Hillary can't seem to get the youth vote

From: www.politicalhumor.about.com

Hillary's new Top Ten

I try not to burst out laughing how the Billary campaign comes out with daily 'revised' benchmarks as a basis for the super delegates to vote for the Democratic nominee. I thought I would throw in a several more. Here is the Top Ten list:

10. Super delegates should vote for the candidate who has won the most votes in states beginning with letters A thru N

9. Super delegates should vote for the candidate who win with the most votes from voters whose names end in -ez, like ramirez or cortez.

8. The candidate with higher concentration of voters per pledged delegate.

7. The candidate whose age comes closest to McCain's age of 71.

6. The candidate who has been under the most instances of sniper fire and got out alive to tell the story

5. The candidate who has the most experience living in The White House

4. The candidate with the most votes from folks over 60 , as older folks have more experience voting.

3. The candidate with the most votes from Americans who originally came from Mexico.

2. The candidate with the most qualified spouse.

And finally # 1: the candidate who is most white

Let the generals do their job

I found this on Townhall.com a Conservative political website and it made me want to puke.

Another hypocrisy of the right and the Bush administration comes up again. This brings up the telling story of how the Bush Administration ousted General Eric Shinseki and Army Secratery Thomsa White. General Eric Ken Shinseki was the 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army. He is the first Asian American in U.S. history to be a four-star general, and the first to lead one of the four U.S. military services. At the start of the Iraq war General Eric Shinseki strongly pushed for more troops on the ground and a different strategy then what Cheney and Rummy were gunning for. His is quoted as saying,"something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq.

Instead of letting the general do his job, Rummy neutered General Shinseki by announcing the general’s replacement 15 months before Shinseki was set to retire. This move made Shinseki a lame duck for the remainder of his term. This sent a strong message to the lower ranks of the military: if you don't tow the line, you get cut.

Next, Army secretary Thomas White was fired in April 2003 after expressing his agreement with Shinseki's assessment of needed troop levels in Iraq. According to USA Today, "Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki." In an interview after leaving the Pentagon, White said that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq, adding, "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

Now, the conservatives want us to let the generals do their job and voice their views?

It is this narrow hypocrisy that got us into this quagmire in the first place, when conservatives bristled at ANY criticism of how the Bush administration was handling the war. Any critic was immediately labeled 'un-patriotic', even 'traitors'. And yet, here we are 5 years later and still struggling in the quicksand.

4,000 and counting boys, 4,000 and counting.... tick tick…..

Mission Accomplished: 4,000 and counting

This morning I heard on CNN that we had reach a new marker in the War on Iraq: 4,000 service men are dead. However, from all indications, the Bush Administration has not indicated any change in strategy aside from “stay the course.” Reactions from the public seem to follow partisan lines: liberals want to start to pull the troops out to stop a long- term rise in the numbers while conservatives argue that we need to stay on so these lives are not given up in vain. Both arguments have merit.

However, new economic and historical realities are pushing the American people to seek a way out sooner rather than later. First, despite what President Bush wants to tell us, most Americans realize that we are in the midst of a recession. Regular gas prices have reached a new record today at $ 3.25 for regular averaged across the country. Housing prices are spiraling downward and the middle class is being squeezed like never before. With this in mind, how can the Republicans continue to insist on spending $ 12 Billion a month on Iraq or if you do the math roughly $ 5,000 a second? Does this make any sense when Osama Bin-Laden is still holed up in Afghanistan sending out monthly news letters?

Next, the long held argument that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq prematurely would cause a ‘domino-effect’ and destabilize the entire region to fall into the hands of Al-Queda. This is appearing less compelling when you look at two issues: this is another ‘expert’ projection from the same ‘experts’ who predicted WMDs in Iraq. Can you still trust the experts. Once bitten twice shy I say. Second, let’s look at history. When the U.S. finally pulled out of Vietnam in the 1970s, all manner of expert projections called for a ‘domino-effect’ with S.E. Asia falling into communist hands. Did that happen? No. In fact, the opposite occurred. S.E. Asian economies took off in the 70s, 80, through today. So, can anyone be so certain about the post US Middle East?

The time is now to call for a timetable for withdrawal.

Candor of Barack

Well according to the latest NPR News Blog, Obama's poll numbers are on the rise after last week's fiasco. What struck me about Obama's response was his honesty, his candor and a refusal to throw his Rev Wright friend under the bus for political gain. (even though many view Rev Wright as crazy)

Instead of spitting out one liners and sound bites, Barack showed character, took his time to try and explain to the public his thinking, his views. I have attached a great commentary from the NPR Blog below:

Comments (Send a comment)

I believe that even though Obama was caught up in the media's attempt to prove him mortal, he responded like a true leader in these backtracking moments. Because of last week's controversy he may in fact receive better results than he may have otherwise. The fact is that the people already knew how he reacted while he was ahead, but now they also know what he does when he is behind. He sits back, analyse, and talks to the people. That's a true presidential performance. With regards to Clinton, she has not shown this type of character. In addition to that, now she could find herself in the middle of the controversy regarding the purposeful embelishment of her record and the mistrust concerns. I will be surprised if she can diverge the media's attention from this because it is a losing battlefield for her.

