Organizing for America | For the People, By the People

Community Blogs

For the People, By the People

View Full Profile »

About The Author...

Bill F (New London, CT)

« Hide Full Profile

User Profile

User:

Name:

Taking back our government, taking back our country, taking back our world...

Page 1 of 3 | Next | Last

The Education "Race"

By Bill F - Sep 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I'm sick and tired of hearing those not in education argue over education. They all say pay good teachers more and kick out the bad ones. Problem is, how the hell do you measure that? Test scores. Please. Do you want to see how fast all qualified teachers run from the inner cities to the suburbs in hopes to find higher test scores. Truth is, if you want higher test scores, that's all you have to do. The more wealthy and well-educated the parents of the kids are, the higher the test scores.

Studies show that the best indicator of how a student will read in 11th grade is how he or she read in 3rd grade. Not much changes. If we haven't instilled the love of books, the culture of school, and the vocabulary necessary to be competitive by the time these kids get to school, they won't catch up. The problem begins in the home. Those who have failed in school, and for whom school has a negative connotation, are those who will have trouble producing successful students. The best students and readers come from families who have read to their kids since birth, who read for fun themselves, and who do no accept failure from their children when they go to school. Show me a kid who is punished for a C+, and I'll show you a student who does well in school (disabilities aside).

Now, it's easy to say that, as an educator, I do not want to shoulder the blame, so I blame the parents. In fact, I am the exception to the rule I just put forth. My parents did poorly in school; in fact, my mother was a high school dropout. My father got by enough to graduate. So, how did I get where I am -- a self-proclaimed intellectual teaching high level philosophy to 11th graders in an American Literature course who got a perfect score on his PRAXIS and graduated from college Summa Cum Laude?

Well, in high school I wasn't such a hot shot. I had a C average or so and couldn't understand why I would try any harder than I had to. My parents couldn't afford college and nobody seemed to have any clue what I had to do to get in, so forget it -- too much trouble. I didn't go back to school until 10 years after I graduated. When I did, I excelled. Why? Acedemics at home had failed me, and I failed because of it. See, I was right afterall.

What changed in college. Three things: my natural curiosity took over, my natural competitive drive took over, as a new father and provider for my family education had a whole new meaning, and I happen to have a genious IQ that I finally put to use. So, how do we take the natural curiosity and competitive drive of students and combine it with a knowledge that what they do in school can improve their whole life. Damned if I know -- yet.

I do know what DOESN'T do that. School choice. The Republicans, namely John McCain, seem to think the way to make a student read better is to send them to a private school. This is racist, segregational, code for take the poor white kid away from all the ni****s in the ghetto school he's going to and he'll do better. THEY are rubbing off on OUR nice white boys. So, we leave all the unfortunate students who are cursed by families who do not value education enough to seak out a voucher to rott together as if it were they're fault. In fact, it may not be their family's fault. They may have been "left behind" as well. So, no child left behind other than those that "darken" our private schools.

Taking funding from "failing" schools (most in the inner cities -- big shock) is not the answer. This is also segregation and racism. So, the kids are failing the tests. Take all the kids from the highest scoring school in your state and swap them with all the kids from the lowest scoring school in your state and see what happens. Do you think the teachers at the failing school are so bad that all of a sudden these wealthy, white students with well-educated parents are going to start failing. No way. And do you think these inner city or rual students who have done poorly on tests are magically going to succeed after being touched by these Super Teachers. Not a chance. The only reason the failing school is failing is because it is filled with failing students segregated by income. Now I'm not even talking about race, although minorities are much more victimized by this trend, but economics. If you live in the poor neighborhood, the perception is that you are cursed and you fail.

How do we fix that? Revenue sharing between districts? Tax payers in one town would freak over their money going to a poor town. They'd cry Communism. Maybe corperate sponsors for schools that can't afford themselves. I'm not so sure. Is this really a funding issue? I think as long as I have a board and something to write on it with and some books I can teach. All the technology in the world won't change the basic facts and skills we are trying to teach. It's the culture that's the problem. A "learning is lame and we're never getting out of here anyway idea." If you want to fix the culture, then fix it. How, you ask?

Free college for all -- there should be public education past the high school level. How to acheive this, that's for the politicians to worry about. As an educator, though, I'm convinced if you told all students that they can go to some kind of college after high school for free, they would make a change in their attitude and success would become the norm, not the exception. Tie that free education to a GPA requirement, and then, let's see what happens.
Infuse technology, not because technology is necessary to create learning, but because it's cool. Let's face it. We, as teachers, even bore ourselves today with the typical classroom experience. We live in a really cool world with crazy inventions turning our heads on a daily basis. Let's turn their heads in the classroom with cool technology that makes history, literature, and science come alive.
Stimulate curiosity. How? That's for individual teachers to deal with. How about not always giving the answer but make them do things without an explaination first -- keep them guessing. This flies in the face with our "give them the objectives up front" culture in education, but just because some research shows something works doesn't mean jack every time.
I find I get the most buy in by treating them like real people at the high school level. Talk to them like you talk to your friends, your relatives, etc. You don't have to sound like a genious at every second. Tell them personal stories that connect to what you're teaching. Have fun with them. Make the classroom a hangout that happens to focus on what you're teaching. As long as they are respectful and listening, this approach will captivate them and actually make them want to listen.
Smaller class sizes (meaning much more teachers). What sounds more productive, 30 kids sitting around watching a teacher write on a board about Poe's life, some hiding in the back with their heads down, on hard chairs or eight kids sitting on cozy sofas, or beanbag chairs, hanging out with refreshments with a guy they respect telling them stories about Poe laced with wit and drama. Come on, this is a no-brainer. They'll remember those "chats" and tell others about them. The lectures or whole-class, 30-student, sessions are out of their head faster than they get out the door.
WE CAN'T AFFORD WHAT WE NEED. To have smaller classes we need to pay more teachers and pay them much more to attract people to the profession. Technology takes money. Better furniture takes money. We need bigger schools to fit all those new classes in. How, how, how???
Change all of American society. Our priorities are all wrong. Right now, in the Bronx, there is a stadium being built for billions of dollars while an old, historic stadium is FILLED every night making its owners very, very rich. Right next door to all that wealth being poored into that stadium, delapidated, over-crowded, probably "failing" schools are rotting right next door.

People are planning to vote McCain over Obama because Obama is too intellectual, nerdy, professorial -- "not like me." We don't value intelligence. We don't want to pay for it. We don't want to sacrifice for it. We say we want better education, but we really do not care. Books are for dorks; real people watch tv and drink a beer and pay 9 bucks for it at the billion dollar stadium while their kid goes to a school in crowded classrooms that are falling apart. Some message we are sending to students. And we wonder why they fail!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Meet Sarah Palin!

