.
Larry
Hillary was the ever supportive mate. At least that is the picture she took pains to convey in public. Many of us would give up much, temporarily at least, to be the proverbial fly on the wall as the two of them went at it over everything political to Bill's awful addiction to chasing every skirt that wasn't nailed shut.
It wasn't a secret of any kind, despite her denials, that she eventually would want to start her own political career. Winning a lop-sided victory for the US Senate in New York made it very clear that it was just a temporary victory. Hillary had her sights on something bigger - the US Presidency.
But one thing was clear to most of us. Hillary was committed to one goal - becoming President - at any cost. Even if it created a division within the Democratic party, a division that could possibly cost the general election the Dems "can't lose." That she would say anything, and do anything, to achieve this goal was written all over her face. After all, she learned at the seat of the grand master - Bill.
Considering that as late as January of this year Hillary was the presumptive Democratic nominee to where we now find her in what must be considered a very precarious position boggles the mind. Yes, there were all the gaffes, the poor planning, the in-fighting among her surrogates, Bill's screw-ups and need for attention, every week a different face, a different message, on and on and on. Through all of this drama Hillary and her supporters have managed to make it a very close primary race.
Last Friday Hillary uttered some very damaging words, words that will go down in political history as one of the most horrendous, hurtful, and outrageous comments ever. Said for the third time, but this time it grew legs so fast that it went around the world in minutes, Hillary said she was in the race until June because "things happen in June. Bill was nominated in June of '92. And Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June." Political suicide.
Her supporters are defending her, that Hillary was making a historical reference. If so, making any reference to an assassination of any kind, of anyone, successful or attempted, in a political race, and one so charged with passion from the outset is obscene.
"Things happen in June." So Hillary is staying in the race because "things happen in June?" And her opponent just happens to be Barack Obama, a "skinny black kid with a funny name," a black that many hateful Americans would prefer he not be around?
I am sorry but I refuse to think that Hillary just misspoke. This thought was on her mind, has been on her mind for a long time, and just lends credence to the now well earned "Hillary will say anything, will do anything."
Whether intended or not, it truly goes beyond the pale.
Hillary's "apology" was weak and lacked feeling. "If I offended anyone" is not an apology. Get real. And her "deer in the headlights" look as she spoke was not one of regret for any hurt she may have caused but a look of "oh shit, I have just screwed my political career, big time."
There is a bit of sunshine in all this mess. Hillary has just made some political decisions easier for many - voters, super delegates, and Obama. Hillary can forget the nomination. Hillary can forget being offered the vice-presidency as Obama's running mate.
The Clintons have taken us for a roller coaster ride for a long time. The ride is coming to an end.
Peace.
Larry
Saturday, May 17, 2008
So, Hillary, What Now?
While Hillary Clinton's rout of Barack Obama in West "By God" Virginia's primary may seem like a steroid booster shot to her campaign, it is not considered to stop the inevitable road of Barack's nomination as the Democratic Party presidential candidate. Although she is expected to do well in the remaining primaries, unless each primary results in a 90% victory, it will do little to alter the math. Clinton's hopes rest on convincing the super delegates that only she can maintain the party's voters base and that Obama is "unelectable."
For Clinton to still remain in the race, despite all the missteps, gaffes, every week a different face, a different message, memory loss, turning the race into a race about race, Bill's constant need for attention, "dodging bullets in Bosnia," denials, and organizational screw-ups, etc., etc., etc., is it a testament to her fighting spirit and determination? Is it a sense of entitlement? A place in US history, the first woman president? Yes to all of the above.
Credit must also be given to her loyal supporters who are hoping to be a part of history.
So what to do now, Hillary? Continue on with the campaign? Continue your wooing of the super delegates? Get the rules committee to rule in Michigan and Florida that benefits you? Or do you come up with another way of moving the goal posts? Considering how many times the goal posts have been moved, it is amazing that the game itself is still recognizable.
Is Clinton's change of tune this past week a "victory lap" to thank her supporters for their continued belief in her? Might she be playing "nice" so that if she ultimately loses she will ask Obama to pay off her $20 million and counting campaign debt? With her and Bill earning $107 million in 6 years and her campaign is financially running out of money? Is this any way to be fiscally responsible? And we are to entrust her with over seeing a multi-trillion dollar government? And after she has called into question Obama's experience and electabilty she now may be asking Obama to bail her out? What nerve.
What many Democratic Party leaders and voters are hoping for is that she take a big step towards healing the party and gracefully bow out of the primary race.
Or might Hillary be warming up to the possibility of becoming the vice-presidential candidate?
Talk about a disaster waiting to happen. Can you picture Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama after she has claimed him to be "inexperienced, unelectable," etc.? I can't.
Can you see Obama being comfortable with Hillary? And with the oversized blowhard Bill in the background looking over both their shoulders? I can't.
Let me propose a scenario that absolutely blows my mind that would be the "ultimate blood bath":
For Clinton to still remain in the race, despite all the missteps, gaffes, every week a different face, a different message, memory loss, turning the race into a race about race, Bill's constant need for attention, "dodging bullets in Bosnia," denials, and organizational screw-ups, etc., etc., etc., is it a testament to her fighting spirit and determination? Is it a sense of entitlement? A place in US history, the first woman president? Yes to all of the above.
Credit must also be given to her loyal supporters who are hoping to be a part of history.
So what to do now, Hillary? Continue on with the campaign? Continue your wooing of the super delegates? Get the rules committee to rule in Michigan and Florida that benefits you? Or do you come up with another way of moving the goal posts? Considering how many times the goal posts have been moved, it is amazing that the game itself is still recognizable.
Is Clinton's change of tune this past week a "victory lap" to thank her supporters for their continued belief in her? Might she be playing "nice" so that if she ultimately loses she will ask Obama to pay off her $20 million and counting campaign debt? With her and Bill earning $107 million in 6 years and her campaign is financially running out of money? Is this any way to be fiscally responsible? And we are to entrust her with over seeing a multi-trillion dollar government? And after she has called into question Obama's experience and electabilty she now may be asking Obama to bail her out? What nerve.
What many Democratic Party leaders and voters are hoping for is that she take a big step towards healing the party and gracefully bow out of the primary race.
Or might Hillary be warming up to the possibility of becoming the vice-presidential candidate?
Talk about a disaster waiting to happen. Can you picture Hillary playing second fiddle to Obama after she has claimed him to be "inexperienced, unelectable," etc.? I can't.
Can you see Obama being comfortable with Hillary? And with the oversized blowhard Bill in the background looking over both their shoulders? I can't.
Let me propose a scenario that absolutely blows my mind that would be the "ultimate blood bath":
- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton versus John McCain and Condoleezza Rice
- Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann versus Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity
A media dream come true. The voters can't wait to get to the voting booth. Lock up the china.
A historic race in every sense of the word.
Peace.
Larry
Monday, May 5, 2008
John McCain: A Disaster Waiting to Happen
The sooner the Democratic Party nominates their presidential hopeful, the sooner, we the people, three very powerful words indeed, can truly begin the countdown to the November election. For, standing in the wings, and having a free run, and no doubt enjoying the machinations of the Democrats and thanking them for all sorts of material to use against them, is Senator John McCain: war hero, politically and personally courageous, maverick, cantankerous, unpredictable.
In the past several months, McCain has made some comments, misspeaks, and has declared positions that have not been fully challenged. This is due in large part to the media circus that has surrounded the Democratic primary with such important issues as Senator Hillary Clinton showing us she is "one of us" by downing shots and beer (what, no darts or pool?), and the Senator Barack Obama - Reverend Jeremiah Wright saga, a media love-fest not seen since the Clinton years of the '90s.
