Sen. Obama has released a list of National Security Specialists who will be advising his campaign. It is a good start. However, many of these people offer strategic, some dated, views only. Former Secretary Albright is in my opinion, a militarist who has placed our troops in harm’s way needlessly. I do not see the names of Anthony Zinni, Wes Clark, or Former Secretary Colin Powell on the list. These three men can be counted on to recommend the use of military forces, only for those things that the military CAN do.
On reviewing the Senator’s list, I urge him to back away from the practice of recycling the same old advisors; especially, if he is looking for a more modern and mature approach to foreign policy.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and believe that, overall, he was an excellent president. I love the way he and his economic team performed, returning our budget to surplus and strengthening our economy. The only area where I seriously disagreed was sending US forces abroad for peace keeping missions, where their was no peace to keep.
I have been more concerned with his behavior during this campaign. I believe the way he has comported himself has lessened the esteem in which he was previously held. Specifically, I have been concerned with the lies he tells in campaign appearances and the anger he continues to show to anyone who disagrees with him or questions him. His comment "I don't have to take that shit," direceted at a reporter, is just the most recently recorded lapse.
I wondered if I was the only one seeing this. In the latest Vanity Fair magazine (in newstands this week) Todd Purdum (who happens to be former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers' other half) writes of similar concerns. Entitled "Bubba Trouble: The Comeback Id," the article can be found at the link below. I disagree with the speculation that Bill's anger stems from heart surgery. To my mind, after eight years of being surrounded by "yes men" which continues in the Clinton center, which naturally revolves around him, he finds it difficult and unnecessary to deal with free women and men, who rationally question his statements. That is why I believe that BC is rapidly diminishing his presidental image. The article does raise excellent concerns about our former president's recent behavior and whether he is, one again, on a ego-centric and self destructive path.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
Hillary Rodham Clinton may not have won the democratic nomination as president but her campaign has set at least one record; the "they are being mean to me record." She has run against the media, pouted over being given the first question in debates, pouted when she was not given sufficient camera time, threw the kitchen sink at Obama to deflect coverage of her delusions of bullets flying at her in Bosnia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland (while the two Nobel Peace Prize winners were unable to recall any contributions she made) and now its sexism. She charges that the successful campaign being run against her is fueled by sexism that is the same as racism.
Let's face it, their are probably a few knuckle draggers in the democratic party SOMEWHERE. But to cry that your campaign is not winning because of sexism is not only ridiculous, its absurd and offensive to the vast majority who have overcome this "ism." Quit with the excuses. Examine your own weaknesses - you negativism, your nastiness, your its never my fault manner, your delusions, you constant I am the best at everything nature. If you do you will find the things you must change to be successful.
To equate sexism to racism is not only offensive it is completely unacceptable. It trivalizes a disease that is still with it, albeit improved, one hundred forty-three years after the Civil War. Ask any woman of color if sexism and racism are equivalent and see what she says. Ask her which of the ISMs have damaged her life more, ask, if you dare.
Hillary your whining diminishes you as a candidate, casts you as a head case, and it damages your party, either give it up or consign your career to the dustbin of history. You will have no future in this party because you will have become a Loser (yes, with the capital L).
Sunday night, 5/18/2008, I watched a well documented and extremely disturbing HBO presentation on electronic voting. Perhaps naively, I believed that scanning technology -- where voters blacken bubbles that indicate they choices for candidates and ballot questions -- would be far more accurate that using humans to count thousands of ballots. After all "scantron" technology is used throughout our schools and universities to score bjective exams.
HBO exploded this myth. Mr. Hurti a computer security expert from Finland, at the request of a Florida voting official, demonstrated how he could change vote totals without being detected. The test was conducted on Diebold electronic voting machines, used in many locations throughout the country as localities attempt to update their voting technologies. These machine work by recording votes on a computer "smart " card. The only thing on that card should be the vote totals. Authorities obtain printouts when the voting machine is started (which should show "zero" votes for each candidate and question) and after all voters have been submitted. Vote totals are checked angainst the voting logs to ensure that the totals match. A Diebold exectutive and engineer were video tapped testifying, before Cuyahoga County (OH) officials seeking to purchase $22M of these machines, that no executable files were on the smart cards.