Sent by raul | 9:11 AM ET | 03-24-2008

Hillary's Options.. there aren't many

This past week has been the most difficult and torturous for Barack. The ugly head of racial divide had to come up eventually, and did it ever. Thanks to Rev Wright, we were all dragged into this. Barack replied with a valiant effort in his "More perfect Union" speech. (you can read that analysis on this blog as well)Luckily for Obama the Passport scandal and Bill, no the other Bill--Mr. Richardson came to his rescue.

Now with all these problems you would think that Hillary Rodham Clinton would gain steam and be able to make a stronger case for her nomination. However, this week saw her options narrow significantly for a number of reasons:

1. Florida and Michigan for all intents and purposes will not be doing a re-vote. This will block here only chances of leading in the delegate or the popular vote when the last primary ends in June in Puerto Rico.

2. It is a generally accepted reality that team Hillary will not be able to deliver a 2/3 win in each of the next primaries to take the delegate and popular vote race.

3. 'Stealing' the election by swaying the super delegates to vote for her despite her lack of the necessary votes purely on the non-objective measure "elect-ability"

So, with all this what CAN, she do? Here are some ideas:

1. She can hope for the Wright scandal to only spread making Obama seem Un-American, Un Patriotic and make people wonder where his true allegiances lie.

2. She can find more Rev Wrights lurking from Obama's past

3. Risk a melt down in the Democratic party by further dividing the delegates.

At the end this bring up a interesting quote, Mark Penn told reporters after the Texas and Ohio wins that "Time is our friend". All I can say is that time is a friend in the same way Gov Bill Richardson is a friend.

Republicans for Obama '08

Yes, they are a group that exist and getting larger. Let me share a posting I came across from Politico.com


"A lot of Republicans, like me, support Mr. Obama because of his ability to unite. We are tired of the way the world perceives America, where we used to, and deserve to be, an ideal strived for. Although I disagree with much that Mr. Obama says, his presence and character speak volumes about the President he will be. Hillary will lose in the general. Republicans don't like her; Independents don't like her. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Republican; and yet, Mr. Obama represents me."- Jake, Conservative

A race about Race....

(image from www.politicalhumor.about.com)

Thanks Bill, Thanks Hill, we are now finally aware that Obama is black. We are also thankful that you guys would want him in the VP slot.

Experience vs. Change

Yes, I know you guys are probably sick of this discussion. We have indeed heard it all before, one too many times. However, I do want to point out some different angles.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's position is that she is tha "Smart Choice" as she has helped guide Bill during for 8 years in the White House and did great things as a Senator. Infact, she keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" as proof of her capabilities. If you do the math Clinton is counting EVERY year since leaving college. Barack could counter that he also has 35 years of experience that truely matter to Democrats: real life experience dealing with racial injustice, bad schools, the struggles of a single mother, working as a labor organizer, work in the Illinois legislature etc...

But the most insightful data on this argument can be found in plain sight: the way they have run their campaigns. It is interesting to note that none of the three remaining presidential candidates have ever run a large organization like a county, a state or even a business. None of them have that background. So, one telling way to predict how they may run the US government is to look at how they have been administering their campaigns which can be considered 'large' organizations since they cover 50 states, raised tens of millions of dollars and pay large bills.

John McCain has made it through a campaign that has had a mass exit of advisers last summer. His campaign went broke three times and finally rescued by a sweet $ 5 million loan from Legg Mason. Since he has started campaigning, McCain has raised $ 60 millions.

Hillary's campaign has faired better, but missed going bankrupt in Feb. She bailed out her campaign with a $ 5 million loan from Bill. She had to replace her campaign manager because of generally bad planning and excessive spending. A telling story is how the Hillary campaign got all their staffers rooms on the Vegas strip during the Nevada Caucuses while most of the Obama people stayed at homes of supporters. As of yesterday, Clinton's campaign has raised $ 178 million so far.

Barack's and his campaign came from nowhere. They had no support from the existing democratic infrastructure around the country like team Billary had. Yet, just in February alone they raised $ 55 million. This is the largest amount of money raised by any candidate to run for the White House ever. His campaign has generally run smoothly and had had no major staff turn over. Again I like to point out that he came from nowhere and nothing, yet the Obama campaign has raised close to $ 200 million so far through grass roots efforts.

The point that I am trying to make here is that when a man can do so much with so little, imagine, just imagine what he can do when he is given much more to start with.

What can Brown do for you?

What can Brown do for you?- goes the famous UPS marketing blitz. "At UPS, brown is more than a color -- it's a tangible asset that people associate with all the things that are good about our brand," said Dale Hayes, vice president for brand management and customer communications, in a news release. But I think it can also be an implicit (as opposed to an explicit) Obama campaign message. This is the way I look at it: Barack is the product of an African father and a white Kansas mother. As a result, Obama is not a black man. He is not a white man either. He is in-between. He is Brown. He was raised by white grand parents, from Kansas.

