I’m with her. The choice is easy. Her decades of experience makes Hillary Clinton perfect for the job as president. Some may think she is polarizing but I do not; if anything, she’s the only person with the political savvy to be able to bridge the gap between all parties. Any baggage that she carries mostly comes from her husband Bill’s past, and he isn’t the one running for president. She’s consistently demonstrated calm and rational thinking, plus grace under pressure.
I could have had a full time job the last few months simply focusing on Donald Trump’s gaffes. But why spend my time on an over-saturated topic? At first, the media trotted out Trump like a side-show freak, normalizing his outrageous behavior and comments. Finally, they realized they may have helped this buffoon actually reach the highest office in the country, and now the floodgates have opened. Trump, of course, isn’t smart enough to see this happen and with each day, he keeps digging himself deeper in a hole. This pleases me greatly and only helps my candidate more.
Donald Trump should have never been nominated. The end result of his nomination is a Republican Party in a state of implosion. If the Republicans want to be considered seriously in the future, they need to have a far better vetting process before they even present any candidates for consideration for president. The first qualification should be for any potential candidate to submit their tax returns for review, something that we are still waiting for Trump to do. (Thankfully, someone leaked one of his old returns, and it was a damning picture of Trump's business losses.)
Here’s hoping that November will bring a win for Hillary Clinton. Our country needs her.
Well, it’s been a busy few days for the Republican pundits, with all the focus on their convention and John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as VP running mate.
But it seems that every minute, I see some new news piece where it looks like they continue to stick their feet into their collective mouths. Personally, I don’t think that they can keep up with the mud and nasty comments that they were slinging during the primary season and even afterwards, against Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Now, their words are coming back to haunt them.
No one can bring this to light better than Jon Stewart, who demonstrated the depth of the flip-flopping going on with the Republican talking heads. Take a look – it’s self-explanatory. (Note: the video clears up after a few seconds into it.)
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
There has been a lot of press lately on concerns that voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary are going to vote for John McCain. In fact, the McCain campaign is even running a commercial highlighting this, titled “Debra.” While I don’t dispute the fact that some voters out there vote not by party lines but by the candidate (I’m that way), I find it hard to fathom that after the many years of a Republican administration, that it would be so easy for voters to abandon the Democratic party if they voted that way in the primary.
In fact, I think the media has become enamored with the Clinton factor, and despite the fact that she lost the primary but still with big numbers, the media seems to want to make the Clintons into an issue. And when I say “the Clintons” I mean both Hillary AND Bill. Do I think Hillary and Bill are unhappy that Hilary lost the bid for the presidency? Sure. Do I think that they are both dumb enough to shoot their own party in the foot? No. I think when it all comes down to it, they know that as long as the party regains the White House, it could mean they would continue to wield influence in Washington and elsewhere. But the media seems desperate to stir concern that Hillary and Bill are so unhappy with their loss that they would be willing to stir discontent within their own party, or they will endorse Barack Obama and not mean it. I think her speech at the Democratic Convention last night should have put that whole issue to bed. Yet even now as I write this, the media is still taking whether this will be enough to sooth the what they see as a divided Democratic Party.
On a similar vein, the McCain campaign seems to think that using Hillary’s own campaign rhetoric against Barack Obama scores points for the Republican candidate. My grandmother used to tell me to be careful when I point fingers, because when you do, three of them are pointing back on YOU. McCain could, and probably will, have his own worries about his own campaign rhetoric depending on whom he chooses as his running mate, since McCain has his share of nasty comments against his peers. But, clearly the McCain campaign thinks that Hillary’s words are powerful enough that they will bring more voters to the McCain side. Instead, Hillary has used it by saying that she didn’t approve the message (spoofing of course the old tag line “And I approved this message”).
It’s clear to me that both the media and the McCain campaign feel that the Clintons still have drawing power. But using her words against her own party is a tactic that can only bring McCain short term results, helping only to win over voters who really may not have party loyalty to begin with. There are other voters out there who can also be swayed against McCain for the same reason; these things aren’t always one sided. So the McCain campaign should beware of the Clinton Factor, because it just may come back to bite them.