The Finnish security expert not only located the executable file that was not supposed to be there. Then he conducted a simple experiment to demonstrate how it could be manipulated in such a way as to leave no trace. In the simple test a single question was asked on a voting form - could the diebold machine's vote counting be manupulated? Of the 8 FL voting officials present, 6 were preselected to answer "no," while 2 answered "yes." Mr. Hurti, the security expert, changed the executable file on the smart card telling it to subtract 5 votes from the "no" votes and add them to the "yes" votes. When the machine reported its scanned results instead of showing the correct vote 6 No, 2 Yes it reported 1 No and 7 Yes; proving the manipulation had worked. Yet because both vote totals = 8 the total votes cast tallied with the voting log and the deception was undetectable.
As a matter of federal law, should we have certified outside security experts perform specified tests to ensure votes cannot be manipulated prior to validating voting machines and approving them for use in elections?
Feel free to disseminate this blog to those who you believe would be interested in its contents.
I have great concern about the depths to which the video media has sunk during this primary season. My concerns are best exemplified by the ABC News "debate" that focused on salacious trivia over illuminating national issues. But in keeping with Mrs. Clinton's strategy -- there is nothing I won't use, do or say to get myself elected -- she is now running against the media. This will provide votes that are not for her but against the media.
From where I sit, the media coverage was preferential to HRC from Super Tuesday, when it became obvious to many of us that she was washed up as a potential nominee, until her coffin was nailed shut after the NC and IN primaries. Her latest ad in Oregon entitled "What's Right" features snippets of NBC's Tim Russert, ABC's George Stephanopoulos and MSNBC anchors Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews dismissing or trivalizing her campaign. These comments are of recent post-IN vintage when it became obvious, even to most of her team, that she was mathematically finished. But there are votes in running against the media, even when what they say is right. Her camp believes her vote totals were run up in WV by painting the media as saying not only that the race was over but WV 's vote did not count. Of course it counts, it just doesn't make a difference!!
HRC who is being given a chance to make a graceful exit from her LOSING campaign, continues to display her lack of class by continuing her implicitly anti-Obama message that, "because I believe I am better prepared to be president, and I am more likely to be able to win, I don't care what the pundits say." What she is refusing to do is LISTEN to the majority of Democrats who disagree that she is better prepared, are appalled by her delusions of landing under fire and saving Northern Ireland, and don't believe (because of strong negative feelings against her) that she is likely to win in November AND bring a strong Democratic congressional majority with her. Once again she is in her own sad and delusional world.
Hillary, take another gulp of that vintage Clinton whine!!
It seems like CNN's talking heads will be trying to sell the notion that Hillary should be VP on Obama's ticket, tonight. On their political site, the normally-insightful and balanced, John King ends his report, on what to watch for as WV votes are tallied, with a comment that many (read HER Supporters) would like to see her as VP. CNN also quotes a new poll that says 55 percent of Democrats and democrat-leaning independents would like to see Hillary in the #2 slot. The 55% figure provides a specious argument because 75% of her supporters want her to be VP, that along is 37 of the 55%. When we subtract that out 18% want her as VP. The poll also claims also claims that almost half of Obama supporters would like to see her as VP. Fist those numbers don't add up, second, I seriously doubt that! The vast majority of Obama supporters I have met and worked with would be ill at such a thought.
As I wrote in one of last weeks posts, HRC as VP would be a nightmare for a President Obama as he tries to govern. Hillary thinks she is smarter and more deserving of being President than he is, Bill C. would come as part of the team, I cannot see those two egos taking direction from a president they believe would not have been elected without them. As some of you have pointed out, in responses to my previous posts, an Obama-HRC ticket weakens the vital message of change by mixing our agent of change with the consumate agent of business as usual.
I see Cong. Rangell and Sen Schumer, both NY Democrats, positing HRC as VP as a trial balloon. It should be firmly rejected. One of the best ways to do that will be to have Senator Obama ready to name his running mate as soon as he acquires enough votes to lock up the nomination.