Because of this unique circumstance we have a potential president who can see the world from two points of view-and maybe much in between. I think this makes him uniquely qualified to help bridge the racial gap. No one can deny that America has become not just a cultural melting pot, but a racial one as well. We got blacks, Asians, Latinos and all the mixes in between. Why not some one who can relate to this reality to lead us?

So, what can Brown do for you ? Mucho, mucho!

The 'OBAMBI' Factor

"Barack is too nice," I've heard alot of people say, or "Can he be tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief?" Yes, these are really valid observations and concerns. For many, Barack is too 'sensitive' and poetic. Maybe he'd be better off auditioning for the role of 'Speaker in Chief'. What do you think ?

Bill Richardson breaks for Obama

Hey, don't worry Buddy. I got your back.

I just talked to Bill and Hillary and they're 'OK' with this..

New Polling Numbers

The NPR newsblog yesterday reported:

Poll: Obama Speech Doesn't Slow Clinton Momentum

The Gallup Daily Tracking poll shows that for the first time in a month, Sen. Hillary Clinton has opened up a statistically significant lead over Sen. Barack Obama in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Today's poll shows Clinton with a 49% to 42% lead over Obama in national Democratic voters' presidential nomination preference.


My answer to this is very simple:

This struggle is like a swing or pendulum. It is now swinging a little bit towards Mrs. Hillary RODHAM Clinton. At this point she needs to draw attention to any news to keep her delegates from marching to the other side. In the longer term, do these polls really hurt O'Bama? Probably no. It is a general consensus as Florida AND Michigan will not re-vote the primaries, that Hillary RODHAM Clinton will not be able to catch up on the delegate lead. Let's ask Mark Penn to show us some "statistically significant" data on that.

But then again team Billary keeps pointing out that it is not the numbers or delegates that are important, but that 'electability' is the issue. Well, need we remind them that George W. Bush won Florida on a by 576 votes and thus winning Florida and the presidency in 2000 ? Yes, dear numbers and delegates do matter.

A More Perfect Union in A House Divided

I am writing this because I was truely moved by this speech. I wonder how people think it can be so easy for us to move away from discrimination or the anger that black people feel after all they have gone through for many many generations. Rememebr, African Americans did not come to this country by choice. They did not purchase a ticket on any ocen liner or airplane. One analogy I like to make is to ask how easily a 30 year old woman can try to 'forgive and forget' her step father who raped her when she was a teenager. Forgive, maybe, but forget, no. Think about it? The typical white person wants to move past slavery and the Jim Crow laws and leave it all as relics of the past. Whites just want to move on. But in the urge to move forward many forget that it is not a process that is so simple. Anger, frustration and resentment linger. For the white folks, slavery and discrimination is 'water under the bridge', for black folks slavery and discrimination is 'water over the dam'. (what happens when water goes over a dam ?) You get the picture.

OK let me get to my analysis. A House Divided Abraham Lincoln uttered those words in a speech made 150 years ago. The speech was the famous "House Divided" address with which he accepted the Republican Party's nomination as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Lincoln lost, but started to change and re-frame the national debate on slavery. Two years later he headed to the White House.

Similarly, another politician from Illinois addressed the issue of race over a century later. Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech this week was an exercise in courage and as he took a huge risk directly addressing America's race issue. Wow, of all the issues affecting the race to the White House, none is as difficult and potentially self damaging as pointing the spot light right on the country's deep racial wounds.

For those who may still not appreciate the gravity of his act, let me illustrate. It's like a political and historical version of a husband saying to his wife, "Oh yes honey, I think at this point in time with all that is happening we need to address WHY I slept with that other woman ten years ago." A touchy subject no doubt, fraught with minefields. The husband will say, "hey can't we just get this past us?", dream on.

Now, Barack could have played it "safer" and skirted the issue like all other politicians ? Absolutely, If he wanted to play the conventional political game. But then again, he is no conventional politician. No, in that speech, even for those who are conservatives or racist will agree that he was being genuine in describing the anger and resentment that blacks feel in America. The pain and hurt linger. How could it not ? When will Mrs. Spitzer be able to "forgive and forget" the governer? Probably not in this lifetime.

Now there are many commentators out there who have praised his speech and some who have called it an outright fraud. Well, I can see a a bit of their perspective. Barack maybe did not condemn his preacher enough, did not fire him from his campaign etc.....tried to use rhetoric to explain horribly ignorant thinking etc...... Many white, blue collar workers are going to be put off by this. Barack did not go far enough to condemn the man and his message. This is all a bit unfair, because if you do look at the issue, see Rev Wright speech, he was condemning the ugly, the America that stops black men for no reason aside for being back, that executes more black men in proportion to whites etc,.......