“Debra”
Passed Over
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
The National Do Not Call Registry is a great thing because it allows you to block telemarketers from calling. But there are limitations. One can still receive calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, and companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those where you’ve provided consent in writing to receive their calls.
My personal feeling is that Do Not Call should mean just that – DO NOT CALL. Period. I can understand a company that you have a business relationship with you calling in the normal course of doing business. But I don't know why politicians get a free pass to annoy me by phone. I wrote in my blog (here) back in February about one company making annoying political calls, and with the upcoming presidential election, I sense the political calls are going to ramp up exponentially as we get closer to Election Day.
Frankly, I don’t want to hear from any of them.
During the primaries, I received calls – prerecorded and automated, of course – from Hillary Clinton and John McCain. I don’t recall getting a phone call from Barack Obama but that actually worked in his favor for me. The calls from Clinton and McCain were left on my answering machine (I screen all my calls), which allowed me to either listen to them or just delete them, depending on my mood. But I have to admit the fact that they even called me and made an attempt to interrupt my day actually lowered my opinion of them. Also, John McCain’s message sounded like he’d just woken up and hadn’t had any coffee yet. It was dull, stiff, and lifeless. I felt like the life force was being sucked out of me as I listed to the message.
And the fact that many politicians are using electronic autodialers to do the work for them – sometimes called “robocalls” - it’s made the political call even more worthless. Sure, by using autodialers they can reach more people in less time, but it’s also the phone equivalent of email spam. It’s just some electronic method of dumping junk, this time on your ears.
So while the Do Not Call registry has helped to cut down on those annoying people trying to sell you something you don’t want, it still has allowed what I call phone spam – telespam? – from people you don’t want to hear from.
I wish that the Do Not Call registry was sophisticated enough to allow you to select – or deselect – groups of people you don’t want to hear from. I would make sure that I wouldn’t hear from politicians and their political messages. Of course, they can call me personally if they want to talk to me personally. But I don’t think I need their canned, automated phone call to sell me their message.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
Now that Barack Obama is the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, the focus turns to the selection of his running mate.
Months ago, Hillary Clinton suggested a Clinton/Obama ticket seemingly to try to lure those unsure of voting for Obama a president. Now, her hubris may have come back to haunt her, as she recently said she would be opposed to and Obama/Clinton ticket, with her as VP.
How the mighty have fallen.
And Clinton continues to hang on, not officially conceding the primary to Obama, a move that has frustrated even some of her staunchest supporters. Is Clinton deluded? Did she think that by hanging on to the bitter end she would be able to better state her case for the spot of second banana? Is it strictly about money, because she can continue to raise funds for her candidacy until she conceded? By continuing to raise funds, she can be trying to get enough cash to minimize the millions of dollars she loaned to her campaign months ago to keep it going.
Regardless of her reasons, it looks like Hillary is in major denial. In the June 4 edition of the Wall Street Journal, an article called “Clinton's Road to Second Place “ detail the numerous errors made by Clinton and her campaign staff. An excerpt says:
“Conversations over months with dozens of Clinton staffers, advisers and supporters suggest that over her 17-month campaign, the second-term New York senator and former first lady was smart, substantive and tireless. The surprise was how good a campaigner she grew to be.
Still, these people say, Sen. Clinton is responsible for what one confidant called "grievous mistakes." Those help explain why Sen. Clinton -- the best brand name in Democratic politics, and an early favorite to be the first female nominee in U.S. history -- lost to a relative newcomer who would be the first African-American major-party nominee.
A campaign spokesman said the Clintons were unavailable for interviews.
The mistakes boil down to mismanagement, message, mobilization failures and the marital factor.”
Does this sound like someone we want to have as Vice President of the United States? I don’t think so. And Hillary’s biggest drawback is something that initially was thought to be one of her biggest advantages – and that’s her husband, former President Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton proved campaigning for his wife is that he still wants to be in the thick of things, and that he’s developed a sharp tongue, and frankly may be prone to being meddlesome to the point that any President would see him as a liability. You see, Bill seems to have made it clear that with Hillary, you get him too – like a 2 for 1 package deal. And the Bill Clinton baggage alone would make this a nightmare ticket for Barack Obama.