In the meantime, just say NO.
Americans have certain expectations regarding the comportment of former presidents. "Formers" are expected to be senior statesmen above the partisan fray. They are expected to behave in a dignified and "classy" fashion and are given a special measure of respect in return. Thus, Bill Clinton had a tightrope to walk in campaigning for his wife. He proved himself signularly unfit for this high wire act and in failing has forfeited any claim to being the leader of the Democratic Party.
How did he manage to lose the respect we once had for him? He committed several gaffs - overstating his wife's experience, whining about disequal treatment, lying (Yep, that again - at least this time it wasn't a felony), playing the race card, repeating and trying to excuse his wife's fairy tales (Bringing peace to N. Ireland and landing under fire in Bosnia, indeed), and worst of all, acting as if he were superior to his fellow citizens. WJC evidently forgot that he is no longer president (hint Bill you've been gone for more than 7 years). Perhaps, he had gotten used to his presidential hangers on bowing to his every wish and whim. That, I guess, is what made him think he could lie under oath. On the campaign trail, when faced with a reporter's question he did not like, not only did he excoriate his interlocuter but microphones recorded his opinion that, "I don't have to put up with that shit." It is not shit ,Willy; what fascist world are you living in?
I voted for the man twice and I think he did an excellent job as president. But his time has come and gone. I find myself now agreeing with William Benett, "the Clinton's should just GO AWAY." Bill Clinton has sacrificed his our good will, has shown himself to be a small minded man and is unworthy of being a respected elder of the Democratic Party. He has lost my respect and support two things his wife never had to begin with.
Media pundits have stated that HRC does not want to return to the Senate, where a leadership position for her is unlikely. Interview buddy, and former "newsman," George Stephanopolous has written that she is now interested in being Barack's VP. In an earlier blog I explain why that would be a nightmare ticket for Barack and why he should, "just say NO." Is there anywhere HRC might fit in an Obama administration?
My first choice would be no. My second choice would be Ambassador to the Sudan or Congo. My third choice would be Secretary of Labor of Health and Human Services. I think she could be an excellent champion of the labor movement, a livable minimum wage, pension reform, and unions - all of which have long suffered from inadequate attention. This lack of focus has dramatically unbalanced the management-labor playing field and is largely responsible for the declining real minimum wage and the increasing income disparity in the U.S.
Health and Human Services would allow her to work on the only issue where she really has experience - health care. We badly need affrdable health care that covers all U.S. workers. Perhaps HRC can learn from the mistakes she made in her husband's administration and deliver on a proposal which has bipartisian support. Were I President Obama, I would give her a short leash in this area, lest her strident and uncompromising nature cause the status quo to remain and the need continue unfullfilled.
A bit of history might be helpful to some of our younger Obamaites. Books will tell you that the Democratic party ran Congress for much of the 1960s and 1970s. As a life long Democrat, my response is, not really. From Reconstruction to LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964. Southern hatred of the, 19th century Radical Republican, Reconstruction was demonstrated by the refusal of most to vote Republican. With the signing of the CRA many of those people began voting republican. In Congress, moderate and liberal members of the Democratic party could not count on the "Dixiecrat" (Southern Democrat) support for social legislation; so we lost little by calling themselves what they truly were, Republicans.
The LA Times in an article today explains how the Rev Wright controversy has affected Sen Obama's support. Both the Republican and Mrs. Clinton have been running negative ads with some of Mr. Wright's most bombastic inflamatory oratory. No doubt the negative effect is true. It would not suprise me if Republicans, encouraged by FOX News and Rush Limbaugh, become democrats only to vote for Hillary Clinton. But others, using Reverend Wright as an excuse, are revealing their true colors. A 61 year old white, female, construction company secretary is quoted as saying that "Obama should have denounced Wright sooner - now (she )doesn't believe him," and Friday cast a vote for HRC. A retired Law Enforcement Officer and his wife , voted for HRC as "the lesser of two evils", (him) and "Wright made a big difference," (her).