The question of McCain's knowledge, or lack of, concerning who is fighting who, and where, among the Iraqis, Iranians, Taliban, al Qaeda, et al, was discomforting to say the least. It became very serious when it was repeated three times, despite the efforts of Senator Joe Lieberman to help out his buddy. But this flap passed by as quickly as it arose.
Then there was McCain's admission to not having much expertise regarding economics, despite the US confronting its most serious economic problems since the great depression of the 1930s. Again this passed by very quietly.
There were other missteps and misspeaks, one which I thought was serious in its own way: that he would or should nominate someone young as a vice-president since he was "old." Honest statement? Depends how "old" is "old." Uh oh. We're in trouble.
But the media did us a disservice two weeks ago when they largely ignored a McCain policy speech in which he proposed to re-initiate the cold war by expelling Russia and excluding China from the group of advanced industrialized nations, the G8, and proposing a League of Democracies, and the nations that were not democracies would be excluded, including Russia and China. If you polled a thousand people, it would be surprising to find if there are ten who know about this. But you can bet the other 990 know who is battling it out on American Idol.
His latest flap is a beauty. So that I don't appear to be twisting his words to benefit this posting, here are McCain's own words: "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
I have read this statement over and over and I can only come to one conclusion, in my own mind and interpretation: the genie is out of the bottle. Or the cat is out of the bag. Or whatever group of words you want to use. McCain is admitting, publicly, what I have known and suspected, along with millions of others, that Georgie, Rottweiler, Rummy, and company left Afghanistan unfinished, ignored Osama bin Laden, and went into Iraq for OIL. Committed the lives of our young men and women for OIL. And McCain is pledging that we won't have to go into the Middle East again for OIL. It was all about OIL. It has always been about OIL.
But "we will have to stay there for a hundred years," another McCain declaration.
The cost of a barrel of oil when the US illegally and unjustifiably invaded Iraq was $26. The cost of a regular gallon of gas averaged $1.25.
But the biggest cost of all: 4,071 lives of young US men and women, and counting, and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis, and counting.
Hurry up Democrats. There is something wrong with this movie. If McCain is the next president, it does not have a happy ending. It does not have an ending.
Peace.
Larry
In the past several months, McCain has made some comments, misspeaks, and has declared positions that have not been fully challenged. This is due in large part to the media circus that has surrounded the Democratic primary with such important issues as Senator Hillary Clinton showing us she is "one of us" by downing shots and beer (what, no darts or pool?), and the Senator Barack Obama - Reverend Jeremiah Wright saga, a media love-fest not seen since the Clinton years of the '90s.
The question of McCain's knowledge, or lack of, concerning who is fighting who, and where, among the Iraqis, Iranians, Taliban, al Qaeda, et al, was discomforting to say the least. It became very serious when it was repeated three times, despite the efforts of Senator Joe Lieberman to help out his buddy. But this flap passed by as quickly as it arose.
Then there was McCain's admission to not having much expertise regarding economics, despite the US confronting its most serious economic problems since the great depression of the 1930s. Again this passed by very quietly.
There were other missteps and misspeaks, one which I thought was serious in its own way: that he would or should nominate someone young as a vice-president since he was "old." Honest statement? Depends how "old" is "old." Uh oh. We're in trouble.
But the media did us a disservice two weeks ago when they largely ignored a McCain policy speech in which he proposed to re-initiate the cold war by expelling Russia and excluding China from the group of advanced industrialized nations, the G8, and proposing a League of Democracies, and the nations that were not democracies would be excluded, including Russia and China. If you polled a thousand people, it would be surprising to find if there are ten who know about this. But you can bet the other 990 know who is battling it out on American Idol.
His latest flap is a beauty. So that I don't appear to be twisting his words to benefit this posting, here are McCain's own words: "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
I have read this statement over and over and I can only come to one conclusion, in my own mind and interpretation: the genie is out of the bottle. Or the cat is out of the bag. Or whatever group of words you want to use. McCain is admitting, publicly, what I have known and suspected, along with millions of others, that Georgie, Rottweiler, Rummy, and company left Afghanistan unfinished, ignored Osama bin Laden, and went into Iraq for OIL. Committed the lives of our young men and women for OIL. And McCain is pledging that we won't have to go into the Middle East again for OIL. It was all about OIL. It has always been about OIL.
But "we will have to stay there for a hundred years," another McCain declaration.
The cost of a barrel of oil when the US illegally and unjustifiably invaded Iraq was $26. The cost of a regular gallon of gas averaged $1.25.
But the biggest cost of all: 4,071 lives of young US men and women, and counting, and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis, and counting.
Hurry up Democrats. There is something wrong with this movie. If McCain is the next president, it does not have a happy ending. It does not have an ending.
Peace.
Larry
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Debate? or Debacle?
After watching twenty-one Democratic Party debates, one need not be a political junkie to become an "expert" on what makes for an intelligent discussion of the candidates' ideas, positions, and how they intend to make this a better, safer, and more prosperous and equitable country and world. We are looking for answers and guidance to many issues from the most basic: education, jobs, health care; to those that involve other parts of the world - Iraq, the entire mid-east, Russia, China, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, global warming - you name it. You would think that after twenty-one such debates all would have had some serious and in-depth discussion by now. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
What the public was subjected to, if they stayed tuned, was a sham, a display of politics and media at their worst. I'm sure many viewers would find reality shows more entertaining and more enlightening. Come to think of it, it was like a reality show, at least for the first half. The second half offered nothing more than a rehash of just a few topics that most of us can recite without much difficulty.
No one came away unbloodied. ABC News started out impersonating the National Enquirer and never recovered. The absolutely useless course of questions directed at Barack Obama matters zero to most except to entertain those who follow media driven "headlines" and "misspeaks." And to those who say that Obama will be subjected to more of the same from the Republicans when and if he receives the nomination, for those of who are looking for substantial debates - heaven help us.
I was extremely disappointed in both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Neither seemed to be inspired. And both failed to inspire. Obama looked like he wanted to be anywhere except on that stage. I began after a few minutes into the debate saying to myself - hey, Obama, say "can't we put all this dribble to rest and get to things that are important and matter to the people of this country?" He failed to do so.
Clinton was obviously enjoying seeing Obama squirm in the spotlight. But I said the same of her - let's get to the important stuff. But she didn't. Damn any important discussion. She has developed a reputation, helped along by Bill, for doing and saying whatever is necessary to win, including taking down the Democratic Party, and helping the debate turn into a debacle. She didn't help her cause either.
Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did not shower themselves with glory either. They received a lot of flack, deservedly so, for their line of questioning. Having a one-time aide and supporter of the Clintons, Stephanopoulos, as a moderator, is not very assuring that impartiality will prevail. And to come to the public's attention in the days following the debate that Shawn Hannity, a right winger if there ever was one, well maybe except for Rush Limbaugh, was dictating questions that Stephanopoulos should direct to Obama, smacks of conspiracy. We must remind ourselves the Republicans want to run against Clinton who will bring all the factions of the right together en masse in the fall election.
But what was most disappointing to me was that neither Obama nor Clinton appeared "presidential." Obama wasted an opportunity to take charge, to say "enough with this tabloid material, let's move on to more important issues facing all Americans." The feeling of mistrust, all the misspeaks and negative attacks by Clinton, including in her own words, her 'baggage," was draped around her like a disaster waiting to happen.
Being let down by the lackluster debate is one thing. To lose confidence in Obama and Clinton is something else. And more important. And more disturbing.
John McCain and all the right wingers must be licking their chops. But there is hope in all of this. McCain's free ride will come to an end soon. We hope.
