Posts with the tag hillary-clinton

Watchdog group says McCain aired negative TV ad in violation of 9/11 pledge

Jennifer Mohr — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:22:24 EDT

Associated Press | 6 hours, 52 minutes ago in Politics

An independent watchdog group says that Republican John McCain's campaign violated a pledge not to air any negative TV ads on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Read more of the article

The Single Overriding Reason Why Hillary Clinton Cannot be the Vice-Presidential Running Mate

Ms CYPRAH — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:59:08 EDT

Imagine the scenario: Hillary has been chosen as Barack Obama's VP candidate. They are in a town hall debate with John McCain and his VP. Everything is going well until the question of security comes up. Barack is on the ball with how he can protect the country and work with the generals, etc etc, and Hillary is backing him all the way with everything he is saying, bright smile included.

Then someone innocently asks from the audience: "Mrs Clinton, that is not really true for Mr Obama, is it? You told us not long ago that John McCain was a better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama. Why should we believe you now?"

Why, indeed? Get out of that one, Hillary.

Four Key Reasons Why Barack Obama Clinched The Democratic Party's Presidential Nomination

Ms CYPRAH — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:55:04 EDT

One will hear all kinds of reasons as to why Barack Obama achieved a seemingly impossible American dream: the first African American in place for the White House. There will be many people with numerous bits of 'evidence' as to why he is now the nominee over Hillary Clinton, who was the heir apparent up until October last year. There will also be countless words, specially from people who were against him but who will lay claim to have seen this victory all along, spewing all over the Internet and print media in tributes or blame. Get ready for the onslaught as the analysis begins.

However, I am not an American, which is perhaps why I do not view life in an American perspective. It means I am not befuddled by the usual fears and anxieties that might beset the average American voter. I am far enough away from the action, well across the Pond, to see what others who are closer often miss, and not affected by the negativity or euphoria that might have surrounded Obama. In such a position, one might miss some details, but one is then privy to an extraordinary panoramic view that one is often denied when one is too close to events.

5 things America needs to change in its presidential elections

Ms CYPRAH — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:09:00 EDT

Thanks to Newsvine, I have been able to watch the American elections from close quarters, to see the progress or fall of the leading candidates and to even have my two cents worth from the hustings through my favoured candidate, Barack Obama. i have to admit that if Obama were not in the race, I would have favoured Hillary Clinton. It just so happens that there are two history-making candidates with different advantages in the frame this year and that has presented a difficult choice to their supporters who would like to see either of them win. For years, there appeared to be no other choices but white males for the public to elect and then, like busses in a row, two other choices pull up at the same time. No wonder the nation seems to be heavily divided and confused, not because Clinton or Obama is so different from each other, or better than the other, but because the election has become unpredictable and exciting for the very first time, particularly for the Democrats. For women and minorities, it is really hard to know which way to go.

However, from across the Pond, a few things haven't made sense in the selection process and I think they need to change for fairness to be seen to be done when the dust has settled.

Attitudes to John McCain: Does America Respect Older People?

Ms CYPRAH — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 05:20:41 EDT

A British lawyer has suggested that the contrasting attitudes to John McCain and Ming Campbell (of the UK's Liberal Democrat party), puts our treatment of older people in a poor light. For whatever reason, Ming was judged by his age while McCain appears to be succeeding in spite of it. But is there such a big difference in approach to ageing in the two countries?

A Woman Running Mate for Obama or McCain

Vas Sudanagunta — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:36:49 EDT

For millions Barack Obama turned hope into expectation, that after 389 years of black people being treated less than white people, one finally will be elected US President. In just as powerful a way, Hillary Clinton's candidacy stoked the latent passions of millions into believing that the time had arrived to finally "shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling" as she herself put it yesterday. Many people, like myself, have yearned and waited their whole lives for both barriers to be torn down.

Once a fire gets going, it's hard to put out. Since Clinton's candidacy has ended, the millions who put all their hopes into Clinton understandably feel their hopes dashed. Some are quickly able to adjust and be inspired by Obama, if perhaps a little less than they were inspired by Clinton. But others feel that something was stolen from them, which unavoidably leads to labeling someone "thief". The potential to trust Obama is undermined. But what other options? Is McCain better for women? It would be easy to understand why some might be disheartened enough to think they won't vote at all.

There is a void waiting to be filled. So much passion aroused but now no where positive for it to go.

