Another Day in Politics

I was hoping for a day off from politics. I refrained from watching politics on television this weekend, and resisted the urge yesterday to view stories on the Internet. I obviously failed in that endeavor.

Two stories from cnn.com - Obama advisors says . . . and Obama camp hammers . . . are the two posts in question.

First Story: Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Obama's campaign - justifiably - wants Hillary to repudiate Ms. Ferraro's comments. After all, Obama recently had an advisor resign because of her monster comment about Hillary. The question is: will Hillary comply, when in fact, Ms. Ferraro is one of her topfundraisers? Money talks! Hillary needs money to keep her campaign going. Will another Hillary double standard (i.e., MI/FL delegate debacle) ensue? Will Hillary not expect the same standards of her campaign staff that she allegedly demands of Barack's campaign staff? Only time will tell.

Second Story: Barack Obama's presidential campaign took some of its most pointed jabs to date at Hillary Clinton's claim of experience, circulating a memo to reporters Tuesday morning from former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig that suggests the New York senator uses "false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Basically, Hillary believes she has the experience to be President. Obama believes she is exaggerating those claims. Hillary thinks she has passed the 'Commander-in-Chief' test. Obama does not believe she has passed that test. It is a classic case of he/she said without a clear winner in sight. Personally, I don't think anyone is truly qualified/experience enought to be President. It is a job that basically sucks the soul out of a person and ages them quickly. It is not an easy job to do.

Is Obama unjustified in attacking Hillary like this? No. Hillary is basing her campaign on her experience and constantly attacking Barack's alleged lack of experience. If she does not have the experience she claims to have . . . well, I don't think I need to draw a picture to point out what that makes her.

In the end, I count the months until the end of election so sanity can prevail again. I'm not sure what the media will do once all is said and done, I guess go back to making Brittney and Paris the top stories of the day. Gee, something to look forward to . . .

S

Desperation in the Political Arena

As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party's front man - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

What was wrong with her initial campaign message? Oh, that's right, it's not working, Barack's in the lead, and she's scared.

"It is time to get real," Clinton said, "to get real about how we actually win this election... It is time to move from good words to good works -- from sound bites to sound solutions" - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

So, everything up to today was not real? What was it, a figment of America's collective imagination?

Clinton has also stepped up attacks on Obama's strong point -- his words. She's accused him of offering rhetoric with no specifics, and this week, based on similarities between his words and those of Obama-ally Deval Patrick, her campaign accused him of plagiarism - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the plagiarism allegation. I just think, unless Hillary can claim 100% ownership to every word in every speech she has spoken, then she just needs to let the proverbial sleeping dog lie! I guess what bothers me most, is that very few, if any, political candidates write their own words. They pay someone to do that. Personally, it is wrong. I don't want to hear what a paid speechwriter thinks the candidate should say. I want to hear what the candidate has to say. If you need a speechwriter, maybe you shouldn't be running for office. Do the candidates give their speechwriters credit? If not, hey, wait, isn't that plagiarism? Shouldn't Hillary - or candidate of choice - acknowledge the fact that they did not actually write the words they are speaking? Smells like plagiarism to me. Hmmmmmmm . . .

Other thoughts . . .

Why can't the candidates - Hillary, Oback, John - just be honest? Why do they have to attack, undermine, create controversy where none actually exists? Yes, each candidate is different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Yes, each candidate has a different message, the message they believe will get them elected. Again, no rocket science needed. There is not a perfect person on this Earth, and there is not a perfect candidate. Everybody has faults, everybody has secrets, and - in the end - none of it matters. What matters is what you - the candidate - is going to do for our country?

Lastly, why hasn't Hillary produced her income tax records like all the other candidates? What's the big secret?

S

Politics - The Neverending Battle

It appears there is a bounty of inspiration out there for my blog. I don't think I've ever wrote this often on the blog. What's the latest?