By Bill F - Aug 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

As a relative unknown, many of you may not know much about Sarah Palin -- including how to pronounce her name. Well, I figured I'd take it upon myself to introduce her to members on mybarackobama.com. (File this under "you can't make this stuff up")

Her accomplishments include being the first Republican non-white male to ever be nominated for Vice President of the United States of America. And, um, well, that's about it.
She is currently under investigation for bullying the state's Public Safety Commisioner to fire her sister's ex-husband, a state trooper, for revenge. When he refused, she fired him for "not filling open positions" (more likely for not creating them in this case).
She believes creationism should be taught in public school science classes -- despite the fact that the Constitution calls for a seperation of church and state and creationism is not science.
She is staunchly pro-life, even in the case of rape, incest, danger to the mother, or desease. She, like McCain, hopes Roe v Wade will be overturned by the Supreme Court someday.
She is attempting to court Hillary's 18 million cracks by saying that she was put off by Hillary and all her "whining". That's right -- that's a quote.
She is a maverick -- going out on a Republican limb like McCain and admitting that global warming exists. However, she DOES NOT believe global warming was created BY MAN!
I'd tell you what McCain says and thinks about his chioce in this bullet point, only he only met her once, so he's not really an authority on the subject.
She believed the construction of the "bridge to nowhere" (which, in my estimation, must be referring to the city in Alaska she was major of before her less than two years as governor) needed to happen NOW, during an important window of time, well, before she was against it and helped fight to shut it down. Isn't it aweful cold in Alaska for flip-flops?
Her husband has connections to the oil industry.
She will be forced to neglect her newly born, down-syndrome baby in order to campaign and do such a hard job. No worries though, she can borrow one of McCain's old nannies; he probably doesn't remember how many he has anyway.
She thinks she has some foreign policy cred because Alaska is closer to Russia, and as Keith Olberman points out, Alaska has never been invaded by Russia -- so she must be doing something right...right?
She's already being compared to such Vice Presidential greats as Dan Quayle and Geraldine Farraro (who also was plagued be scandal).
She is for drilling for oil in her own back yard, risking the lives of polar bears and other cute, fuzzy animals to gain a few drops of oil that will do nothing for lowering oil prices, but may help pad her special interest pocket book with contributions from oil companies a la McCain.

All-in-all, whatshername is definately a brilliant pick by McCain. I'm taking a longshot here, I know, but I'm willing to bet there is a female, conservative that can be spun as a maverick that isn't under any investigation and has some national experience of some kind. Any takers.

PS -- take a good look at the video of McCain standing behind her as she gave her speech Friday in Ohio. Watch is eyes closely. Is he checking out her ass? He really is! He can't keep them up. That nets TWO former beauty queen trophy wives for McCain. Did you really think he was a fighter for the advancement of women? Come on -- this is the guy who called his wife a "cunt" in public and only married her after his first wife became incapacitated due to a terrible accident AND the guy who runs around making rape jokes about apes... look it up!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Just Biden His Time!

By Bill F - Aug 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

While I was somehwhat miffed that we had to wait so long to find out who the VP would be, now that the emotional waiting is over, I can see the wisdom of the decision to wait. We now roll into the convention on a high, possibly keeping the VP bounce and combining it with the convention bounce. McCain will have a lame convention, with controversy over LIEberman, Bush, and Cheney, and a VP rollout that has already leaked (Romney) or will be extremely lame (Pawlenty). Obama, once again, has done it right and showed how he and his people will run this country the right way.

Now, the timing strategy is not the only important thing Obama has done right (I love the 3 AM phone call connotation to the text message). The man he picked is a great pick as well. While I would have been okay with Kaine or Bayh, and thrilled with Kerry, Gore, or Clinton, this is the right choice. We've got an experienced -- real experience Mr. McCain -- Catholic, white-working-class-lunchbucket Democrat with enough liberalism to satisfy Obama fans and enough "have a beer with" appeal to get those not so thrilled with Obama but wanting a change in Washington from the past eight years. I think this clinches PA and helps in places like Ohio and Michigan. What most don't notice as a possitive, in fact, most make fun of it, is the gray, balding head. We've done poorly with seniors. This should show them its okay to vote for Obama, he likes old folks, too.

The best part of Biden is his rhetoric. This guy just doesn't give a flying fudge. He may be toned back a bit until the election is over, but there will be plenty of sound bites to get under McCain's aging skin. See any of the debates for proof -- he's downright entertaining. "Noun, verb, and 9/11" -- priceless! He's able to use wit, charm, real straight-talk, and intellect to put ANYONE in their place. Even when he does go too far, the media seems to see it as charming and just Joe being Joe -- see the BS comment about Bush. Usually, his over-the-top jabs are on the money, not below the belt, so he gets away with it. I don't envy anyone who has to debate him. Romney may do okay, but lose handily; Pawlenty will be out of his element and look like he's taking a seminar class in America 101 from Prof. Biden.

So, "the biggest celebrity in the world" choses an everyday Joe. The VP pick is more about a message to the voters than anything. The message -- "I care about you, the middle class, the little guy." Don't let McCain fool anyone, its Obama who is for the people, by the people -- not McRealestate.

Sure, Biden's remarks about Obama not being ready will come back, but can be explained -- and if McCain taps Romney, we can do the same. Sure, it doesn't look like CHANGE, but Biden can always say he's been fighting to change Washington for over 30 years and now he has a chance to do it with Barack. The only other thing to get over is the fact that Obama-Biden sounds a bit like Osama BinLaden. I don't think that will be an issue. While McCain's chasing BinLaden to the gates of hell, possibly to join him there, Obama will be in the White House finding out that actually consentrating on Afghanistan will make finding BinLaden much easier than that. See you in hell, Johnny!

Now, since I've advocated for just about every possible VP shortlister (other than CHET EDWARDS??), do I still get to say "I told you so"? Guess not.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Did McCain just draft your kid?

By Bill F - Aug 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Yesterday, McCain responded to the comment from a supporter that the only way to win the war on terror is to reinstate the draft, to which McCain replied that he agreed with everything the woman just said. Now, McCain, to my knowledge, has not said anything since to defend himself. Some are saying, unofficially on his behalf, that he meant the rest of the things the supporter said -- not the last line about the draft. So, until someone asks him and we get a straight answer, we really don't know if a President McCain would bring back the draft. However, he has commented on this in the past, usually talking about an all-volunteer military. I did find this quote out there, though...

"I don't know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III." ...

As I have predicted several times on this blog, McCain very well may bring about this exact senerio. With troops in two countries and McCain rattling his saber and everything else at Russia, it seems we may be heading in that direction if we do not elect the guy that preaches deplomacy over world-policing. If McCain leads us to military action against Russia, it will quickly shape up as allies and former solviet countries verus Russia and Islamic countries who hate us. They will join with Russia in a convinient way to get to us. I see WWIII as Russia, Iran, and anyone else who decides to take that side against the typical Western countries. The wildcard -- China. What would they do with the two major nuclear powers fighting each other. Who will take this choatic mess as a chance to hit Isreal? It's not too much of a stretch. We could be heading toward a massive nuclear clusterfuck curtosy of President McCain. And in comes the draft.

I'm for deplomacy and world peace...that means a President Barack Obama. Well, stay tuned. Hopefully this house ownership gaffe teach middle class America who the real elitest is and turn this election on its head. We need a bump.

TTFN

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Where's Johnnnny....

By Bill F - Aug 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I was thinking...

Does anyone else find it strange that the man that gave Barack Obama a huge break -- the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention -- endorsed him early along with Ted Kennedy giving him big name credentials before his nomination seemed to be a foregone conclusion, and has spent his own PAC's money to defend Barack against "swiftboat" type attacks does not have a speaking slot at the convention. Of course we're talking about Vietnam War vet Sen. John Kerry. I'm just saying! I can hear the convention speech now, "Four years ago I stood before you and proclaimed 'help is on the way'. Well, today I am hear to proudly say.. help has ARRIVED and HIS NAME IS BARACK OBAMA!"