Why Bill Clinton campaigning is unfair to Barack Obama

Ms CYPRAH — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:50:00 EST

Barack Obama recently commented that there were three people instead of two in the race between himself and Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination: her husband Bill being the third. He felt there was some unfairness in recent remarks made by Bill about him and the active part he is playing in the campaign. I agree on both fronts.

There is no harm in Bill advising his wife, from the sidelines or in the background. Wives and husbands have a great role to play as supporting members of the team, from a respectful distance, not as the main players themselves. In this case, there are two main things wrong with Bill Clinton's current role.

Why are people 'colour-blind' when they are not 'gender-blind'?

Ms CYPRAH — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:27:23 EST

Why are people 'colour-blind' when they are not 'gender-blind?

Many people (White ones mainly) are always keen to boast how 'colour-blind' they are. But if race and gender are the two key aspects which make up our identity, why are they not gender-blind too? Yet, in view of the rush of female support for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, women who openly admitted rallying behind her because they perceived she had been treated in a 'sexist' manner by the media, they are certainly NOT gender-blind too. We tend to acknowledge women first, then worry about how they fit in with our perspectives later. We don't believe they are pseudo-men to make ourselves feel better. And very few men would boast of being a woman! They value their masculine persona and are proud of it.

Why Hillary Clinton deserves to lose in New Hampshire and the country

Ms CYPRAH — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:52:54 EST

After Hillary's dismal third-place race in iowa, she and her team quickly headed to New Hampshire. No sooner had they landed, when her campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, and the campaign's chief strategist, Mark penn, began the damage limitation exercise by dissing Iowan people and belittling their importance.

Unloading to the Wall Street journal, Jay said, “Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city. It wouldn’t be wise to put too much emphasis on it.”

Democratic candidates on ECONOMIC issues. Pork help or people help you decide. where he / Barack Obama stands on the american economy versus Hillary Clinton.

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:01:53 EST

Democratic candidates on ECONOMIC issues. Pork help or people help you decide. where he / Barack Obama stands on the american economy versus Hillary Clinton. OK, lets do economic policy. I used to put together fiscal stimulus packages as a career civil service employee in the budget office of several presidents of both parties, so I have seen more of them than most people. The basic purpose is to add quickly to the disposable income of people who will spend it. On the tax side this means either rebates in temporary drops in withholding. On the spending side it means one-shot increases in existing income support programs such as social security and veterans benefits.It also argues for measurers that expire or otherwise self-destruct. Otherwise expenditures will trail on in future years creating a fiscal hangover effect.Programs that respond automatically to raising unemployment, such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid face another problem. They are administered by states and localities, which have not always had the staff on hand to process unexpected increases in claims. Dealing with this problem needs to be part of any effective package.The Clinton plan is not a short-term fiscal stimulus package. All the items except energy assistance would take too long to enact and carryout. Energy assistance would come on stream just as the North is warming up and the South has not yet turned on the air-conditioning. And I am not sure we want large subsidies for energy consumption even for low-income people.The Obama plan is what a sophisticated fiscal stimulus program is supposed to look like: Fast and simple, with cash out the door and in peoples pockets. Whoever helped him put it together knows what they are doing.Judge for yourself:Obama's plan would:
Provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families. Provide an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. Provide an additional $250 tax cut to workers and an additional $250 to seniors if the economy continues to worsen ¨Provide relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis. Provide aid to states hardest-hit by the housing crisis to avoid a slash in services. Extend and expand Unemployment Insurance.

The Clinton Plan would:

Establish a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities.

Set a 90-day moratorium on sub prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub prime mortgages of at least five years

Provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills

Accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth:

Invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.

These summaries have both been taken from each candidates web sites. DGM in Washington January 15, 2008 Both candidates have announced economic stimulus Packages. Hillary's is basically an excuse to provide pork for interest groups. Obama's is designed to offset some of the temporary drop in spending caused by people being thrown out of work in a recession, which is what short term stimulus is supposed to do

Hillary, Stop Killing Hope

Vas Sudanagunta — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:50:27 EST

Barack Obama centered his post-Iowa victory speech around two words, "hope" and "change". Hillary Clinton has been trying to deflate the power of Obama's call by declaring that she is a proven "change agent" and by deriding Obama for raising "false hopes" with unrealistic promises.

Clinton's response, sadly, was entirely predictable. This is the cynical state of American democracy. Ironically, it's also the growing desire to overthrow cynicism that makes Obama so attractive to so many people.