Peace.
Larry
What the public was subjected to, if they stayed tuned, was a sham, a display of politics and media at their worst. I'm sure many viewers would find reality shows more entertaining and more enlightening. Come to think of it, it was like a reality show, at least for the first half. The second half offered nothing more than a rehash of just a few topics that most of us can recite without much difficulty.
No one came away unbloodied. ABC News started out impersonating the National Enquirer and never recovered. The absolutely useless course of questions directed at Barack Obama matters zero to most except to entertain those who follow media driven "headlines" and "misspeaks." And to those who say that Obama will be subjected to more of the same from the Republicans when and if he receives the nomination, for those of who are looking for substantial debates - heaven help us.
I was extremely disappointed in both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Neither seemed to be inspired. And both failed to inspire. Obama looked like he wanted to be anywhere except on that stage. I began after a few minutes into the debate saying to myself - hey, Obama, say "can't we put all this dribble to rest and get to things that are important and matter to the people of this country?" He failed to do so.
Clinton was obviously enjoying seeing Obama squirm in the spotlight. But I said the same of her - let's get to the important stuff. But she didn't. Damn any important discussion. She has developed a reputation, helped along by Bill, for doing and saying whatever is necessary to win, including taking down the Democratic Party, and helping the debate turn into a debacle. She didn't help her cause either.
Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did not shower themselves with glory either. They received a lot of flack, deservedly so, for their line of questioning. Having a one-time aide and supporter of the Clintons, Stephanopoulos, as a moderator, is not very assuring that impartiality will prevail. And to come to the public's attention in the days following the debate that Shawn Hannity, a right winger if there ever was one, well maybe except for Rush Limbaugh, was dictating questions that Stephanopoulos should direct to Obama, smacks of conspiracy. We must remind ourselves the Republicans want to run against Clinton who will bring all the factions of the right together en masse in the fall election.
But what was most disappointing to me was that neither Obama nor Clinton appeared "presidential." Obama wasted an opportunity to take charge, to say "enough with this tabloid material, let's move on to more important issues facing all Americans." The feeling of mistrust, all the misspeaks and negative attacks by Clinton, including in her own words, her 'baggage," was draped around her like a disaster waiting to happen.
Being let down by the lackluster debate is one thing. To lose confidence in Obama and Clinton is something else. And more important. And more disturbing.
John McCain and all the right wingers must be licking their chops. But there is hope in all of this. McCain's free ride will come to an end soon. We hope.
Peace.
Larry
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Enough is Enough
I found it very disturbing to listen to the testimony before US Senate Committees by the top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, describing the status in Iraq and the surge that President George Bush ordered last year. As the Senators asked a number of questions, most politely, many supportive, some specific, very few challenging or probing, the thoughts of having lost 4000 plus of our bravest, and counting, the 30,000 plus wounded, and counting, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and counting, 2 million displaced Iraqis, and counting, all for an illegal and unjustified invasion more than 5 years ago, and counting, I found myself grinding my teeth, which, at my age is not something I can afford to do.
And all, as we speak today, without a short time goal, a long time goal, or an exit strategy. But the surge "has worked, is working," a "pause" is needed, and much of what has been gained is "fragile and reversible."
And now the Iranians are coming. No, the Iranians are there, "contributing to the killing of our American military." So maybe a military confrontation with Iran is just around the next alleyway?
And our military, according to most of the experts, is at the breaking point, maybe past the point of no return - military draft anyone? Iran? Forget it. Afghanistan? Has anyone been paying attention to the increased violence there?
And at a cost of nearly a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000), and counting, the US economy is tanking, the US dollar is falling off the radar screen, our health coverage is an embarrassment, thousands out of work, our education system is another embarrassment, and, oh, you get the idea. Add any of your pet peeves to the growing list. Israel-Palestine road map? What road map?
And what of our dead, wounded, and their families? That is a cost that can never be assessed, and, if you are not one of those families, a cost you can never really feel. After all, our president has never asked us to sacrifice. In fact, he rewards us with tax breaks that mainly go the wealthy, has taken away many of our so-called rights, asked us to "go the malls, go on living your normal lives," and has added so much to the budget deficits and debt that our future generations may never be able to pay it off.
United Sates for sale? Heck, with the growing list of home foreclosures and sales, we might as well add it to the list.
And this is what we have after 5 years, and counting?
I wonder, dear George, if you will ever realize in your lifetime, much less admit, that Osama bin Laden is smarter than you and all of the so-called brains and experts you have, and did have, running our once proud nation into the ground. Let me remind you of two things he said: one, he and his fellow men will never tolerate any US citizen or military on any mid- eastern soil; two, he intends to bankrupt the US. Dear George, you fell right into his trap.
Bankrupt, or bankruptcy, is almost always associated with monetary issues. I would take that a bit further. The morals that we once stood for as a nation is bankrupt. The lives of those who lost their loved ones in a totally unjustifiable fiasco are bankrupt.
And one last reminder, dear George: if you think you can bring democracy to a region that has been fighting among themselves for thousands of years, you're smoking the wrong stuff.
A military victory in Iraq is unattainable. We must remove our military and civilian support personnel in an orderly but rapid manner immediately. Now.
Enough is enough.
Peace.
Larry
And all, as we speak today, without a short time goal, a long time goal, or an exit strategy. But the surge "has worked, is working," a "pause" is needed, and much of what has been gained is "fragile and reversible."
And now the Iranians are coming. No, the Iranians are there, "contributing to the killing of our American military." So maybe a military confrontation with Iran is just around the next alleyway?
And our military, according to most of the experts, is at the breaking point, maybe past the point of no return - military draft anyone? Iran? Forget it. Afghanistan? Has anyone been paying attention to the increased violence there?
And at a cost of nearly a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000), and counting, the US economy is tanking, the US dollar is falling off the radar screen, our health coverage is an embarrassment, thousands out of work, our education system is another embarrassment, and, oh, you get the idea. Add any of your pet peeves to the growing list. Israel-Palestine road map? What road map?
And what of our dead, wounded, and their families? That is a cost that can never be assessed, and, if you are not one of those families, a cost you can never really feel. After all, our president has never asked us to sacrifice. In fact, he rewards us with tax breaks that mainly go the wealthy, has taken away many of our so-called rights, asked us to "go the malls, go on living your normal lives," and has added so much to the budget deficits and debt that our future generations may never be able to pay it off.
United Sates for sale? Heck, with the growing list of home foreclosures and sales, we might as well add it to the list.
And this is what we have after 5 years, and counting?
I wonder, dear George, if you will ever realize in your lifetime, much less admit, that Osama bin Laden is smarter than you and all of the so-called brains and experts you have, and did have, running our once proud nation into the ground. Let me remind you of two things he said: one, he and his fellow men will never tolerate any US citizen or military on any mid- eastern soil; two, he intends to bankrupt the US. Dear George, you fell right into his trap.
Bankrupt, or bankruptcy, is almost always associated with monetary issues. I would take that a bit further. The morals that we once stood for as a nation is bankrupt. The lives of those who lost their loved ones in a totally unjustifiable fiasco are bankrupt.
And one last reminder, dear George: if you think you can bring democracy to a region that has been fighting among themselves for thousands of years, you're smoking the wrong stuff.
A military victory in Iraq is unattainable. We must remove our military and civilian support personnel in an orderly but rapid manner immediately. Now.
Enough is enough.
Peace.
Larry
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A letter to Barack Obama
Dear Barack Obama:
Tuesday, March 18, 2008, a day that began as an ordinary day soon became quite an eventful day for me, and for millions of others around the country, to jot down onto our respective calendars and memory banks - where were we when you gave your historical nonpartisan speech on race in the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia? That it was just across the street from where the Constitution was created more than 220 years ago did not escape most people.