I've read many detractors of the idea on various posts, but they all seem to be Republicans using lines like "I hope it's him; that will kill Obama." If Republicans don't like it, there must be a reason. I like it (thought I've liked almost all of the picks) for several reasons.

He's a superstar that the liberal base can get behind. Sure, he seemed lame while running, but like Gore, has acheived a new branding and new star status since losing to The Evil Empire. He has been true to his word and become a strong combatant to the Bush administration, making him popular in the party.
He forces the hand on Mitt Romney. Having a Mass guy on our ticket makes McCain think about what it would mean to have a Mass guy on his ticket. Of course Obama will win Mass, but what about New Hampshire? I'm not sure if this would encourage or discourage McCain from picking Romney and which way we would want him to go, but I do know it makes him react instead of act.
He may not win any swing states, but there's no evidence that any VP could do that -- see Edwards; hell, Gore didn't even win his own state! What he might do, though, is keep two states McCain is trying to turn red in the blue colomn -- Massachusettes neighbor New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (don't forget the Heinz connection).
He has tons of experience to offset Obama's inexperience, has already been THE key attack dog, and showed he get votes. He earned more votes in 2004 than any other Democrat has won ever.
He already has a nationally recognizable name. Besides Hillary, he is the most recognizable national name to voters -- even more so than McCain. He was a candidate in the general election for president for crying out loud.
The "Collective-conscience-for-Gore" theory. America gave the presidency to Bush. Since then, the world and this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Americans, collectively in some sort of Transcendental conscience, feel they owe something to Gore -- especially since he really WON the election. Some psychologists believe if Gore ran, he would win based on this principal. They say America would feel like they could go back to that moment in 2000 as if none of this ever happend, and the country and world could move forward in the right direction. Why not the same for Kerry. Bush's second term has been much more harmful than his first. We could excuse some of his insanity because of the trama of 9/11. The second term, however, has just been one big scandal. I think America may feel the way to heal is to give Kerry a chance since they didn't the first time. And with the swiftboat garbage proven to be just that, they may be willing to listen this time around.

All in all, I think this would be one of the top picks. Right now, though I predicted heavily Clinton, my list of who ought to be veep goes as follows...

1) Wes Clark -- vetran status, military experience, and change to Washington

2) John Kerry -- see above

3) Joe Biden -- many of the above for Kerry, but without the intangibles of just having been in the race four years ago

4) Hillary Clinton -- read other blogs for this one

5) Bill Richardson -- tons of experience, good speaker, good debater, western swing states

All the rest really don't even come close to this top five. I know we want change, but we don't need more inexperience, and we don't need a boring, expected announcement (AKA Bayh).

Just a thought.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain Full of **It

By Bill F - Aug 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

It seems John McCain's ever increasing list of criticisms about Obama just keeps reflecting back at him. Even the media is finally coming around to see the hypocrisy of most of McCain's attacks. Here's just a small sample...

McCain supported the Iraq War and is planning on staying there as long as necessary to "get the job done" -- even if the Iraqi government we created wants us out. Now he says, in support of Georgia, that in the 21st century no country can invade a soveriegn nation. Can't have it both ways Johnny. It probably doesn't help that his foreign policy advisor is on Georgia's payroll. Not only will a McCain presidency lead to economic depression and another war in Iran, but now we can add a nuclear standoff with Russia. It seems more and more that McCain is planning on ushering in the end of the world.
McCain claims Obama's "victory lap" around the world -- the one McCain taunted him into -- was presumptive and acting like the president already. Now we have McCain talking about Georiga and Russia as if he is already the Commander in Chief. He's even taken it upon himself to "disbatch" senators to the region. Talk about cocky! He just can't wait to fight!
This may not be McCain's fault, but many -- especially Republicans -- are saying John Edwards, knowing he cheated on his wife, should not have run for president. Well, let's not forget that Mr. McCain was courting Cindy McCain before he was divorced from his first wife. In fact, he began seeing Cindy while wife number one was severely injured from a car accident and laid up in a hospital bed. Of course he obviously doesn't think much of wives in general, as it is widely reported that McCain blew up publically (see McCain's temper) at her in front of reporters and said, and I quote, "At least I don't cake on the makeup like a trollup, cunt!" And now, Mr. Temper's wife has a ouchie hand after "shaking hands with a supporter". Sure. And I'm Barney Rubble. Could this have been a Tom Buchanon moment! (See The Great Gatsby) And talk about hypocritical -- McCain wears quite a bit of makeup to cover all his surgeries to remove cancer from his face. Hey, isn't that the same desease Liz Edwards has? Coincidence -- I think not! (I know, I know, I'm getting looney)
McCain claims all Obama will do is raise taxes and cut jobs. Well, if you're one of those amongst the most wealthy and greedy -- those who cause all the economic problems -- he will. If you're a normal to well-off person -- ya know, the ones we need to buy stuff to get the economy going but can't because WE HAVE NO MONEY -- those making under 200,000 a year, you're getting a MUCH better tax deal than with McCain's "plan". When the question comes up in debate, McCain is going to look foolish. "Uh, uh, if you raise taxes to the rich, they will cut employees to make up the difference, and uh, uh, jobs will be lost, unemployemnt, uh, uh, Regan, uh, huh, voodoo economics....uh...." SHUT UP JOHN. Say what you mean -- the rich folks are so damn greedy that if they have to personally pay a little more tax, they will make sure they make a gazillion dollars by screwing their employees and hurting the middle class! The same reason why cutting the tax on gas wouldn't help the consumer, because the GAS MEN would just see it as an opportunity to put more in their pockets and less into the governement AND RAISE PRICES. The rich, wealthy, and well-connected have one agenda, stick it to the regular guy as much as they can get away with so they can make the biggest profit possible without paying their share into our society through taxes. That is what McCain supports. Hard-working, white, working class voters -- PAY ATTENTION!!!! McCain would just assume you were homeless on the street selling crack as long as you don't touch any of Cindy's treasure! Hypocrite!
Last for today -- though there are many more examples (I just might give my self a stroke thinking about them) -- Mr. Drill-here-and-drill-now seems to think increasing the supply of oil by a bucket or two is going to help lower prices (see the previous point to see what will happen if that does happen). IDIOTS. We keep saying the same thing, most often in the summer. It's their way of robbing us blind. The oil companies jack up the prices immeasurably getting everyone in a tizzy, then roll them back a bit just as quickly, usually at the end of the summer (see current prices dropping). When it's over, we're thrilled we have these new low prices and completely forget just how low they were before the summer. Ex. we start the summer at say 2.99 a gallon (still way too high). Then, prices soar for this BS reason or that to 4.29. We all go nuts and say we're going to have to fix the system. Then, as summer ends, the prices "drop" to 3.85 and we're all happy and relieved -- AND TOTALLY FORGET JUST TWO MONTHS AGO IT WAS 2.99. I'm just saying. McCain and his oil buddies are hosing us at the pump! Don't forget that as soon as he became Johnny Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, DRILL ME McCain, he automatically got a 2 million dollar dump from oil companies. We see his base, and it's remarkably similary to Bush.