But Clinton's words will ring true to many people. They've been "had" by too many disingenuous politicians that promise whatever will get them votes, as well as by too many well-intentioned but naively optimistic figures that end up doing more harm than good.

Hope, not Naïve Optimism

I can't express this better than Cornell West:

Last, but not least, there is a need for audacious hope. And it's not optimism. I'm in no way an optimist. I've been black in America for 39 years. No ground for optimism here, given the progress and regress and three steps forward and four steps backward. Optimism is a notion that there's sufficient evidence that would allow us to infer that if we keep doing what we're doing, things will get better. I don't believe that. I'm a prisoner of hope, that's something else. Cutting against the grain, against the evidence. William James said it so well in that grand and masterful essay of his of 1879 called "The Sentiment of Rationality," where he talked about faith being the courage to act when doubt is warranted. And that's what I'm talking about.

-- Cornel West, 1993, commencement speech at Wesleyan University

Many of us don't trust politicians. Some of us don't even trust other voters. I tend to believe that most people (including politicians!) would like to be honest, but they lack the courage to. We can't expect those we elect to be honest and courageous if we ourselves fail to be so in our own votes, much less our own lives. And when you are honest with yourself, there should be little discord between voting your heart and voting your mind.

Skepticism, not Cynicism

A cynic has given up, or even worse, given in. A cynical electorate is not the best defense against cynical or disingenuous politicians.

I am both hopeful and skeptical toward Barack Obama. This is not a contradiction. I want change and I support Obama because I think his presidency will result in the most change for the better, partly because of Obama's character and attitude, partly because of the psychological cleansing the country will go through by electing him, and partly because of the huge positive impact electing a black man will have on this country and the world. This doesn't mean that I give him my vote and then take a passive back seat. It doesn't mean I won't hold him to the fire if he compromises what I entrusted to him. And though I believe strongly that finally electing a woman or an African American to the presidency is an important step for the country, electing a lousy one will be two steps back.

Dr. West, who spoke those words I quoted above 15 years ago at Clinton's alma mater, is today a "critical supporter" of Obama, tentatively "in his camp", is also greatly impressed by John Edwards, but is skeptical of Clinton's neoliberal agenda. You can read more of these opinions in this interview. You can watch him take Obama to task in this video.

Change Not of Policy, but of Character

The point of Obama's change message which Hillary misses, intentionally in my opinion, is that the change we need is not simply one of policy or the ends. It is as much about the means to those ends, and it is this that has electrified Independents and even a significant number of Republicans to support Obama. Sure, Hillary will get things done with all of her political skills and connections, but it is the how that troubles people. It is this displeasure that drove Republicans out of congressional power in 2006, and the same one that bestows unprecedented low approval ratings for the Democratic congress in control now.

Obama is not the first candidate to represent change, but he seems to be the first in recent times who can get elected and follow through. It isn't that people have not been aching for this kind of change in prior elections, there just hasn't been a critical mass of them. And after 9/11, such change was dealt a huge setback when people consciously or unconsciously sacrificed ideals, principles and hope on the altar of the new holy war against Radical Islamic terrorists.

I leave you with more from Dr. West, words that I hope will advise your vote whether or not you choose to give it to Obama, words that I hope can inspire in you "the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people":

The country is in deep trouble. We've forgotten that a rich life consists fundamentally of serving others, trying to leave the world a little better than you found it. This is true at the personal level. But there's also a political version, which has to do with what you see when you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are simply wasting your time on the planet or spending it in an enriching manner. We need a moral prophetic minority of all colors who muster the courage to question the powers that be, the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people, and the courage to fight for social justice. In many instances we will be stepping out on nothing, hoping to land on something. That's the history of black folks in the past and present, and of those of us who value history and struggle. Our courage rests on a deep democratic vision of a better world that lures us and a blood-drenched hope that sustains us.

This hope is not the same as optimism. Optimism adopts the role of the spectator who surveys the evidence in order to infer that things are going to get better. Yet we know that the evidence does not look good. The dominant tendencies of our day are unregulated global capitalism, racial balkanization, social breakdown, and individual depression. Hope enacts the stance of the participant who actively struggles against the evidence in order to change the deadly tides of wealth inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair. Only a new wave of vision, courage, and hope can keep us sane – and preserve the decency and dignity requisite to revitalize our organizational energy for the work to be done. To live is to wrestle with despair yet never to allow despair to have the last word.