It was brilliant, extraordinary, moving, and spoke to the heart of why race is still a big issue for this country. Despite the advances of the black community the past several decades, much more needs to be done; not to give blacks a "handout," but to wipe out the divide that not only exists today between blacks and whites, but also to include the Latinos and Asians.
To say that you merely "peeled" away the scab from an old wound that never healed, and sprinkled, no, poured, salt and pepper into the opening, would be a major understatement. It was what the blacks have lived with for centuries and the whites have shoved under the rug and would prefer not to talk about it - "hey, it's not my problem."
That it was centered around the controversial preachings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your reverend and "family," seemed to lose their importance the more you spoke; that we were witnessing a speech of equality, opportunity, human dignity, and saying to Americans - "that is where we have been, here is where we are now, and unless we wake up America, we will never ever resolve this issue." Not your exact words, of course, but that is what you were saying to me.
You displayed enormous courage that day in which it would have been much safer politically to denounce and reject Reverend Wright and his comments and teachings. Many political pundits and historians have agreed that in time your speech may join the ranks of those given by Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and by Martin Luther King. I've even heard your speech receive approval and admiration from the rabid right wing radio hosts. Unfortunately however, those moments of open mindedness is brief: it takes them just a breath or two to begin to flay away at you for not totally separating yourself from Reverend Wright. So be it.
And that is the point: you spoke to the problems of racial and inequality differences and a need to resolve those issues before we can grow as Americans and heal our country. The need to denounce Reverend Wright pales in comparison.
Equality. Opportunity. Dignity. Courage. Integrity. Leadership. Wake up America. That is what I heard on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. No need for me to mark my calendar. It is firmly and forever etched in my memory.
Peace.
Sincerely,
Larry (last name submitted, withheld).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008, a day that began as an ordinary day soon became quite an eventful day for me, and for millions of others around the country, to jot down onto our respective calendars and memory banks - where were we when you gave your historical nonpartisan speech on race in the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia? That it was just across the street from where the Constitution was created more than 220 years ago did not escape most people.
It was brilliant, extraordinary, moving, and spoke to the heart of why race is still a big issue for this country. Despite the advances of the black community the past several decades, much more needs to be done; not to give blacks a "handout," but to wipe out the divide that not only exists today between blacks and whites, but also to include the Latinos and Asians.
To say that you merely "peeled" away the scab from an old wound that never healed, and sprinkled, no, poured, salt and pepper into the opening, would be a major understatement. It was what the blacks have lived with for centuries and the whites have shoved under the rug and would prefer not to talk about it - "hey, it's not my problem."
That it was centered around the controversial preachings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your reverend and "family," seemed to lose their importance the more you spoke; that we were witnessing a speech of equality, opportunity, human dignity, and saying to Americans - "that is where we have been, here is where we are now, and unless we wake up America, we will never ever resolve this issue." Not your exact words, of course, but that is what you were saying to me.
You displayed enormous courage that day in which it would have been much safer politically to denounce and reject Reverend Wright and his comments and teachings. Many political pundits and historians have agreed that in time your speech may join the ranks of those given by Presidents Lincoln, Kennedy, and by Martin Luther King. I've even heard your speech receive approval and admiration from the rabid right wing radio hosts. Unfortunately however, those moments of open mindedness is brief: it takes them just a breath or two to begin to flay away at you for not totally separating yourself from Reverend Wright. So be it.
And that is the point: you spoke to the problems of racial and inequality differences and a need to resolve those issues before we can grow as Americans and heal our country. The need to denounce Reverend Wright pales in comparison.
Equality. Opportunity. Dignity. Courage. Integrity. Leadership. Wake up America. That is what I heard on Tuesday, March 18, 2008. No need for me to mark my calendar. It is firmly and forever etched in my memory.
Peace.
Sincerely,
Larry (last name submitted, withheld).
Friday, March 21, 2008
Five Years and Counting...
As I listened to excerpts of President Bush's speech Wednesday, March 19, on the five year anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, it brought me back to another day when the then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech to Congress a day after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. I was young then and not old enough to fully understand what was going on. But as my mom and dad listened intently to the radio (you youngsters out there, this was back before the days of television, computers, Internet - the last three generations would not understand how we old timers survived the "dinosaur" age), they knew what was going on and that our naval base was destroyed. I eventually learned the phrase Roosevelt used that day would make it around the world and into the history books forever - "a date that will live in infamy." It was a phrase that came to me as Bush seemed to be expressing hubris, progress, and staying committed to bringing democracy to Iraq, fight the insurgents, etc.
But there are some major differences and similarities in the two invasions:
With Pearl Harbor, we were attacked. And the invasion was illegal, immoral, and unjustified.
With Iraq, we were the attackers. And the invasion was illegal, immoral, and unjustified.
Hmmm. How just a couple of letters can make such a profound difference, a difference that has changed the course of history.
So, to me, March 19, 2003, will go down in history as a second "date that will live in infamy."
And let us not forget that historical day, May 1, 2003, when you bound onto the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in what was a most embarrassing moment to me and others, in a pilot's uniform, smiling a smile of triumph, which you shortly afterward proclaimed - "mission accomplished."
If you are so proud of your accomplishments Mr. Bush, perhaps when your supporters and those who have benefited from the Iraq fiasco donate money to build you the obligatory presidential library, you should put up over the entrance these historical words and dates:
But there are some major differences and similarities in the two invasions:
With Pearl Harbor, we were attacked. And the invasion was illegal, immoral, and unjustified.
With Iraq, we were the attackers. And the invasion was illegal, immoral, and unjustified.
Hmmm. How just a couple of letters can make such a profound difference, a difference that has changed the course of history.
So, to me, March 19, 2003, will go down in history as a second "date that will live in infamy."
And let us not forget that historical day, May 1, 2003, when you bound onto the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in what was a most embarrassing moment to me and others, in a pilot's uniform, smiling a smile of triumph, which you shortly afterward proclaimed - "mission accomplished."
If you are so proud of your accomplishments Mr. Bush, perhaps when your supporters and those who have benefited from the Iraq fiasco donate money to build you the obligatory presidential library, you should put up over the entrance these historical words and dates:
MARCH 19, 2003 A DATE THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY
MAY 1, 2003 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
By, George, why not? It was a short war, one of the shortest ever fought.
And to further insult the intelligence and integrity of the good people of this nation, especially the brave men and women in uniform and their families, who have given you their all, including making the biggest sacrifice of all, their lives, you should consider adding to your library, from day one, the numerous documents that contain all the lies and distortions that led to this obscene tragedy.
But that is assuming the documents have not been destroyed or revised to be worthless.
But that is like assuming you also would have done the right thing.
Peace. Larry.
Friday, March 14, 2008
How Would You Feel?
Everywhere you turn, there he is. Eliot Spitzer. And his wife. I wonder if she knew what was going on? She looks like she is in shock. And what about their three daughters?
His ruthless "take no prisoners" approach, the "my way or the highway" has come back to bite him in the ass. Big time. What was he thinking? Jerk.
Wherever you may stand on this issue, one thing is certain: The hypocrisy is just mindboggling.
The report in the business world said the support to be extended to the economy from the Fed sparked Tuesday's huge jump in the stock market. I beg to differ. It must have been all those giddy Wall Street investors who could not find enough green upside buy keys on their computers fast enough.
The bad guy got caught with his pants down. Literally.
But enough of Spitzer. The tabloids and the media looking to drive up their ratings are on the prowl and will drive this story down our throats ad nauseum.