So, to recap, if McCain is elected, I predict...

The Second Great Depression, followed by...
WWIII with Western Countries taking on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Palestinians, and other Muslims we piss off, followed by...
A nuclear show down with Russia, as McCain, still trapped in the Cold War in his aging, alzhiemer's mind, tries to protect Georgia and all other countries who lobby him, followed by...
THE END OF THE WORLD by nuclear bombing from all parts of the globe to all other parts. There'll be so much war with McCain we won't even know who we're shooting at. Let's just help China's on our side... oh, wait, it doesn't matter -- THE PLANET WILL BE OBLITERATRED!!!

There's the new slogan -- "A vote for McCain is a vote for THE END OF THE WORLD". I see the commericial now, will the REM song in the background (with persmission of course -- RIGHT JOHNNY!). And McCain calls Obama "The One" AKA Antichrist. More hypocrisy!

****Today's blog was "catharsis" for me. If you were offended, sorry. Unless you were a Republican or rich, wealthy, or well-connected -- then -- TOO DAMN BAD!!!

******UPDATE********

I just read some interesting history I was unaware of. Go to Google or Wikipedia and plug in "Keating Five Scandal" and learn something new about our buddy Johnny McCain. Why this has not come up in the media, I have no idea.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Back to Hillary...?

By Bill F - Aug 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Though the recent speculation suggests otherwise, I can't help but be pulled back into thinking Barack will pick Hillary as VP. Despite what some ardent supporters say, the majority of the party, including those who are actually delegates (super or otherwise) want this. Here are some random thoughts brought to the surface by 40 minutes on the treadmill and a shower...

The VP does not HAVE to speak on Wednesday. Perhaps she would have gone Wednesday, but the aniversary of women gaining the right to vote was too symbolic to pass up -- the Obama campaign loves symbolism.
Wouldn't it be perfect for Pelosi -- Congress' top gun (a women) -- to introduce Hillary as the VP candidate on that historic occasion? She is speaking Tuesday before Hillary. Ah, more symbolism.
They could easily change Tuesday's schedule to Wednesday if we're married to the fact the VP should speak Wednesday. Perhaps another speaker will cover world affairs -- someone being kept quiet so as not to tip off that the veep is Hillary. Maybe someone auditioning for Secretary of State or Defense.
I just read a blog, which could be completely fabricated, that says he or she received an arroneous text message stating "Sen Clinton 2B VP" followed by a brief blurb about her leadership and another thanking for support. The language sounded straight out of the Obama camp, but a true fan could fake it. A blogger looking for attention or to fuel controversy, OR an accidental message sent -- test gone arry, wrong number, etc.
It just feels like Barack has something up his sleeve -- why not fish or cut bait on whether her name will be in nomination. Another ploy so as not to tip us off.

Whomever it is, I'm going to bet Hillary and keep my chips down until I know for a fact otherwise. It seems logical, neccessary, and the kind of overhyped trickery that Obama has become famous for. (No insult there; I'm all for overhype and trickery.) The other trick he could be pulling is naming Webb VP to speak about foreign affairs on Wednesday, meaning that whole overblown letter to Obama (something that never needed to happen, as others just flat out say they don't want the job) a prop to get Webb off the radar so he could be the surprise.

**********************************UPDATE**************************************

Mark Warner has just been named the keynote speaker of the convention and will deliver his speech TUESDAY night. This would make a crowded night, especially when it was being touted as "Hillary's Day" at the convention. This would probably upset Clinton followers as some attention would be diverted from the Hillary butt-kiss fest. THAT IS UNLESS... Hillary will be moved to Wednesday as the VP pick. It even makes more sense now.

For Warner this helps him in his bid for Senate in Virginia. The exposure will get him more turnout, and with Democrats flocking to the polls to get Warner, who is very popular in VA, elected, Obama stands to gain significant votes. This seems to be the plan for winning Virginia, a state he is already close in -- get voters enthusiastic about Warner through a convention speech to gain voters for himself. Appearently, that move means Obama thinks he can win Virginia through more subtle measures than making Kaine, Webb, or Warner the VP.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Could it Be Clark?

By Bill F - Aug 12th, 2008 at 11:34 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

The hot rumor is now that Barack is back to Wes Clark for VP. This is due to the VP's speaking day being Wednesday at the convention, the day themed "Securing America's Future". The day is supposed to be about foreign affairs, protecting the country, and honoring veterans. The talk immediately switched to Kerry, Clark, Bayh, and Beiden. But once the bloggers realized "Securing America's Future" is Wes Clark's PAC, the spotlight moved entirely on Clark.

I know you're saying, didn't Obama reject and denounce Clark for his comments against McCain's military service. But he didn't really. He said that diminishing McCain's heroism, patriotism, and service wouldn't be accepted by anyone. He never mentioned Clark by name -- so, perhaps Obama doesn't feel Clark was doing that with his comments that crashing a helicopter doesn't make you automatically qulified for the job of president. Which, of course, is obviously true and not demeaning to McCain's service at all.

If we look back at his Meet the Press interview that turned to VP considerations, his answers about not trying to bring a state or get a "yes" man, but rather someone who could change Washington (a capital hill outsider), work with him and tell him when he disagrees, and bring a skill set that will be helpful in our challanges ahead, fit Clark to a T. So, do we have our guy? Who the hell knows at this point...I'll wait for an E-mail Sunday night and a rally Monday morning to find out for sure.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

First to Know

By Bill F - Aug 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

As you all probably know, we've been given the chance to know Barack Obama's vice presidential pick before the "general public". I know its exciting, and certainly, I was one of the first to sign up when I received the email. It sounds great -- expecially for those of us who have been chomping at the bit to know who will be joining Barack on our buttons and bumper stickers. The only problem is, it's not going to be THAT big of a deal to get the email or text message.

I'm sure many members of the press will have gotten the information before hand through their contacts and we will probably know a few hours to a day ahead of time. There will probably be headlines like, "Obama expected to text _________________________ is his VP pick today". Even if nothing gets leaked, and it really happens the way they say it will, members of the media will also be on that list and be writing their headlines ASAP. So, unless you are permanently strapped to your cell phone or computer, you're more likely to see the headline on your internet providers main page before you even log into your email.

Either way, it's a genious move. Get some cell numbers to call and bug for money, get some more publicity and buzz as the talking heads spend all week talking about the move, and show how change oriented and computer savvy the campaign is. Can McCain do this? I doubt it. If his people did a similar thing, he'd probably be the last to know who is VP was! It would at least open up the jokes about his age even more.

So, rumors are abound in the blogosphere. Many point to Hillary, saying that the reason Bill wasn't in the official press announcement of speakers for the convention -- it's been stated he will speak Wednesday before the veep -- is because he will really be taking the Tuesday slot reserved for Hillary, and she will be taking the Wednesday speach as VP. There is a lot pointing toward this resolution to Clinton v Obama, but we've had tons of evidence for this veep and that, and still nothing.

The other most popular rumor -- that he had already chosen Feingold and was just jerking us around to make it a surprise -- seems out the door. Feingold praised McCain and got headlines for it. He assured the public that McCain in power would be a maverick and would piss off the conservative right. That may help increase right wing distain for McCain and actually help in the polls, but at the same time reassured independents making it a crappy way to help Obama. So, he must be out.