-- Cornel West, 2004, Prisoners of Hope

The Courage to Change By: NATHAN RILEY Gaycitynews.com

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:00:11 EST

The Courage to Change
By: NATHAN RILEY
12/20/2007

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19133584&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569328&rfi=6

I promised myself that I'd wait to wait until December
to decide on my presidential choice, on the theory
that events would render that choice obvious. My hopes
have been dashed. In fact, I would happily support any
of the Democratic candidates; each would be a breath
of fresh air.

I worry less about the Iraq war than what happens
after the election. The United States is engaged in
peace negotiations, but it is a measure of Republican
belligerence that this cannot be acknowledged. By next
November an arrangement with Iran could be in place or
close. My most audacious prediction is that during the
course of the long campaign's final 11 months the Iraq
invasion will recede in importance.

That fact won't do the Republicans much good, though
that party's sole hope for mounting a winning
presidential campaign depends on peace or good
prospects for peace.

Despite my optimism about the situation in Iraq, its
legacy will nonetheless handcuff the next president.
She or he will start governing with an unmanageable
budget deficit. With the sorry state of the US dollar,
the realities of world trade will require higher
taxes, always a hot button issue.

Unfortunately, the increased government revenues will
need to be applied to reducing future budget deficits.
They won't go to universal health care, they will not
ease the strain growing on adequate AIDS funding.
Vital infrastructure programs like the Second Avenue
subway and protecting New Orleans from floods and
California from fires will continue to be skeptically
scrutinized; some crucial projects will be deferred or
rejected. Homeland security might take precedence over
education. Most of the taxes will help balance future
obligations like Social Security and Medicare.

Politically this is the worst of all possible worlds -
raising taxes without offering programs to justify the
hikes.

To my mind the record suggests that Hillary Clinton
will introduce new programs with little or no
incremental public cost - enhancing leeway for family
medical leave or strengthening protections for civil
liberties in anti-terrorism legislation. She will
fight to increase child health care, but so will every
Democrat. She is at great risk of being labeled a big
spender without convincing voters they are getting
something for their money.

My preference for Barack Obama lies in the hopes that
as he engages the budget demons he will find new and
creative ways to reduce spending and actually tax the
most powerful. That will not be easy. Congress is hard
to move and all real change requires at least the
acquiescence of the legislative branch, if not its
active partnership.

But I think Obama is governed by core principles,
while Clinton has years of experience. But her
expertise was forged in a pre-Iraq political
environment, and I believe life after Iraq creates new
possibilities, ones that I hope Obama will be able to
seize to move the nation in a new direction.

Clinton's idea of building consensus involves
compromise with the GOP moderates and the military
industrial complex - an approach that would limit the
scope of her domestic initiatives. Obama is better
suited to reviewing military missions with an eye
toward cutting wasteful spending.

Do I know this for a fact? Of course not.

Would I trust Hillary to undertake this endeavor if it
were left to her? Yes, I would. In fact her years on
the Armed Services Committee may have taught her
practical ways to cut military spending.

So you see why I am comfortable with the entire
Democratic field.

John Edwards has made the clearest public commitment
to bend government spending to assist the average
American whose budgets are stretched and whose
standard of living is declining. I would be happy to
support him, but as far as I can tell, he will be
eliminated from contention early.

I am not wishy-washy. I am desperate for a Democratic
victory that unites the party and gets the country off
to a good start in January 2009. Because it will be a
rocky ride - the first two years will be filled with
hesitation and the potential for mistakes.

But in this new world I trust Obama's gut instincts
most. He clearly views expensive military adventures
as a foreign policy of last resort.

As well, the mass incarceration of blacks in recent
decades, due in part, though not completely, to the
discriminatory nature of drug laws, will be viewed
differently by Obama and the nation if he is in the
White House.

And finally, the nation appears on the cusp of
abandoning long accepted notions of an integrated
society and a woman's right to chose. Obama, I
believe, has the best chance among all contenders to
rekindle the hope and optimism needed to face down
these threats.

For all of these reasons, I prefer him for president.

©GayCityNews 2007

.......................................

MY RESPONSE: (not approved yet)

CLICK READ MORE TO SEE MY RESPONSE:

Is Hillary Clinton Getting Desperate?

Ms CYPRAH — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:39:01 EST

Hillary Clinton did two things recently which have detracted heavily from her own credibility and questioned her ability to stay calm under fire and to actually lead others. First, she has sought to influence people's perception of Barack Obama by accusing him of not being truthful about his kindergarten years and his thirst for power to be president of the United States. Even going back to his former teachers for their comment, for crying out loud. When did we ever care what we said at that young age when the world seems amazing, we feel invincible, and the wish to be all things we see and hear about was an essential part of the emotional fantasy of growing up?