This is definitely a deal that Barack Obama should say “pass,” and he should look to finding another candidate that will not alienate all those that voted for Hillary. I’m not saying he must chose another woman – although it would be a smart move – but I do think that he must be very mindful of the female voters out there who seem to be teetering on moving to the McCain camp.
Hopefully, though, people would be smart enough that they would see the futility of voting for John McCain just because Hillary didn’t make it. It would be like cutting off one’s nose to spite their face. Only in this case, the stakes are much higher.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
This election season, the democratic primary seems to go on and on. Some say that the lengthy primary season has been detrimental for the party, making it look disjointed. If anything, it’s made them look weak.
The problems were many. Hillary Clinton appeared to be the favorite going in, and this may have made her campaign complacent. With some states tiring of New Hampshire and Iowa always having the first say in the elections, Michigan and Florida changed their primary dates in violation with party rules and they were told their votes wouldn’t count. (Of course, the Democratic Party recently changed their mind and said they would count – for some, but not for the full delegate equivalent.) Then, the media hyped “Super Duper Tuesday” and said the election would be decided after that day – it wasn’t. Caucuses also seem to be questioned because their structure doesn’t allow easy opportunity for all voters to be represented, like other states with traditional primary voting. To make matters worse, the democrats have “superdelegates” who can decide on their own who to nominate, and many of them are taking forever to declare. As the primaries ran through the states, and it seemed that Clinton was hanging tough, the superdelegates remained on the fence, almost refusing to take a stand, seemingly fearful they wouldn’t pick the person who could beat John McCain in the fall.
The last primaries are in progress, and hopefully the superdelegates will get off the fence and make their choice, ending once and for all the dispute over who should be their party’s choice to run for president.
Some in the media are blaming Hillary Clinton for hanging on too long, wishing that she would have pulled out by now, and hoping for a unified party before the convention. Frankly, I think it is her right to hang on as long as she has a chance. I blame the superdelegates – who are supposed to be the party’s anointed wise people – for not taking a stand and making their choice sooner, essentially leading her on and causing the party division. Barack Obama has been gracious during this whole thing, but I am sure that the superdelegate issue has been frustrating for his campaign as well.
And while all this is going on, Hillary had to fend of criticisms for her husband’s campaign commentary. Hillary should have muzzled Bill long ago. Barack had to face the scrutiny of his church (now his former church) and has been blamed for every controversial comment made by guest speakers at the church. He should have cut ties with that church long ago, probably the minute that Reverend Wright became an obvious liability. Still, some in the media and pundits seem to be saying that all these negative issues would never have come out had Hillary not dropped out sooner. Those people are deluding themselves. The negativity that happened over the last few months are just a preview of what the republican campaign will be leveling at them over the next several months. I would rather it get out and be diffused NOW and get it out of the way before it can be used in home stretch of the presidential election.
Since nothing can be changed for this election, let’s think forward to the 2012 presidential election. The Democratic Party just cannot continue with this kind of mess of a primary season. They have made themselves look weak and conflicted. Here’s what I think they should do in the future:
1. Commit to having all primaries conducted over a period of four months.
2. Every presidential election season, rotate the order in which the states can hold their primaries. For example, if Iowa has voted in the first month, they vote in the last month in the next president primary. Once the party has decided the window of time in which a state can hold their primary, the state can’t move it to whatever date they want. If they do, their votes will not count, period.
3. Eliminate caucuses and allow all voters to choose their candidate by traditional voting methods, including absentee balloting.
4. Eliminate the superdelegates. In this day of non-stop media coverage, internet accessibility, and various other ways to get information about candidates, I think the American people are adult enough to be able to choose who they want representing their party in the presidential election. We don’t need an elite group of people choosing who they want to run, especially when it may be in conflict with the popular vote. By the way, if caucuses are eliminated, the whole question about whether those states delegates really represent the wishes of the people could be eliminated.