I read an interesting one about Caroline Kennedy being named to the vetting committee to find someone better than herself -- Obama's first choice according to the rumor -- and she's been unsuccessful, so Obama is going to force her into action. The theory states that she is definately an outsider, brings the Kennedy brand, the Clinton people will understand picking THIS women and not be upset, and that she's really, really, really smart. I'm not buying this one. Of course with my luck lately, it probably will turn out to be true.

The final rumor is Al Gore. Appearently, he's said some things recently that contradicted his "I can do more good outside of government" and indicate he'd be willing to do America's number two job twice. I doubt this as well. This theory states that Gore is hungry for the White House, and a run in 2016 after veeping for Obama for 8 years is his best chance. I don't like that thought. It seems voters, especially Democratic leaders, would look at the ticket wishing it were reversed, killing enthusiasm for Obama.

I'm not hearing much on Kaine. He seems kinda lame and inexperienced, not to mention unliked by Obama's base because of his record on abortion and not fighting the death penalty. Then there's Bayh, who still may be the front runner if you go with conventional wisdom. What Obama keeps showing us, though, is he is NOT the conventional candidate and is not running the conventional campaign. Just look at Monday's convention schedule. Michelle is getting top billing that evening -- highly unusual. It's a good sign to the world that women are not just there to look pretty and hug the president when he's feeling down. She will be a key aid to him as a president, as she should be, and it will set a precedent for future first ladies. Perhaps we may see Michelle in the Senate some day in her own quest to be the first female president. Stranger things have happened.

Well, looks like we're in for an interesting two weeks. Stay tuned to your email and cell phones.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

More on Hillary

By Bill F - Aug 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I read a blog today from someone who claimed to have worked extensively with Obama and also claims to be a personal friend of Hillary Clinton (liar or Senator?) and CLAIMS that they truly are friends. He or she said they both are very competitive and wanted to win, and they both understand that about each other. They have left the primaries behind and are ready to move on (Bill is another question altogether). If this is true, a VP nod may be coming for the Hillster. In their few appearences together since she suspended her campaign, they have looked very chummy together -- good actors or the real deal.

Some speculate that when they took a plane together after Obama met with his VP vetter in his law office, in the company of Caroline Kennedy (another vetter), the deal was done. The rest of this VP tango has been a ruse because he wants it to look like his choice, to be a surprise, and to be considered "defying conventional wisdom" -- an outside the box pick rather than the obvious choice.

Has the entire Democratic party been dragging us along on a magical, mystery ride just to come back to the original "obvious" conclusion. If Hillary's people are moved by her being on the ticket, and Obama's people are satisfied with her praise and the excitement of the convention, this could work out. And I had another thought. For those worried about McCain commercials showing Hillary attacking Obama, what about Obama commercials showing McCain PRAISING Hillary as he did when he was trying to court her supporters. We could probably find enough video of him praising Obama to do a whole string of adds with McCain complementing the entire ticket.

Of course I have also been hearing rumors that Obama had selected Feingold from jump street, and the rest has been a ruse -- from day one. That may be more of a risky pick than we realize. 98 out of 100 on the liberal scale and divorced twice isn't the typical perscription for a Democratic veep. But this hasn't been a typical election cycle. Of course Bayh, Kaine, and Beiden are all still out there looming. The suspense is killing me!

How about this lineup...

Hillary VP
Beiden Chief of Staff
Webb Secretary of Defense
Feingold Attorny General
Richardson Secretary of State
Bloomberg Treasury Secretary
Hagel Director of Homeland Security (he promised there'd be republicans in his cabinet)
Bill Clinton Newly created Czar of African issues
Al Gore Newly created Czar on environmental issues and climate change
Kieth Olberman Press Secretary (just a fantasy here, close your eyes and picture that!)

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Hillary Back in Vogue?

By Bill F - Aug 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

As the media continues to predict that Hillary as VP is as good as dead, I think we need to take a closer look. Many who know Obama say he loves to be in control and wants this VP thing to be as secret as possible. He wants us to know nothing until the day HE announces it. So Kaine, Bayh, Beiden -- not so big secrets. There's been more leaks about them then I can count. I think we're being set up for a surprise. Why? Picking Hillary without all this veepstakes circus insanity would look like she forced him into it. Instead, we've been shown that this was a painstaking process done Obama's way to find the person HE, and only he, wants. So, if he comes back to Hillary in the end, it was his decision -- not pressure from her and her supporters. Let's look at the evidence.

First, why the big to-do about the vetting team and them interviewing folks on capital hill? It's like they wanted us to see the process in, well, process. Why such a big deal? To make it look like Obama was doing a complete vetting process on several contenders -- not just giving it to Hillary.
Second, naming Patty S. Doyle as the veep's chief of staff. Why do that and risk pissing off Hillary supporters even more? Perhaps Doyle's demise with the Hillary camp was aimicable and she would like to work with her again. Perhaps ovatures toward Hillary staff by Obama isn't simply to smooth things over, but to put a Hillary-friendly team in place to deal with her.
Third, with all the hell being raised by Hillary supporters, why is everyone so confident that there will be unity after the convention? There genuinely seems to be no worries on the part of any of the parties involved here, despite talk of protests and putting her name in nomination.
Fourth, why, after two straight near-misses by the media due to timely leaks with Kaine and Bayh, has there been so much Clinton talk the past couple of days? Do you really think Bill Clinton is stupid enough to say Obama may not be ready to be president? Come on. More theatre.
Fifth, we now are being told that Obama will announce the veep the week prior to the convention. That would be the 18th to the 22nd. That week is supposed to be the media blitz -- all VP all the time. This gives the ticket two weeks of good press. Why in God's name would Obama put Hillary in Florida -- a state that could clinch the election for Barack -- on the 21st. Hillary campaigning in Florida will draw a ton of media, especially if she's not the pick and her supporters are being reminded by her appearance that she got "snubbed". He would be killing his own veep's media buzz...unless SHE IS THE VEEP. Perhaps they use that day in Florida to announce her -- that would be huge, especially in Florida. Give us that 27, and my map shows an even 270 without even winning Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Indiana, or Montana. Lights out.
Finally, we now know Wednesday night, just before the veep speaks, Bill Clinton will address the convention...possibly announcing the veep. This would be more salt in the Clinton wounds to force Bill to introduce the person that beat out his wife for veep. I don't see that as unifying...unless, once again, he is introducing his own wife. What a moment. The people will eat it up.

One blogger that I read, who claimed to have worked with and around Obama in the past, said she thought Barack was setting us up for a surprise. The only way, according to her, that Obama could keep this whole thing secret from the press would be to lead them astray as much as possible, then drop the bombshell, on his terms. Now, his staff has stated it will not be a surprise. But, with all the speculation about Hillary from "day one", that may be a smart-ass way to say -- no surprise, of course it's Hillary.

Surely, most will disagree, and even be angry at the thought, but I'm just speculating and laying out some evidence. I've done that before incorrectly, though, so why listen to me? Don't. I'm just saying. Either Obama has done a terrible job planning, and his campaign has orchastrated a veep rollout and convention that is going to really piss off the Hillary people, or he's picking her. Keep in mind, the polls show that Barack's slim (and getting slimmer) lead jumps to a 9 or 10 point lead with Hillary on the ticket, fueled by 87% support from Democrats as opposed to 79% by himself. So, as much as you all may say picking Hillary would upset his "base", the stats say something else. Bayh may bring Indiana and Michigan; Kaine may bring Virginia and even North Carolina, but Hillary brings Florida, Ohio, clinches Pennsyvania, and Arkansas -- a total of 74 electoral votes!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Let Bayh Gones Be Bayh Gones!