Are The CLINTONS Too INVESTED In The PRISON INDUSTRY? "Supreme court rules yesterday on Crack Cocaine sentencing disparities"

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:02:53 EST

The following is a list of links that explain the truth of Bill and Hillary Clinton with regards to their continued support for keeping people who use Crack Cocaine in prisons.

Bill never would reduce the crack cocaine that was asked for by many during his administration. Yesterday the supreme court gave permission to judges to have disgression in sentencing guidlines.

Clinton Signs Bill To Disapprove of Equalizing Crack-Powder Cocaine Sentences

On October 30, President Clinton signed a bill that blocks the U.S. Sentencing Commission amendments to equalize the penalties for crack and powder cocaine from taking effect

(see "Congress Nixes Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines on Cocaine, Money Laundering," 58 CrL 1086, October 25, 1995).

In a statement Clinton said the U.S. is making strides in combatting crime and violence.

"We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you your life -- and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe," he said.

"I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down."

http://www.ndsn.org/dec95/crack.html

SENTENCING December 1995

Judges given leeway in crack sentencing

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 10, 6:25 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, weighing in on an issue with racial undertones, ruled Monday that federal judges have broad leeway to impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine

in a case that bolsters the argument for reducing the difference in sentences for crack and powder cocaine.

The court, by 7-2 votes in the crack case and one other involving drugs, upheld more lenient sentences imposed by judges who rejected federal sentencing guidelines as too harsh.

The decision was announced ahead of a vote scheduled for Tuesday by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets the guidelines,

that could cut prison time for as many as 19,500 federal inmates convicted of crack crimes.etcetc

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_crack_cocaine;_ylt=ArOPMaGWWUQbAt1NkZylP42s0NUE

""at the npr black brown forum""
With Her Eye On Nov. '08, Polls Dictate Clinton Crime Policy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/with-her-eye-on-nov-08_b_75207.html
""When asked about her own policy,

"""Clinton said she agreed with the feds' recommendation for equalizing the sentences,

but she opposed making the sentencing changes retroactive"".

"I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It's something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well."

Obama, Edwards, Richarson, Dodd, Kucinich said they were in favor of the sentencing change being applied to those already serving time.

Now before we get to the reality of how such a sentencing change would play out, let's parse what Clinton said:

Although she agrees that disproportionate punishments for crack versus cocaine are wrong for the future,

she doesn't feel that past disproportionate punishments are wrong.""

ARE THE CLINTONS TOO INVESTED IN THE PRISON INDUSTRY? CLICK READ MORE

Opps = continued 7 - 10 ....10 LGBT ARTICLES FOR OPPOSITION REBUTAL (LONG FOLLOW UP FOR COMPLETE RESEARCH)

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:59:28 EST

7. OBAMA ON GOSPEL TOUR = MANY ARTICLES

8. OBAMA WON'T THROW GAYS UNDER THE BUS WILL HILLARY?

9. OBAMA ON PRIDE MONTH AND STATEMENT ON LGBT RIGHTS

10. GAY MAN CHARLES MERRILL TALKS TO ME ABOUT OBAMA CLINTON EDWARDS BY IM

TOO SEE LONG BLOG - CLICK - READ MORE

10 LGBT ARTICLES FOR OPPOSITION REBUTAL (LONG FOLLOW UP FOR COMPLETE RESEARCH)

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:00:16 EST

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES COVER MANY AREAS FOR USE IN REBUTING THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK BARACK

1. OBAMA WINS LOGO GAY DEBATES

2. OBAMA ON D.O.M.A. = DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

3. OBAMA ON NON BLOOD FAMILY VISITS

4. OBAMA ON UNTING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT

5. OBAMA'S PAST WORDS 2004 RESEMBLES HIS PRESENT WORDS

6. OBAMA ON TRANSGENDER PEOPLE

7. OBAMA ON GOSPEL TOUR = MANY ARTICLES

8. OBAMA WON'T THROW GAYS UNDER THE BUS WILL HILLARY?

9. OBAMA ON PRIDE MONTH AND STATEMENT ON LGBT RIGHTS

10. GAY MAN CHARLES MERRILL TALKS TO ME ABOUT OBAMA CLINTON EDWARDS BY IM

TOO SEE LONG BLOG - CLICK - READ MORE