What has me rankled more than anything, which the media has not covered much, are two stories that are joined at the hips. And not a very pleasant looking pair of hips either.
One has President Bush doing some type of tap dance at the White House last week as he was waiting for John McCain to arrive and to receive the Pope's, oops, the president's blessing, on his getting the Republican nomination for the November presidential election.
I just wish McCain had been on time. We would have been spared the embarrassment.
The other is an event that was captured on a cell phone of Bush and others doing a song and dance routine that made fun of how "Scooter Libby got away with outting CIA agent Valerie Plame, VP Cheney refusing to provide documents requested by Congress, Harriet and Brownie" and so on. Obviously this event was for insiders only and any official video taping was prohibited. I am not aware of any at this time and if there is one, I stand corrected. For everyone's sake, I hope none exist.
How would you feel if you were in the military and you saw and/or heard your Commander-In-Chief acting and singing his way through his day and night while you are trying to serve your country honorably?
How would you feel if you were on military assignment in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or at any other locations?
How would you feel if you had lost a father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, cousin, or friend, neighbor, co-worker, in the conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan?
How would you feel if you were a wounded veteran, nursing a lifetime of physical and emotional injuries, and perhaps even having difficulty in receiving proper and timely medical care and veteran's benefits?
How would you feel if you had lost your job, can't provide for your family, or maybe just making it, week to week, month to month?
How would you feel if you lost your home, you health insurance, your pride, your will to keep going?
And what about the audience? They too are guilty in this shameless domonstration.
Now I know that this may be a stretch for some: Why can't the president have a little fun once in a while? Granted, the dance routine at the White House may be a bit clownish at best. Or worst.
But the song and dance mockery is insulting, demeaning, shameful, outrageous, and beyond belief when one takes into account the content, and to whom it will hurt terribly, of someone "strutting" on our lives, and on those that are no longer with us.
I'm sure many of you will disagree with me but so be it. It is a free country, with free speech, and we are entitled, and should be encouraged, to speak our minds.
Peace. Larry.
His ruthless "take no prisoners" approach, the "my way or the highway" has come back to bite him in the ass. Big time. What was he thinking? Jerk.
Wherever you may stand on this issue, one thing is certain: The hypocrisy is just mindboggling.
The report in the business world said the support to be extended to the economy from the Fed sparked Tuesday's huge jump in the stock market. I beg to differ. It must have been all those giddy Wall Street investors who could not find enough green upside buy keys on their computers fast enough.
The bad guy got caught with his pants down. Literally.
But enough of Spitzer. The tabloids and the media looking to drive up their ratings are on the prowl and will drive this story down our throats ad nauseum.
What has me rankled more than anything, which the media has not covered much, are two stories that are joined at the hips. And not a very pleasant looking pair of hips either.
One has President Bush doing some type of tap dance at the White House last week as he was waiting for John McCain to arrive and to receive the Pope's, oops, the president's blessing, on his getting the Republican nomination for the November presidential election.
I just wish McCain had been on time. We would have been spared the embarrassment.
The other is an event that was captured on a cell phone of Bush and others doing a song and dance routine that made fun of how "Scooter Libby got away with outting CIA agent Valerie Plame, VP Cheney refusing to provide documents requested by Congress, Harriet and Brownie" and so on. Obviously this event was for insiders only and any official video taping was prohibited. I am not aware of any at this time and if there is one, I stand corrected. For everyone's sake, I hope none exist.
How would you feel if you were in the military and you saw and/or heard your Commander-In-Chief acting and singing his way through his day and night while you are trying to serve your country honorably?
How would you feel if you were on military assignment in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or at any other locations?
How would you feel if you had lost a father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, cousin, or friend, neighbor, co-worker, in the conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan?
How would you feel if you were a wounded veteran, nursing a lifetime of physical and emotional injuries, and perhaps even having difficulty in receiving proper and timely medical care and veteran's benefits?
How would you feel if you had lost your job, can't provide for your family, or maybe just making it, week to week, month to month?
How would you feel if you lost your home, you health insurance, your pride, your will to keep going?
And what about the audience? They too are guilty in this shameless domonstration.
Now I know that this may be a stretch for some: Why can't the president have a little fun once in a while? Granted, the dance routine at the White House may be a bit clownish at best. Or worst.
But the song and dance mockery is insulting, demeaning, shameful, outrageous, and beyond belief when one takes into account the content, and to whom it will hurt terribly, of someone "strutting" on our lives, and on those that are no longer with us.
I'm sure many of you will disagree with me but so be it. It is a free country, with free speech, and we are entitled, and should be encouraged, to speak our minds.
Peace. Larry.
Hillary Clinton Has Come to the Rescue...
Originally written, pre-"Nobody Asked Me But...", on March 8, 2008
Hillary Clinton has come to the rescue. My rescue.
No, she hasn't dropped out of the race. Nor has she found Osama bin Laden, found the cure for AIDS, or even, heaven forbid, publish her income tax returns.
No, she has once again given rise to the notion that politics is, indeed, a dirty and nasty game.
I was beginning to fall into a rut like millions of voters around the country waiting for the next big primary contest, Pennsylvania, in early April, and perhaps not paying as much attention as I/we should to what was going on right now and in front of us.
Once again, Hillary, you have not disappointed.
To wit; At the last debate with Barack Obama, just prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries, they debated the issue of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), saying, with little difference between them, that both would "revisit the terms to see if it could not be revised to be more fair to the working class of the two states", in an obvious pander to the voters without much chance in hell of it happening. Obama's campaign got caught in assuring the Canadian government that Obama did not intend to make changes and it was just a play for their votes(now, what are the Canadians doing in trying to get involved with someone else's politics? - we don't do that). Did she and her people jump all over that, exposing the act just in time for the primaries.And didn't that ever have an impact on the voters in the two states,going for her in a decisive manner. But, here is where she does not disappoint. Her people also met with the Canadian government and made the same assurances. The only difference was that it was discovered after the primaries, after the damage was done to the Obama campaign.
At one of their debates she went on and on at the end saying how"honored she was to be debating Barack" and that they "were more qualified than the Republican nominee" etc., etc., etc., yadda, yadda,yadda. But leading up to the Ohio/Texas primaries, she called him"unfit to be president and not qualified to answer that phone at 3AM," again, yadda, you get the picture.
At that same debate, they were given a standing ovation with the prospect of them being on the same ticket, a "dream ticket." Wednesday she said the "dream ticket" was possible as long as she was the president and Barack was the vice president. Lots of luck with that happening, sweetheart. I've never bought into the idea of a "dream ticket." I believe it is a ploy on Hillary's part to assure the Obama voters and supporters that a vote for her is a vote for Barack. Nice going sweetheart we are on to you.
At a press conference a few days ago she said that "she and John McCain were qualified to be president, that they share the same qualifications and experience, and that Obama does not have the qualifications to be president." Huh? Hey dear, just what "dream ticket" are you running for? Clinton and McCain? Aren't you running as a Democrat or what? And anyway, you'll have to get in line behind McCain - the first spot kissing his ass is held by the one and only Joe Lieberman. You remember him don't you? Another former Democrat?
And I believe it was yesterday Hillary said "the caucuses are undemocratic,unrepresentative, and controlled by party activists."Kinda like the super delegates that you and your people are courting like mad, right? I wonder if you would be saying that if you were winning the caucuses? Well, anyway Hillary, thanks for staying true to form.
Peace. Larry.
P.S. Shit, I can't stop sometimes. I don't know about you guys but I am getting tired of her and her press conferences with the stage and all the backdrops draped with the American flags, like she is the commander in chief already, "ready from day one."