By Bill F - Aug 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I admit that I've jumped on numerous bandwagons as this veepstakes thing has lead to rumor after rumor. First I was all for Hillary, then Webb, then Kaine -- sure each would be the pick at one time or another. However, it looks fairly certain that Obama is going to pick Hillary supporter Evan Bayh as his running mate, putting Indiana even more in play, giving him someone with national experience (in the Senate) and executive experience (as governor of Indiana), and adding to Obama's centrist message as Bayh has worked extensively on bipartisan projects and is well-liked on both side of the isle on Capital Hill.

The signs are all there --

A unexpected layover in Indiana Tuesday night through Wednesday afternoon.
A newly announced rally at a school in Indiana with increased Secret Service and a motorcade.
The website obamabayh08.com automatically redirects to the DNC webpage; the same can't be said for any other possible running mate.
Picking Bayh means losing his seat in the Senate to a Republican appointee; however, the recent news that an Alaskan Senator has a little legal trouble, we should be able to take that seat unexpectly, making it a wash.

So it really does look like Wednesday morning will be the announcement of Evan Bayh as the Democratic nominee for Vice President of the United States of America. It would be a stronger announcement if Hillary returned the favor to Bayh and attended the event; however, that would distract attention from Bayh and remind Hillary voters that she's not the gal. The Wednesday announcement would give us Thursday and Friday to gloat before the world goes Olypics crazy. This Olympics will be particularly newsworthy with all the protests and Communist control over there. I just hope everyone stays safe -- the idea is sort of scary. McCain will have to wait until after the Dems convention to announce his VP. The hope is that the buzz over the 75,000 strong acceptance speech overshadows McCain's pick even days after the convention.

It seems all that's left now is to rate the pick. It looks like Obama is doing as well as he can in Virginia even without Kaine, so we don't necessarily need him. Obama has a slight lead there. However, he is merely close in Indiana -- that means although it has two less electoral votes, Indiana needs a little more attention. Its proximity to Obama's home Illinois makes it even more winnable. So electorally, it seems to make sense. Bayh could help bring Illinios.

Also, Kaine is relatively new on the scene, making him an Obama Jr. as far as the experience argument goes, yet Bayh is no old man, letting people still question if age is a problem for McCain without hurting us. Sure, Kaine had executive experience, but not much. Bayh was governor of Indiana before becoming a Senator, so he has state and national experience. Like Kaine, Bayh earned his undergrad work was in economics, which just so happens to be the top issue with voters this election. As governor Bayh was fiscally responsible, created a surplus, and was able to use that surplus to keep taxes low for years. This made him very popular and got him re-elected in a landslide. This can be spun as how we need to cut spending by ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ and ending Bush's tax cuts because at a time of war that is NOT fiscally responsible.

He serves in the Senate on the armed services commitee, which gives him some foreign relations experience, as well as the commitee on housing and banking -- another big issue this election cycle. He has stood strong against Bush, voting against most of his political appointments and asking for Rumsfeld's resignation. Unlike Kaine, he is pro-choice, which should be good news for lefties and women voters.

His negatives are a few and are mostly perception and image issues for Obama. Can a Senator with so much influence be a change agent? Will ultra-liberals be upset with a proud centrist. The idea here is to win a general election, so the image as Obama as a moderate uniter seems to be the right play, rather than the liberal reformer. Also, he's not a Catholic like Kaine, so that edge is lost, but may not be needed. There seems to be no scandal or other kind of issue in Bayh's history -- squeeky clean. All-in-all, I'd say an A- simply because some of Obama's base may be upset by his centrist image, but those are the same ones that were upset with Kaine.

In other news, if you believe the polling, Obama is safe with 243 electoral votes, leaving exactly 27 left to win unless something happens to upset voters in the states he seems safe in. Interestingly enough, Florida has exactly 27, so let's get Bill and Hillary down there STAT! Obama is showing a statistically insignificant lead there. It's beginning to look like voter turnout will decide the election with Obama so close to having 270 and so many close states to put him over. If young folks and African Americans turn out in record numbers, we're looking at a landslide. If they dissapoint and only bring a small percent AGAIN, we could lose this thing.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Media Bias -- is it Black and White?

By Bill F - Aug 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Appearently, Obama is the press darling. They're in love with him right? I beg to differ. Certaintly, he has gotten a majority of the press, and yes, this election has become a referrendum on Obama. But is MORE press always a good thing? I watch MSNBC and CNN everyday -- ya know, the LIBERAL news stations that supposedly support Obama and hate John McCain. All I hear is why Obama has THAT problem and why he has THIS problem. Why can't Obama connect to regular "folksy" folks? Why can't Obama close the deal? Is he eilitest? Is he being too cocky? Is he merely a celebrity?

McCain makes blatently STUPID accusations, the press then talks about them, and then says stupid, stupid things like..."well, it must have traction -- we're talking about it, aren't we?" We are forced every night to question whether or not he's "one of us." Why do we even have to ask the question? It seems asking the question itself is RACIST. What makes that question come up about Obama and not McCain. Shame on everyone in the media who dares to ask the question.

Let's define the "common man". Is it a white, vetran, millionaire who's hosted Saturday Night Live, had movies made about him, and has written a book about his experiences to trumpet his own bravery and heroism? Sounds very "everyman" and "folksy" to me -- NOT! Most of us every-day guys weren't in the military, aren't millionaires, have never been on television, and would bore the masses with a movie about our lives.

Or is it a guy from a broken home who was, in some ways, abandoned by both of his parents and raised by his grandmother from Kansas. A guy who worked hard to get to where he is, yet still passed up on the big bucks in order to serve his community and God. This sounds like the kind of every-day guy we see on a bar stool in Chicago watching a ballgame.

Yet, we ask -- is he one of us? The reason -- his face is dark. That father who abandoned him was African and left that mark on him with his name. Barack Obama could easily be Barry Dunham (that's his mother's last name). So the name isn't really the issue, its the darkness. When Obama says "they" are trying to scare you, he's not talking about the Republicans or John McCain or even the smear emails -- they don't need to do the racist questioning. IT'S THE MEDIA. It seems as much as the historic storyline makes Barry Dunham the media darling, the deep-seeded fear of darkness stored in our collective subconscience makes Barack Obama the "other". Sad the way "otherness" works. As much as the mass media thinks it wants the story of the first black president who came out of nowhere and shook up the world, they foil themselves every step of the way, and they don't even realize it. It's deep down inside. Way down deep. In the darkest pits of humanity.

It's been bread in is. The black cowboy hat is for the bad guy. NFL teams wearing black are penalized far more often than other colors. We all love to hate the Raiders. Darth Vader. Black roses. The Prince of DARKNESS for crying out loud. Darkness is evil. At one point it was acceptable to find a strange new thing -- black skin -- and enslave it, kill it, or run from it. Now, we've come a long way -- baby! But that's on the surface. What lies beneath, in the wake of all our "political correctness," is that same fear. That same reaction. That same labeling. No matter how far we've come, we can't escape it.