I'm not buying it people!! The truth is you would never have voted for a erudite, young, multi-racial man anyway. That's OK, wear those sheets. But be proud of the fact that you are racist, knuckle-draggers and do not insult my intelligence by asking me to buy your nonsense. Obama denounced Rev. Wright when the latter went out of his way to insert himself in the political process and dared attempt to speak for our candidate. Although Barack is a gentleman, trying to elevate our politics; he had no choice but to speak for himself and in the process to denounce Mr. Wright.
JFK motivated me to a lifetime of public service (retired Army and U.S. Secret Service) and Barak Obama has the same vision, class, and magnetism to bring America together and motivate today's young people to solve the problem they inherit. Anyone using Rev Wright's words against Senator Obama is using the flimiest of excuses to justify their negative vote. Since Barack will be the Democratic nominee, because he has more delegates committed to him, in November these people must choose between 4-8 more years of Bush philosophy or a Camelot II, a return to American greatness, respect, and international leadership without violence. If they choose the former, remember well Bob Dylan's words, "the poor whites remain, on the caboose of the train, carved next to their name, 'only a pawn in their game.'"
Any of you who have been reading Robert Nowak and Karl Rove's columns have probably been amused by their providing Barack Obama campaign advice. These two, you will remember, should both be in federal prison for disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Like the Clinton's why don't you two knucle-draggers just go away.
I was amused to read three polls out today on Democrats' Presidential preference two showing Barack leading. The third poll was conducted by that voice of the lunatic right (FOX "news"). It would have us believe that Mrs. Clinton is the preferred candidate. Who are you guys polling? Certaining, not Democratic voters. Yes, I can believe HRC is the preferred candidate of the right. McCain and the republican attack machine have been joining Hillary in ganging up on Obama this week. In many ways it has been a tough week for him. The republicans figure that if they can help stop Obama's nomination, they can't stomp Hillary in November. Not a bad plan.
Just one problem with that strategy -- the Democratic Nomination math. Since the PA primary on the 22nd, 25 delegates have been awarded or superdelegates have announced their preferences. Barack Obama has received 64% (16) of these to HRC's 26% (9). This has reduced Barack's "Magic Number" to clinch the convention to 292. I expect the, as yet "uncommitted" super delegates to break 60-40 for Barack, which would give him 173 additional super delegates. He therefore needs to earn only 119 delegates in the remaining 9 contests to secure the nomination.
In the last couple of months I have noticed a change in the tone of CNN's self-proclaimed "best political team on television." CNN covereage has taken what may be called a pro Hillary bent, reporting, not news, but the spin of her political campaign. The effect of this, copied elsewhere in the media, is to give the impression Barack and Mrs. Clinton are in a close competition for the Democratic nomination. Nothing could be more untrue. Barack has the nomination virtually "in the bag."
Given such sensationalism in the media today, I cannot often point to insightful analytical pieces written by reporters. A pleasant exception is this article in politico.com. The writer gives us the benefit of her insights, research, and conversations with superdelegates and democratic insiders. These are not people who buy political spin and have their eyes fixed on winning the general election. Her message confirms the ideas expressed in this blog. It is well worth your time.
Since yesterday, Sen Obama has gained 4 additional "earned" delegates (from PA) while HRC was awarded 2. PA still has two delegates to award. Hillary's delegate lead in PA is 10 (83-73). As of Today Barack's earned delegate lead is 156 (1489-1333). He also gained another super delegate cutting HRC's lead to 22 (259-237). This gives Barack a total delegate count of 1726 just 298 short of what he needs to lock in the nomination. Hillary has 1592 total delegates.
Since Tuesday's primary Barack has gained 7 earned and 3 superdelegates to Hillary's 3 earned and 1 super delegate, a 10-4 advantage for Sen Obama.
Yes, We can and he Will !!!
Hillary's latest claim is that she leads in the popular vote for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Never, content with abiding by the rules (You didn't really expect a Clinton to abide by rules, did you?), this is Hillary's new-math. For her to lead we must not only reinstate FL, but MI also, and totally ignore the 238,000 Michigan voters who voted "uncommitted" rather than choose Clinton, Kuccinich, or Dodd (the names on the ballot).