Those are my ideas. I think the Democratic Party can only blame themselves for this mess. The media can be considered collaborators in this effort by continuing to fan the flames by over-hyping primaries, making things sound like their over long before they are decided by the people.
I hope that the party hasn’t ruined its chances for this election. Here’s hoping that the party wises up before 2012.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
First of all, full disclosure here. I am supportive of Barack Obama for the presidency. I actually voted for Hilary Clinton in my state’s primary, and while I would support her should she become the democratic candidate, right now my vote goes to Obama.
But today in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, Senator Barack Obama criticized the Tennessee Republican Party for an ad highlighting comments made by his wife, Michelle, that some say are unpatriotic. In this ad, produced by the Tennessee GOP, Michelle Obama is featured saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." (I recall when this statement she made surfaced months ago, and knew that it would probably end up resurfacing in some shape or form later in the campaign.)
On GMA, Senator Obama said, "The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record…If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family…For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class and I think they — most of the American people would think that as well,” he said. “I would never think of going after somebody’s spouse in a campaign.”
The four-minute video (below) replays her comments many times, interspersed with comments by Tennesseans stating why they were proud of the U.S. (More commentary and information after this video, so keep reading.)
Michelle Obama has since clarified her original statement (video below) , saying she meant she was proud of how Americans were engaging in the political process, and that she had always been proud of her country. (More after video.)
OK, this situation is a little tough to call. Looking at the big picture here. Hillary Clinton has taken a lot of heat for what her husband, former President Bill Clinton has said on the campaign trail, and she’s made comments about it. It really hasn’t stopped the assault. One may argue that Bill is more actively campaigning, but where does one draw the line on how much campaigning can a spouse do before it’s fair game for attack ads? Historically, this election season is not the first time a spouse has been the target in a presidential election. Sometimes the spouse deserves the heat, sometimes they don’t. My initial impression is that Barack Obama’s statements on this issue with the attack ad on his wife has had the opposite effect – it made more people look at the ad and comment about it. And I think that since Michelle has been campaigning for her husband, her comments should be fair game. But, I say this with some conditions.
What we have to hope is that voters are willing to dig into the subject matter more deeply rather than dismiss her comments as unpatriotic. Her whole message where the statement was initially made should be put into context. Personally, I think when you have anyone working for you on the campaign trail – spouse, children, parents, anyone – who is speaking on your behalf, they should take the heat for whatever comments they make while campaigning. But, it is way out of line for the Tennessee GOP to take one line out of context and try to make it into something that it’s not. To me, it’s horribly unfair to take sound bytes and clips only, and not take in the whole context,
If anything, this ad has only made me more resolved to vote for a Democrat in the upcoming presidential election. Low blows like this ad do not project the image for a party that I want to have anything to do with.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
It seems obvious that the Superdelegates for the Democratic Party are getting to be an issue that is causing more and more controversy with this current presidential primary.
The Republicans, who don’t use Superdelegates, seemed to have sailed easily through the primaries and are now focused on their candidate of choice.
The problem with the Democrats is that they have two strong, viable candidates. While the primaries and caucuses have Barack Obama in the lead with delegate counts, there are still several primaries to go, and many Superdelegates remain uncommitted. If there were no Superdelegates, the primary may have been resolved by now, as it’s virtually certain that Hillary Clinton will never win enough delegates at this point to win the nomination. But, we still have those pesky Superdelegates to contend with.
The solution to the Superdelegate problem is to just not have them. My opinion is for the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic Party should seriously consider eliminating Superdelegates. The other thing that both parties should consider is tightening up the primary and caucus dates so all this election brouhaha can be done over a period of two months.
Since there isn’t much we can do on those two issues this season, I think the immediate solution to the Superdelegate problem is this: For any states that have currently held primaries or caucuses, the Superdelegates tied to those states (members of the senate, congress, and state officials like governors) should declare their candidate NOW. Since their state’s voters have already spoken, I think the states’ Superdelegates should make their intentions known. In fact, if the party continues to have Superdelegates for future elections, they should consider giving the Superdelegates only 1 week after their state’s primary or caucus to commit to a candidate.