So, just picture the presidential race a different way. Instead of Barack Obama, we have Barry Dunham -- he's a white guy, with a white wife, and white kids. The Republicans have destroyed our standing in the world, our economy, our national security, and our self-respect. They have nominated a rich, vetran, former rockstar of the party to face the Democratic candidate -- a motivational, change-preaching, religion-embracing intellectual from the mid-west. While the aging rockstar of the Republicans is making gaffe after gaffe, Barry Dunham is touring the world giving inspiring speeches to 200,000 people abroad and 75,000 at home. Picture it in your head. What do the polls look like? How many times does the opponent and the press ask "is he one of us?" Then ask yourself if Barack Obama is facing racism, and more importantly, where is it coming from? Maybe it's coming from you and you don't even know it.

Even the most liberally biased member of the media should be asking his or herself the same question. And maybe -- McCain campaign -- instead of criticizing Obama's campaign for "playing the race card" when he quips about not looking like the guys on our money, you should thank your lucky stars your guys looks EXACTLY like the guys on our money. It just may win you the White House. Poetic -- even the house is white.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Not Progressive Enough?

By Bill F - Jul 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I've been reading that "progressives" on the far left are worried about Tim Kaine. Appearently they thought Obama, who has been running as a different kind of politician who works with everyone of all idiologies, and who has pledged to have Republicans on his cabinet, was going to be a militant left-winger as a president who brings communism and socialism to America. While some of Obama's ideas seem to lean that way, most do not. I think we really do have a politician, a potential president -- God willing -- who will do what he thinks is right, even if it doesn't 100% match what his "base" wants. He has said he's going to be a president for ALL AMERICANS. This is what we said we wanted -- n'est pas?

I am a high school teacher, and there is one thing I pound into the heads of my students. Whenever there is a passionate arguement with two polar opposite sides of that argument, and it appears neither side is willing to back down -- they are both wrong! Or, perhaps, we can say they are both right. The answer is never at one pole or the other, but somewhere in between. I figured this out while I listened to two political scientists arguing and at each other's throats over what the next BIG problem America faces since the cold war was over. Was it nuclear proliferation or biological weapons? Hello folks -- I don't want to be melted by a nuke or neurologically damaged to death by a bio weapon. They both suck. Is it wrong to kill, making the death penalty wrong, or is it justified as a punishment and deterrent? I don't know. Anyone who is absolutely sure about anything hasn't really thought it over. Instead, they are only responding with emotion.

Instead, we struggle with morality -- in our daily lives and our government -- and try to do what we think is best. I feel this every time I punish my daughter. She needs limits, rules, consequences and the like, but how strict do you go before you threaten to make her feel like she's a bad person and harm her esteem and love for life. I don't know. Life is hard. Stop trying to make it so easy, so black-and-white. As a president, the problem is ten fold. You have a whole country to take care of. Half the country believes one thing, the other half believes another. You either dicate or compromise. Is is moral to make half of your country miserable because of your own belief? Do you realize that part of the core definition of a belief is that IT CAN BE WRONG.

It seems Kaine may be Obama's first chance to show that he will work with anyone, no matter what their idiology is. Sure, he's a Democrat, a friend, and wants the troops to come home, but he is Catholic, pro-life, and maybe not "progressive" enough. I think some have seen things in Obama that aren't there. He is still the best candidate. He is still going to be a great, historically significant (not just because of his race) president. Let's not panic over this. Kaine gives us what we need: a white guy from a swing state who is Catholic, speaks Spanish, has a degree in economics, has executive experience, is a Washington outsider, has parents who owned a small business, grew up in Missouri (another swing state), will stick to Obama's message as a friend, and has worked for social justice as a lawyer. We can't ask for much more.

I am interested to hear opinions on this. Are there THAT many of you out there that are dissapointed, upset, or confused over this pick? Let me know by posting a comment. Thanks.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

YES WE KAINE

By Bill F - Jul 29th, 2008 at 10:20 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

It appears, if you believe all the inside "unnamed" sources, that Barack Obama has settled on Tim Kaine. This does not surprise me, as a week or two ago Chuck Todd of MSNBC, who knows everything, said on the air that he felt like both candidates would pick somebody they were comfortable working with rather than any of the typical reasons a VP is picked. Since they are supposedly very friendly, and Kaine endorsed Obama early on -- before it was obvious he would be the nominee, that lead Todd to predict Kaine. It appears he was right -- as usual.

If the media does a good job of introducing Kaine to the world, this should be a good pick. There is very little, personally, not to like about Tim Kaine. He has an undergrad degree in ECONOMICS and used his law degree to defend minorities who were being unfairly denied housing. He also took some time off to do public service as a Catholic missionary -- much like Obama's work as a community organizer. He's not a Washington insider, which shows Obama is going back to the CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE message that worked so well. Lately, with the flipflop backlashes from the far left, this message has gotten burried and needs to be dug back up.

I hear he will announce Kaine as the VP nominee Monday at 11 am. Since Kaine has scheduled a family vacation all next week, it would be safe to assume this is accurate. By saying he will be on vacation, he keeps his governor's schedule clear for a full-week media blitz. So next week will be Tim Kaine week -- Monday through Friday, then the media gets Olypic-mania on Saturday. So the media pattern is Obama overseas - Obama/Kaine - Olympics - Democratic Convention Speech in front of 75,000 people. John McCain who? If the Republican Convention isn't a great show with a great McCain speech, it could be over for McCain at that point.

Not a moment too soon!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Iraq Quiz

By Bill F - Jul 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I was thinking...

What do the following individuals or groups have in common?

The Bush Administration, the American people, the Iraqis people, the democratically elected Iraqi government, and Barack Obama.

That's right -- all of these individuals or groups have made it public that they want some sort of time table for a withdrawl of American troops from Iraq. So, one more question. Who is not on this list? Right again!

JOHN MCCAIN

You're good at this game! I've intentionally set his name between two blank lines to highlight how all alone he is on this crucial issue -- clever huh? Okay, last question. For real this time. Now, does this make him a Maverick, someone willing to go against all conventional wisdom and influence to do what's right? Right! The answer is NO WAY IN HELL. The possible choices for McCain still wanting to stay in Iraq are...

a) He's a stubborn old man b) He's somehow in bed with big oil c) He's hoping the American people are dumb enough to fall for his "patriotism" ploy with talk of Obama "intentionlly losing the war" d) He has WORSE judgement than George Bush e) All of the above

I know, I know, I told you that you were done with the silly questions, but I couldn't help myself. It's "all of the above" of course. Once again, we are left wondering, "what is McCain thinking?" If the Iraqis want a time table for withdrawl, and George Bush's State Department would like to have a time "horizon" (translates to "time line" in Bushspeak) before they leave power, what exactly would McCain plan to do as President? Would he throw the agreed upon "horizon" out the window and stay AGAINST the wishes of the Iraqi people and government. We have a word for that -- occupation! Are we at war with the new Iraqi government WE INSTALLED? Um, no. If they are happy with the situation and want us to leave, we have no choice. Unless McCain is planning on being the second coming of Saddam Insane and making himself a dictator of a defeated nation, then he needs to back off. What choice does he have.