If we do all that, Hillary has a 12,249 (.04%) popular vote lead. I have absolutely no problem adding FL to the mix; Obama was on the ballot there. (I'll even ignore the fact she, technically, broke the Democratic rules by attending a political event in FL during its primary season. After all she IS a Clinton.) But the only way I am willing to add Michigan is: with the 238,000 people who wouldn't vote for her and the other listed candidates, being added to Obama's (the only candidate still in the race) totals. By this, most conciliatory math, Obama still has a popular vote lead of 226,000 votes.
As I say, this is a most conciliatory position. I would agree with any of you that say FL and MI should not count, because the broke the DNC rules. But I would rather not give Democrat voters in those states any reason for offense.
I would also point out that, like Presidents, we don't select convention nominees by popular vote. The popular vote elects delegates and their votes select nominees. By delegate count Barack has a 1721-1590 delegate lead. There are 404 "earned delegates" in the 9 remaining primaries, 300 still-uncommitted superdelegates, and 29 earned delegates still to be apportioned by (PA,SC,NH,IA and Dems Abroad). Barack's "magic number" is 303 (41.3%) of the remaining delegates. Hillary needs 434 delegates (59.2%) to be the nominee, under the generally accepted convention rules.
I have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I did not fall for the Bush line and my son, an Air Force intelligence officer, informed of the pressure his organization was under to accept the Bush Administratiopn's reading of raw intelligence. I was most disappointed by the performance of the U.S. Senate which is supposed to examine and debate decisions of war and peace. Instead it punted and rubber stamped the Bush administration's wishes. Senator Clinton was among the senators who wielded the rubber stamp.
In one of her debates, she finally admitted she was wrong and would like to have that vote back; fine. (Of course, I would prefer a Democrat who had clear enough vision to recognize it was the wrong decision initially. After all that is what it takes to keep this nation out of war.) Now comes her appearance on Larry King Live, on the eve of the PA primary, (Does the timing of that bother anyone but me?), showing her readiness to be president she threatens to nuke Iran!!
Oh, no you don't Hillary Strangelove. Thos nuclear weapons belong to the American people not to you. We'll tell you when you can use them. They are a Last LAST resort. Like, Bill before her, she shows no understanding of military realities. This, along with her delusions over Bosnia and her role in Northern Irish Peace, convinces me she is nowhere near stable enough to be Commander-in-Chief.
What are your thoughts?
Mrs. Clinton is quoted in today's media as asking, why can't he (Sen Obama) close the deal (win the democratic nomination outright)? My bottom line is he already has, you just won't admit it. Let me explain my math. Because of the way the DNC allocated delegates (19.64%) 795 of 4047 are superdelegates, the only way to lock up the nomination before the convention is to earn 2024 of the remaining 3252 delegates (62.24%). In a two person race the other candidate could draw no more than 37.76% of the delegates (1228). That would be a landslide victory in political terms. It is what Mrs. Rodham Clinton expected, a coronation. But it is not realistic if you expect or desire an open nomination process, with no incumbent running.
According to Real Clear Politics (RCP) as of today, Sen Obama leds in delegates 1650 to 1508. On April 11, for example, 11 days ago his lead was 1633 to 1499. With no primaries held during that period, state delegate apportionment and super delegate commitments have given him a further 17 delegates to Hillary's 9. Since the PA primary is expected to be close, assuming Hillary wins, she is unlikely to gain more than 10 delegates - little more than enough to replace her slippage of the last 11 days. When Obama convincing beats her is NC he will gain significant additional delegates. He won't have 2024 until all super delegates commit. They will split 60-40 in his favor and Obama will win the convention with no less than 2105 delegates.
The end is clear. The deal, Madame Rodham-Clinton, IS CLOSED!! You refuse to admit. Instead you look around for some other way (e.g count popular vote including votes in uncontested elections) to win/steal the nomination. You are as delusional respecting winning the nomination as you were in your claims about Bosnia and playing a key role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Funny, neither of the two gentlemen who shared the Nobel Peace Prize for that feat, can remember your contributions.
A piece of unsolicited advice, Hillary - if you really want to win the convention, get the nomination based on people who loath you. You could probably even beat King George W. II