But for now, I find no reason why a Superdelegate whose state has cast their vote shouldn’t be stating who they would be voting for as well.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation. If the Democratic Party fails to act, it will split the party apart and jeopardize their chances in November.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,here.
Being an Ohio voter, I was thrilled at the recent results in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but not for reason one might think. When the media wrote off any primary voting after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and then wrote it off again after Super “Duper” Tuesday, it was great to see that there isn’t any one primary voting block has the final say in who is going to he the Democratic nominee.
It seems that Ohio,Texas, and Rhode Island did something that the media didn’t expect would happen – they prolonged the primary process. While some in the media commented that it’s the delegate count that matters, I still say that they are trying to steer the results in a way to confirm their own agendas. The Democratic candidate for the presidency is still up for grabs, despite the media's desire to make a quick choice of it. There are plenty of delegates - and those pesky Super delegates - left.
I won’t tell you how I voted in the Ohio primary, but I will tell you that I am very glad that these recent democratic primaries may mean that the decision could be made at the convention. And that sounds really exciting to me. First, it gives us more time to vet both candidates and really take a hard look at what they can offer and who is the best person for the job. Second, it could make for an interesting convention, you know, like in years past when the conventions actually meant something.
I don’t subscribe to the media’s fear mongering that seems to push for a clean Democratic choice before the convention. They are using the excuse that it will only split apart the party, and it will cause the Democrats to spend more money than necessary, putting the Republicans and John McCain in the cat-bird seat. I don’t buy it. Why? Because I don’t think a Republican can even hope to win this election anyway. Barring some sort of horrific revelation about something that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has done, there seems to be far more excitement out there about the Democratic candidates, and increasing displeasure in the Republican party, specifically the low approval rating of our current President.
I’ve talked to quite a few people over the last several weeks in all walks of life and of varying occupations, and I know of maybe only one or two people that are supporting John McCain or the Republican Party. Everyone else is either in Hillary’s camp or Barack’s camp, and the majority of those said that they would be happy to vote for either one of those two for President. I can’t recall any time in my life where there seems to be so much animosity for the Republican Party and so much love for the Democratic Party. And I know of many Republicans who have crossed over to the Democratic side, which could effectively stunt the chances for a Republican to win.
So the media’s reports of the closure in selecting a Democratic candidate were premature and misleading. My suggestion is the media and the pundits need to take a chill pill, realize it’s never over ‘til it’s over, and relax and go with the flow.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
I’ve written a few blog entries outlining my displeasure with part of the election process. Some of it has centered on the primaries and the fact that the media seemed to think the Democratic candidate would be decided at the Iowa caucuses. Then the media said that if it wasn’t decided at the Iowa caucus, that Super Duper Tuesday would seal the deal.
Here we are, just a short time away from March 4 and the Ohio and Texas primaries, and there still isn’t a definitive candidate for the Democratic Party. They’re getting closer, mind you, but it’s still not decided yet.
The media’s wish to minimize the importance of the entire primary process has failed. Ohio still lives. In fact, the Democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio that is occurring tonight – February 26 – is being billed as the most important debate for the Democratic primary. Why? Because the previous primaries failed to bring on a clear winner, with both candidates not having enough elected delegates to win the nomination. The primaries for Ohio, and of course Texas, will probably make things a lot clearer, with a lot of delegates at stake.
The one thing that still disturbs me is the media’s continued reporting of poll numbers, which as we all know, have not always been a clear representation of reality. My opinion is that the media is more interested in influencing the outcome of the election, rather than reporting hard facts. Save the poll numbers for the people running the campaigns so they know what they are up against. But the poll numbers themselves, while they may be considered a fact as reported by the pollster, may not be reflective of reality, as they often poll only a small sampling of the total voting block.