Hillary Clinton has come to the rescue. My rescue.
No, she hasn't dropped out of the race. Nor has she found Osama bin Laden, found the cure for AIDS, or even, heaven forbid, publish her income tax returns.
No, she has once again given rise to the notion that politics is, indeed, a dirty and nasty game.
I was beginning to fall into a rut like millions of voters around the country waiting for the next big primary contest, Pennsylvania, in early April, and perhaps not paying as much attention as I/we should to what was going on right now and in front of us.
Once again, Hillary, you have not disappointed.
To wit; At the last debate with Barack Obama, just prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries, they debated the issue of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), saying, with little difference between them, that both would "revisit the terms to see if it could not be revised to be more fair to the working class of the two states", in an obvious pander to the voters without much chance in hell of it happening. Obama's campaign got caught in assuring the Canadian government that Obama did not intend to make changes and it was just a play for their votes(now, what are the Canadians doing in trying to get involved with someone else's politics? - we don't do that). Did she and her people jump all over that, exposing the act just in time for the primaries.And didn't that ever have an impact on the voters in the two states,going for her in a decisive manner. But, here is where she does not disappoint. Her people also met with the Canadian government and made the same assurances. The only difference was that it was discovered after the primaries, after the damage was done to the Obama campaign.
At one of their debates she went on and on at the end saying how"honored she was to be debating Barack" and that they "were more qualified than the Republican nominee" etc., etc., etc., yadda, yadda,yadda. But leading up to the Ohio/Texas primaries, she called him"unfit to be president and not qualified to answer that phone at 3AM," again, yadda, you get the picture.
At that same debate, they were given a standing ovation with the prospect of them being on the same ticket, a "dream ticket." Wednesday she said the "dream ticket" was possible as long as she was the president and Barack was the vice president. Lots of luck with that happening, sweetheart. I've never bought into the idea of a "dream ticket." I believe it is a ploy on Hillary's part to assure the Obama voters and supporters that a vote for her is a vote for Barack. Nice going sweetheart we are on to you.
At a press conference a few days ago she said that "she and John McCain were qualified to be president, that they share the same qualifications and experience, and that Obama does not have the qualifications to be president." Huh? Hey dear, just what "dream ticket" are you running for? Clinton and McCain? Aren't you running as a Democrat or what? And anyway, you'll have to get in line behind McCain - the first spot kissing his ass is held by the one and only Joe Lieberman. You remember him don't you? Another former Democrat?
And I believe it was yesterday Hillary said "the caucuses are undemocratic,unrepresentative, and controlled by party activists."Kinda like the super delegates that you and your people are courting like mad, right? I wonder if you would be saying that if you were winning the caucuses? Well, anyway Hillary, thanks for staying true to form.
Peace. Larry.
P.S. Shit, I can't stop sometimes. I don't know about you guys but I am getting tired of her and her press conferences with the stage and all the backdrops draped with the American flags, like she is the commander in chief already, "ready from day one."
Primary Day Fallout
Written pre-"Nobody Asked Me But..." on March 5, 2008
I am not surprised one bit that Hillary Clinton won in Ohio and Texas. She changed her
skin, to that of a more comfortable battle tested body armor and began to throw hand grenades prior to the primary and put Barack Obama on the defense. Knowing the Ohioans and Texans, they love a good fight and were happy to follow her to the voting booth.
But Ohioans, and Hillary supporters, be careful what you wish for. Do you think the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, KarlRove, et al, are stupid (yes I believe they are but that is a story for another day) when they tell their followers to vote for Clinton? Do you really think that they are going to support her in November? Do you think that they have deserted their traditional Republican ideology?
Not for one friggin' minute.
They know, as most political pundits and followers know, that Clinton would be easier to run against in the November elections than Obama.Haven't you noticed that the Republicans are not attacking Clinton as they have in the past and are now directing their venom at Obama?There was a time, a short time ago that seems like ages ago, when Obama only had to worry about running against Hill. Then Hill and Bill. Now he is running against three - Hill, Bill. and John (McCain).
Is there anyone out there who thinks that Obama does not deserve the credit for the record primary voting? And along with it the record number of young voters, new voters, black voters, Hispanic voters, independent voters, and Republican crossover voters. Not too many would find fault with that argument.
But, and this is the big BUT, should Clinton win the nomination, most of those voters may not come out to vote for her in November. The young, new, Hispanic and black voters, feeling disappointed and losing enthusiasm, may opt to stay on the sidelines. And, and this is a big AND, the independent and Republican crossover voter who has and will vote for Obama may vote for McCain.
But, for me there was only one clear winner last night - McCain. For as long as the Democratic fight goes on, he doesn't need to dream up any election material to use against whoever wins the Democratic nomination. The Dems are doing it for him. While the Dems eat their own, the Reps are standing off to the sidelines, enjoying the massacre.
While Clinton and Obama fight it out in the open, the interesting fights are being held in the back rooms of the party and the power brokers. Those arm twisting, payoffs, and promises may eventually decide the nomination. Pledged delegates, super delegates, "dream"ticket, re-doing the Michigan and Florida primaries, on and on and on it goes.
Hey, do you realize that the supposedly next big primary state fight is Pennsylvania? And that is seven weeks away? And that the Iowa causes were eight weeks ago? And here we are, half way between the two, and it is almost a dead heat between Clinton and Obama. How much
more can we take?
And one last point, I hope. Nope. Enough already.
Peace. Larry.
I am not surprised one bit that Hillary Clinton won in Ohio and Texas. She changed her
skin, to that of a more comfortable battle tested body armor and began to throw hand grenades prior to the primary and put Barack Obama on the defense. Knowing the Ohioans and Texans, they love a good fight and were happy to follow her to the voting booth.
But Ohioans, and Hillary supporters, be careful what you wish for. Do you think the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, KarlRove, et al, are stupid (yes I believe they are but that is a story for another day) when they tell their followers to vote for Clinton? Do you really think that they are going to support her in November? Do you think that they have deserted their traditional Republican ideology?
Not for one friggin' minute.
They know, as most political pundits and followers know, that Clinton would be easier to run against in the November elections than Obama.Haven't you noticed that the Republicans are not attacking Clinton as they have in the past and are now directing their venom at Obama?There was a time, a short time ago that seems like ages ago, when Obama only had to worry about running against Hill. Then Hill and Bill. Now he is running against three - Hill, Bill. and John (McCain).
Is there anyone out there who thinks that Obama does not deserve the credit for the record primary voting? And along with it the record number of young voters, new voters, black voters, Hispanic voters, independent voters, and Republican crossover voters. Not too many would find fault with that argument.
But, and this is the big BUT, should Clinton win the nomination, most of those voters may not come out to vote for her in November. The young, new, Hispanic and black voters, feeling disappointed and losing enthusiasm, may opt to stay on the sidelines. And, and this is a big AND, the independent and Republican crossover voter who has and will vote for Obama may vote for McCain.
But, for me there was only one clear winner last night - McCain. For as long as the Democratic fight goes on, he doesn't need to dream up any election material to use against whoever wins the Democratic nomination. The Dems are doing it for him. While the Dems eat their own, the Reps are standing off to the sidelines, enjoying the massacre.
While Clinton and Obama fight it out in the open, the interesting fights are being held in the back rooms of the party and the power brokers. Those arm twisting, payoffs, and promises may eventually decide the nomination. Pledged delegates, super delegates, "dream"ticket, re-doing the Michigan and Florida primaries, on and on and on it goes.