In perfect Republican political trickery, McCain and his camp won't answer questions about this backward thinking directly. Instead, they continue to play the same old recording over-and-over -- "I, John McCain, single-handedly created the concept of the surge and lead the surge troops into Iraq myself and have single-handedly given us a chance to win the war that is not yet won yet even though it is obvious we accomplished what we set out to do already and Barack Obama thought the surge was a bad idea but obviously I think he was wrong so he must be wrong and since he was wrong on that and won't admit it he must want to lose the war in Iraq and oh yeah did I mention he's a Muslim terrorist on crack with a wife that will enslave all white people once she's near the White House as revenge for the enslavement of 'her people' 'back in the day.'" PLEASE! Give us a break. WHAT IS HE THINKING?!?!? Though he's probably used to dealing with idiots, he shouldn't just expect all of America to be idiots and buy that garbage spin.

McCain is making this way too easy. This is probably the worse campaign run since...well, I guess just since Rudy's bid for the same nomination McCain is making a joke out of. (Did you see the two failures together at the Yankee game -- soaking up a GAME while Obama was out trying to heal the world?) I feel like we're Tom Sawyer in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and we would have to "make up" all the difficulties in freeing Jim because our opponents are so incompetent. Oh well, let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. Not only do I think McCain will lose, but McBush and LieberBush will be voted out of the Senate the next chance their states get. Ahhh...revenge.

Just a thought.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

You Asked For It!

By Bill F - Jul 19th, 2008 at 10:07 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

I was thinking...

What was McCain thinking? Did he think constantly egging Barack on to go to Iraq was a good idea? Sure, if he doesn't go, you can use that against him, but did anyone think of what would happen if he did? And what if he not only goes to Iraq but uses the trip to visit Afghanistan as well, and Europe? What if it turns into a Barack Obama world tour where leaders and citizens of other countries around the world welcome him with open arms and show that he can be a much stronger diplomat on the international stage than Bush and McCain combined? What if the media follows him around like lovesick puppy dogs and capture all the priceless shots of him engaging in foreign relations up the wazoo? Well, you asked for it Mr. McCain. Yet another mistake by the poorly organized, terribly run, and embarassingly lead McCain camp. And he wants to run this country? I think not.

Let's look at what McCain has accomplished here. This whole week is 24/7 Barack Obama. Nothing is going to happen over there to hurt Obama. This is a possitive press windfall for Barack. Then, he returns to a hero's welcome. Then, we announce our VP the following week before the Olympics -- more possitive press. The Olympics take over for a while, and then -- BAM -- it's the convention. Obama surrounded by 76,000 screaming fans in Denver (a swing state). Imagine that many people all chanting "Yes we can" over and over. McCain's toast. The footage and quoting from that speech will still be running strong throughout the media when sickly, swollen-faced McCain gets up and stammers through a lame lower taxes, smaller government speech cloned from the 70s. Old man, old words, old ideas.

We go into the first debate in September riding a wave of excitement, non-stop press, and a further declining economy. And we have John McCain to thank for the idea. Again, the Obama folks have outplanned, outthought, and outperformed the McCain folks. Who do you want running the country? While McCain's folks are running around being old, alienating everyone whose not white and Christian, and claiming they want a terrorist attack to help McCain in the polls, Barack is on message, being a true world leader, and exciting the hopes and dreams of millions. McCain obviously equals "No we can't". I think we're up to the challenge, and 52 million dollars in June proves it!

Just a thought.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (3) | Report Objectionable Content

United Supporters of Obama

By Bill F - Jul 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Here is a link to this group. http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/UnitedSupportersofObama999

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

United Supporters of Obama

By Bill F - Jul 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

The group United Supporters of Obama has been published. Please join and ask your friends to join. The message of the group is that even though we sometimes disagree on one or two issues, we are still behind Barack and only Barack. We need a Democrat in the White House, period. A Republican will bring a second Great Depression and a third World War. We cannot allow that to happen. Put FISA behind us, and show we are all united behind Barack.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Iraq-olombia

By Bill F - Jul 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am EDT

Also listed in: CT Educators for Obama | Teachers for Obama

I was thinking...

Between McCain's comment about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years and his recent visit to Colombia, something occured to me. Rather, I was reminded of something because it's a viewpoint I've held all along. Do we have troops in Colombia? This is a country that HAS been waging some form of a civil war on-and-off for over 100 years. Currently, Communist rebel groups who we have deemed terrorists are, well, terrorizing the country in order to some day take over and rule the government in the way they think is best -- or just to make money through drug trade. I had a close friend from Colombia who said she was just as afraid of the legit police as the FARQ. What a mess!

So, a Democratic country with Democratically elected leaders in complete disaray because of terrorist groups trying to take back the government leading to total chaos, violence, and political unrest. Sound familiar? So, the answer is -- no, we do not have troops in Colombia. We have sent aid in the form of weapons and training for the police, but no actual troops for long periods of time. So, why do we have troops in Iraq after already replacing the evil dictator with a Democratically elected government? In light of the recent news that the Iraqis have now actually asked us for our time table for withdrawl, you'd have to say there's something more going on than "winning" in Iraq. Basically, we already won. There may be insurgencies and civil war for 100's of years. Forever. Is it our place to govern that if we are not doing the same in some place like Colombia?

Is it the oil? Seems like it might be with the recent agreements with U.S. oil companies. Scary thoughts. And what of all this "the surge is working beautifully" rhetoric? Talk about empty rhetoric and speeches not results! Mr. McCain, did it ever occur to you that a surge of troops would OF COURSE bring a drop in violence. Put a surge of U.S. troops in Colombia, Darfur, or any other war-torn nation and the violence will go down. It's like increasing police patrols in bad neighborhoods. The gangs and drug dealers don't go away, they just have to behave for a bit. Once the cops leave, however, it's back to business as usual. This is most certainly the case in Iraq. Once the surge is over, and those extra troops come home or go to Afghanistan where they belong, the violence will increase again. It's common sense. Stop trying to fool the American people Republicans. You've won every election you've ever won through this same type of deceit. We've caught on. We're not that dumb.

So, let me make this abundantly clear. THE IRAQ WAR IS OVER. IRAQ IS NOW IN A CIVIL WAR AND MAY BE FOR OVER 100 YEARS. IT'S TIME TO LEAVE. THE SURGE IS WORKING IN THAT IT HAS CALMED SOME VIOLENCE; HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT HELPED THE POLITICAL SITUATION. NO MATTER WHEN WE LEAVE, THE COUNTRY WILL DISINTEGRATE INTO CHAOS -- IN 16 MONTHS OR 16 DECADES. THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, GET OUT NOW, AND LEAVE THEM ALONE LIKE WE DO COLOMBIA, OR STAY FOREVER. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH, FOREVER IS FAR LONGER THAN 100 YEARS, MR. MCCAIN. FAR LONGER!

Let's just cut through the crap and call it what it is. For Bush/Cheney/Rove it was oil. For McCain, that's probably not the case. It seems McCain is either deathly afraid of being called a chicken or a loser, like some macho high school bully (one who will certainly "beat up" Iran when he's had enough with Iraq), OR he's just chosen this as a political point to try and beat Obama since it's an area of strong difference between he and Barack. Time may tell. Let's hope Barack Obama is our next president so we don't have to find out!

Just a thought.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Page 1 of 3 | Next | Last

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.