Another thing that stumps me. I have received three phone messages from Hillary Clinton’s campaign (all pre-recorded of course, two of which were from Hillary) and several mailings from Clinton’s campaign. What I don’t understand is I haven’t received word one from Barack Obama’s campaign. Seeing that Obama has reportedly raised so much more money than the Clinton, I am a little perplexed as to why I have been ignored. As a matter of fact, no one else that I know here in northeast Ohio has received anything from Obama’s campaign either. Does that mean that the Obama campaign feels so assured of themselves that they don’t think they need to work for my vote? I am not sure of the reasons but I would like to feel like they think my vote is important to them.
I haven’t decided as yet how I am going to vote in the Ohio primary. I’m very close to deciding, and hopefully the debate in Cleveland will help me in that regard. One thing is for sure – it’s nice that I feel like my vote is important again.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.
A disclaimer first: I haven’t decided whom I’m voting for in the upcoming presidential primary, and I am not endorsing anyone at this point in time.
With the recent Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, it became even more evident that voters should do one thing: ignore the pollsters.
Many in the news media had Hillary Clinton painted as a loser in the New Hampshire primary, based on all the polls. And this morning, those same people in the news media seem shocked – SHOCKED! – that Hillary actually pulled out a win. And now they are frantically trying to explain how it happened. Was it Hillary’s emotional comments after the Iowa caucus? Was it Bill Clinton railing about Barack Obama? Was it single women backing Hillary? Was it Barack backlash? Etc.
The answer is that when it all comes down to it, the only “poll” that should be believed is the one where the voters officially cast their ballot. And no matter how many polls are taken, one can't exactly predict what the voter will do when making their final choice.
Along that line, I also urge people to ignore the media when they say that it will all be over with “Super Tuesday”, AKA “Super Duper Tuesday” because so many states are having primaries on February 5, 2008. There will still be a lot of states left to vote after that date, and anything can happen between now and the very last primary. In my opinion, the media is being unfair by discounting the value of every vote.
So I for one am not going to let a pollster, or the media, or the outcome of other primaries decide how I vote in either the primary or the presidential election. I’m not a sheep that blindly follows the opinion of others. This election is the first one in many, many, years where the voters have many candidates to chose from. Because of that, we should all make informed choices.
However you decide to approach your state’s primary this year, make sure that you do one thing: VOTE.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, HERE!
There’s been a lot in the news about Oprah Winfrey endorsing Barack Obama, and their packed-house appearance in Iowa, and one coming up in South Carolina. Barbra Streisand says she’s backing Hillary Clinton. It was recently announced that Sean Penn endorsed Dennis Kucinich. Do these kinds of endorsements mean anything to you – or should they?
They don’t for me. Just because these people have some celebrity doesn’t mean that they are any more politically savvy or knowledgeable about who is the right choice. Take the example of Sean Penn. Now really, who cares what Sean Penn thinks? Since I live in the Cleveland, Ohio area, I am very well informed about the career of Dennis Kucinich, and no endorsement would make me even remotely consider voting for him, much less Sean Penn's.
And while Oprah and Streisand are both very big names in the entertainment industry, I really have no knowledge of how politically informed they really are.
I like to think that I’m able to form my own opinions about the candidates, and my opinion is only the weak minded will be swayed by a celebrity endorsement.
For local elections, I am more swayed by endorsements of newspapers. This industry deals with political and national/world events on a daily basis, so they may have better sources on which they base their endorsement. Still, even a newspaper endorsement needs to be vetted by the voters themselves.
So for Oprah, since I don’t care for her show, she carries zero weight with me. And while I grew up on Barbra’s singing, I always felt her political leanings were too obvious to be objective. As for Sean Penn, I’ve never been impressed by his movies or his acting, so his endorsement falls on deaf ears. I don’t recall hearing any republican endorsements, but since all the republican candidates fall flat for me anyway, it wouldn’t matter if The Supreme Being endorsed any of them.
I will continue to read the papers, watch TV news, and check out the Internet to get my political knowledge. There are so many ways for voters to get information these days that everyone should take the time to research the candidates, rather than being swayed by a celebrity endorsement.
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, HERE!