Hey, do you realize that the supposedly next big primary state fight is Pennsylvania? And that is seven weeks away? And that the Iowa causes were eight weeks ago? And here we are, half way between the two, and it is almost a dead heat between Clinton and Obama. How much
more can we take?
And one last point, I hope. Nope. Enough already.
Peace. Larry.
Clinton/Obama, Voting Machines, W.F. Buckley Jr.
Written pre-"Nobody Asked Me But..." on March 3, 2008.
A strange thing has developed in the last two weeks leading up to tomorrow's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Yes, there are primaries in Vermont and Rhode Island. It has gone from Bill Clinton's statement that Hillary must win both Texas and Ohio or it is
all over for her, to an unnamed Clinton staffer saying that "Obama MUST WIN all four primaries tomorrow or HE is in trouble.
Huh?
One: isn't this one of the most outrageous bits of political spin you have heard recently? or
Two: are they lowering the expectations of Hillary, in the event she loses any/all of the primaries? or
Three: are they raising the expectations of Obama, that HE MUST WIN all four primaries? or
Four: are they confident with their back room arm twisting in not only capturing many of the super delegates needed, but also in getting the delegates that Obama has "won" in previous primaries to switch their "pledge" from Obama to Hillary? or
Five: all of the above?
It is unfortunate that, in spite of her intelligence, capability, and commitment, she and her staff did not anticipate having to do anymore campaigning past super Tuesday, February 5. They were totally unprepared for not capturing the nomination on/before super Tuesday,and for the assault and level of commitment of the Obama's ground troops, not to mention Obama's inspiring messages catching on with all demographic groups, and not just with the younger voters.
And it is also unfortunate that she is caught up with a partner in ahistorical first in US history: the first viable female candidate and the first viable black candidate for the US presidency. Something's gotta give. They both can't be president. And many voters' hopes of a"dream team" - both on the same ticket - is not going to happen. Too much baggage to contend with no matter who is first or second on the ticket.
Too bad. She would make it exciting and challenging. There would be much more to write about, more hope (than McCain), as well as more things to bitch about. And I would miss her fight, spirit, and her cackle. Seriously. Say what you want about her and her reputation as having a cold demeanor: She has loosened up quite a bit, has shown us a side of her which we did not know; she is so sharp as to keep Obama and all the moderators on their toes.
Gee, this almost sounds like an obituary. Like after tomorrow she is history. You never know. Her and her people may surprise us after all.Never underestimate them.
Much of Hillary's political future rests with the voters tomorrow. And the back room arm twisting.
One of the most under reported stories since 2000 has been the ongoing, and unresolved, problems with electronic voting machines.This is a long and involved problem that is fodder for another day but bears to be "reported" here, in part, because of the primary tomorow in Ohio, an important swing state that has, and will play, a huge part in presidential elections. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio's largest(Cleveland), the election officials have disbanded the electronic voting machines that were installed following the voting debacle of2000 and have returned to the old standby - paper balloting. And after$7 million dollars of investment by the federal and state governments, the machines were declared difficult to use, difficult to train users,unreliable with distorted information, and without a paper trail.
Electronic machines have been disbanded in other areas, including California and Maryland. Others have refused to install them. More have installed them and are just rolling with the tide. A disaster waiting to happen.
Who needs malfunctioning and easily manipulated electronic voting machines when the Democrats already have an election problem - Ralph Nader. But that is a story for another day.
This message is longer than I thought and I want to get to my last thought for the day. Whew. thankfully you say. Don't blame you.
William F. Buckley Jr, whom some of you know of, and others, not a clue, maybe.
Just a quick tutorial: He was considered the founder of today's conservative movement, though his brand of conservatism, in many respects, does not resemble today's version. He was brilliant,extraordinarily brilliant, open-minded, big hearted, loved music(played the harpsichord), loved life (sailed across the Atlantic with several close friends on his yacht, drinking wine and smoking cigars),had a great sense of humor, was extremely generous with his time and money, and when he spoke, whatever your political or religious beliefs were, he commanded respect.
And you had to listen to him.
Does that sound like any conservative you may know or have read about today? Hardly.
Though he founded the conservative movement in the 60s, was the founder and chief editorial writer of The National Review, hosted the long running TV show The Firing Line, the predecessor to today's Meet The Press, he supported gay rights, decriminalization of marijuana,
opposed any anti-semitism, stayed at arms length of Richard Nixon, and although he originally was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq,he became critically opposed to it and was not afraid to admit his mistake in his initial support.
Once again, totally unrecognizable and unacceptable to today's conservatives.
And he had the keenest wit. I was fortunate to have been a live witness to many of his programs and wit. I can remember some of them,tho some of the dates and names are not at the tip of my tongue, or fingertips now.
Here is just a sampling of his wit as I remember it:
He ran for mayor of New York City in 1965, unsuccessfully. As the campaign was drawing to a close, a reporter asked him should he win,"what will be your first act as mayor?" Buckley replied, with a straight face, "demand a recount."
Somewhere in the mid 90s, one night when I tuned in to his Firing Line program, as I did often, he had a guest, whose name escapes me now,who had appeared numerous times before. There they were, sitting in the simplest of chairs on stage, when, after Buckley introduced his guest,
he opened up the discussion with this: "so well, Mr (X), you've been on my program, now, 25 times? Have you learned anything yet?"
Again, with a straight face.
One last bit of wit, close to home. In his later years, he had been spending time in the Boston area. He remarked at one function, a remark just a bit off subject to most, but not to him: "I would prefer to be governed by the first 2000 people named in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 faculty of Harvard University."
How can you not love a person like that?
He will be missed. By many. By me. Peace, William.
Peace. Larry.
A strange thing has developed in the last two weeks leading up to tomorrow's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Yes, there are primaries in Vermont and Rhode Island. It has gone from Bill Clinton's statement that Hillary must win both Texas and Ohio or it is
all over for her, to an unnamed Clinton staffer saying that "Obama MUST WIN all four primaries tomorrow or HE is in trouble.
Huh?
One: isn't this one of the most outrageous bits of political spin you have heard recently? or
Two: are they lowering the expectations of Hillary, in the event she loses any/all of the primaries? or
Three: are they raising the expectations of Obama, that HE MUST WIN all four primaries? or
Four: are they confident with their back room arm twisting in not only capturing many of the super delegates needed, but also in getting the delegates that Obama has "won" in previous primaries to switch their "pledge" from Obama to Hillary? or
Five: all of the above?
It is unfortunate that, in spite of her intelligence, capability, and commitment, she and her staff did not anticipate having to do anymore campaigning past super Tuesday, February 5. They were totally unprepared for not capturing the nomination on/before super Tuesday,and for the assault and level of commitment of the Obama's ground troops, not to mention Obama's inspiring messages catching on with all demographic groups, and not just with the younger voters.
And it is also unfortunate that she is caught up with a partner in ahistorical first in US history: the first viable female candidate and the first viable black candidate for the US presidency. Something's gotta give. They both can't be president. And many voters' hopes of a"dream team" - both on the same ticket - is not going to happen. Too much baggage to contend with no matter who is first or second on the ticket.
Too bad. She would make it exciting and challenging. There would be much more to write about, more hope (than McCain), as well as more things to bitch about. And I would miss her fight, spirit, and her cackle. Seriously. Say what you want about her and her reputation as having a cold demeanor: She has loosened up quite a bit, has shown us a side of her which we did not know; she is so sharp as to keep Obama and all the moderators on their toes.
Gee, this almost sounds like an obituary. Like after tomorrow she is history. You never know. Her and her people may surprise us after all.Never underestimate them.
Much of Hillary's political future rests with the voters tomorrow. And the back room arm twisting.
One of the most under reported stories since 2000 has been the ongoing, and unresolved, problems with electronic voting machines.This is a long and involved problem that is fodder for another day but bears to be "reported" here, in part, because of the primary tomorow in Ohio, an important swing state that has, and will play, a huge part in presidential elections. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio's largest(Cleveland), the election officials have disbanded the electronic voting machines that were installed following the voting debacle of2000 and have returned to the old standby - paper balloting. And after$7 million dollars of investment by the federal and state governments, the machines were declared difficult to use, difficult to train users,unreliable with distorted information, and without a paper trail.
Electronic machines have been disbanded in other areas, including California and Maryland. Others have refused to install them. More have installed them and are just rolling with the tide. A disaster waiting to happen.
Who needs malfunctioning and easily manipulated electronic voting machines when the Democrats already have an election problem - Ralph Nader. But that is a story for another day.
This message is longer than I thought and I want to get to my last thought for the day. Whew. thankfully you say. Don't blame you.
William F. Buckley Jr, whom some of you know of, and others, not a clue, maybe.
Just a quick tutorial: He was considered the founder of today's conservative movement, though his brand of conservatism, in many respects, does not resemble today's version. He was brilliant,extraordinarily brilliant, open-minded, big hearted, loved music(played the harpsichord), loved life (sailed across the Atlantic with several close friends on his yacht, drinking wine and smoking cigars),had a great sense of humor, was extremely generous with his time and money, and when he spoke, whatever your political or religious beliefs were, he commanded respect.
And you had to listen to him.
Does that sound like any conservative you may know or have read about today? Hardly.
Though he founded the conservative movement in the 60s, was the founder and chief editorial writer of The National Review, hosted the long running TV show The Firing Line, the predecessor to today's Meet The Press, he supported gay rights, decriminalization of marijuana,
opposed any anti-semitism, stayed at arms length of Richard Nixon, and although he originally was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq,he became critically opposed to it and was not afraid to admit his mistake in his initial support.
Once again, totally unrecognizable and unacceptable to today's conservatives.
And he had the keenest wit. I was fortunate to have been a live witness to many of his programs and wit. I can remember some of them,tho some of the dates and names are not at the tip of my tongue, or fingertips now.
Here is just a sampling of his wit as I remember it:
He ran for mayor of New York City in 1965, unsuccessfully. As the campaign was drawing to a close, a reporter asked him should he win,"what will be your first act as mayor?" Buckley replied, with a straight face, "demand a recount."
Somewhere in the mid 90s, one night when I tuned in to his Firing Line program, as I did often, he had a guest, whose name escapes me now,who had appeared numerous times before. There they were, sitting in the simplest of chairs on stage, when, after Buckley introduced his guest,
he opened up the discussion with this: "so well, Mr (X), you've been on my program, now, 25 times? Have you learned anything yet?"
Again, with a straight face.
One last bit of wit, close to home. In his later years, he had been spending time in the Boston area. He remarked at one function, a remark just a bit off subject to most, but not to him: "I would prefer to be governed by the first 2000 people named in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 faculty of Harvard University."
How can you not love a person like that?
He will be missed. By many. By me. Peace, William.
Peace. Larry.
Fighters, Old and New
Written pre-"Nobody Asked Me But..." on February 24, 2008
Poor Hillary Clinton. Damned if she does. Damned if she doesn't.
Should she go on the attack? Should she play nice?
Neither seems to have worked so far. So what is she to do? How will she approach the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries? Will the attack dog, Bill, re-emerge and take over?
And can't you just imagine the in-fighting going on among her campaign advisors? Considering that her three top advisors are earning $275,000each per month, you would think that they would and should have been serving her better. No wonder she had to take out $5 million from her piggy bank to keep her campaign going. And what about the salaries of the other "volunteers" on her staff?
Despite the continuing wins by Barack Obama and his widening lead, I still feel that the back room arm twisting for the super delegates by her campaign staff is still going on and will intensify if she doe swell in Texas and Ohio. She has said on many occasions that she has been a fighter all her life. There is no reason to believe that she is about to quit now.
The next debate between her and Obama should be interesting. What will be her game plan?
If she does not pull off wins in those very important states, or just loses by the narrowest of margins, mathematically speaking she could be toast. I would hope that if that becomes the case, she acknowledges that she is not going to win the voters support, and gives up the quest for the super delegates. For if the "voice" of the primary voters is ignored, and the fight for the super delegates shift over to Hillary and voids everything that has taken place the past two months,there could be so much anger, disappointment, and a defeated reaction like: Why vote? Politics is dirty and will never change.
And all those young voters, those black voters, those Hispanic voters,all those independents, all those who voted for the first time, may not vote for Hillary, and may not return to the voting booth for years to come. Talk about giving the Republicans an edge, if not the election in November. And for some years to come.
And one more point. Talk about an edge. Talk about giving away the election. Good old (literally) Ralph has done it again. Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the 2008 election. For the fourth time he has entered a presidential race. This not to say that he hasn't served the public well. He has brought to the surface many consumer issues that had gone by without anyone taking up the fight. But it is also fair to say that he doesn't have the chance of a snow ball in hell of winning.
But Ralph, at the expense of taking votes away that surely would go to the Democratic nominee?
Isn't there something wrong with this picture Ralph?
Haven't your learned enough from the 2000 election, costing Al Gore the election?
Wouldn't this country, and this world, be different, and most certainly be better, if Gore had won?Give it up Ralph.
Peace. Larry.
Poor Hillary Clinton. Damned if she does. Damned if she doesn't.
Should she go on the attack? Should she play nice?
Neither seems to have worked so far. So what is she to do? How will she approach the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries? Will the attack dog, Bill, re-emerge and take over?
And can't you just imagine the in-fighting going on among her campaign advisors? Considering that her three top advisors are earning $275,000each per month, you would think that they would and should have been serving her better. No wonder she had to take out $5 million from her piggy bank to keep her campaign going. And what about the salaries of the other "volunteers" on her staff?
Despite the continuing wins by Barack Obama and his widening lead, I still feel that the back room arm twisting for the super delegates by her campaign staff is still going on and will intensify if she doe swell in Texas and Ohio. She has said on many occasions that she has been a fighter all her life. There is no reason to believe that she is about to quit now.
The next debate between her and Obama should be interesting. What will be her game plan?
If she does not pull off wins in those very important states, or just loses by the narrowest of margins, mathematically speaking she could be toast. I would hope that if that becomes the case, she acknowledges that she is not going to win the voters support, and gives up the quest for the super delegates. For if the "voice" of the primary voters is ignored, and the fight for the super delegates shift over to Hillary and voids everything that has taken place the past two months,there could be so much anger, disappointment, and a defeated reaction like: Why vote? Politics is dirty and will never change.
And all those young voters, those black voters, those Hispanic voters,all those independents, all those who voted for the first time, may not vote for Hillary, and may not return to the voting booth for years to come. Talk about giving the Republicans an edge, if not the election in November. And for some years to come.
And one more point. Talk about an edge. Talk about giving away the election. Good old (literally) Ralph has done it again. Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the 2008 election. For the fourth time he has entered a presidential race. This not to say that he hasn't served the public well. He has brought to the surface many consumer issues that had gone by without anyone taking up the fight. But it is also fair to say that he doesn't have the chance of a snow ball in hell of winning.
But Ralph, at the expense of taking votes away that surely would go to the Democratic nominee?
Isn't there something wrong with this picture Ralph?
Haven't your learned enough from the 2000 election, costing Al Gore the election?
Wouldn't this country, and this world, be different, and most certainly be better, if Gore had won?Give it up Ralph.
Peace. Larry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)