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton desperately wants meaningless wins in Florida and Michigan to turn into votes she can count on" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). As I'm sure everyone out there knows, the Democratic National Committe stripped the delegate counts from FL/MI because both states held their primaries earlier than allowed. Please note, this was not a spur of the moment decision made just weeks before the FL/MI primaries, but rather a decision made last year when FL/MI announced their plans to hold their primaries earlier than normal.

Now that Hillary (sorry, not meaning to pick on her, but she makes it so easy lately), is behind in votes, she wants her 'meaningless wins' to count. But . . . drumroll please . . . "Clinton did not object to the DNC stripping the states of their delegates when the decision was made last year" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). In fact, irony at its best (or worst if you're Sen. Hillary Clinton), some of her "backers were on the committee that made the decision to do so and activiely supported it" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). Does the word two-faced hold any meaning here?

I mean, really, people! Get a life. The fact is, Hillary wants to change the rules because they adversely affect her at the moment. If the rules were not adversely affecting her, would she be raising such a fuss? Highly unlikely. If the proverbial shoe was on the other foot (Obama's foot, though I'm not sure how he'd look wearing Hillary's shoes), would she be raising such a stink? Highly unlikely. In fact, I could probably place money on this one, I think Sen. H. Clinton would be fighting tooth and nail to uphold the DNC ruling if Obama was wearing her shoes. Heck, if Obama was wearing her shoes, she might have plenty more to say.

In the words of a good friend of mine . . . I'm just saying . . .

S

Politics - Negative Ads

I've never understood the point of negative ads. My philosophy: insecure people run negative ads. Since the majority of politicians run negative ads . . . I guess that means all politicians are insecure. I think it also - at least in my opinion - means that politicians running negatives ads are immature.

Case in point: (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday sharpened her attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as she faces what even her supporters admit are must-win situations in Texas and Ohio in the weeks ahead.

The above is from http://www.cnn.com/. Sen. Clinton, because Barack Obama is in the lead, is now 'sharpening' her claws and running negative ads. She didn't do this when she was winning, so why now? Why can't she - and all politicians - just run positive ads, highlighting what they are going to do for the country, instead of focusing on alleged negative aspects of their opponents? I'm more likely to vote for someone who runs a positive versus negative campaign.

Now, before someone leaps to a conclusion - I'm neither for nor against any candidate at this point, though I do have preferences (please refer to other posts). I just want honesty in a candidate. I want maturity. We are not in kindergarten! We are adults. Negative attacks should not exist.

Scott

Money, Money, Money

If I were a gay man, I'd make some musical quote for this blog. Oh, wait, I am a gay man, so . . . "and the money kept rolling in from every side" (Evita for you non-musical people, gay or straight, out there). Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on the current political campaigns. I just don't get it! Why is it, that political candidates can raise millions of millions of dollars to bombard an unsuspecting, and unwilling in some cases, society with political ad after political ad (95% negative, 2% positve, and 3% that make no sense at all - in my opinion), and yet cannot find money for worthwhile causes once they get into office?

Think of it - millions upon millions of dollars going for cancer research, AIDS research, border security, eliminating the deficit . . . and the list goes on. Instead, millions upon millions of dollars is wasted every time an incumbent or new candidate runs for office. Think of it - for every winner, there are one, two, if not three losers per political office. Think of the millions upon millions of dollars down the drain. It is wasted money. The money had no effect whatsoever. The candidate did not get elected.

So, why shouldn't the candidates - the money so easily accessible - not donate 65% of campaign contributions towards charitable organizations, the national deficit, border security, or some other cause? Why not make the money useful rather than useless?

S

Conservatism, and other politics.

Current President - and thankfully out of office soon - Bush wants to keep a conservative in office. My question: What have conservatives done for the country lately?

Let me make a list:

1) Sent us to fight a war we should not be fighting based on an outright lie: WMD!
2) Sent our country into a recession.

Do I need to say more? Conservatism is not what our country needs. We need to quit funneling billions of dollars into a pointless war, bring our troops home, and let them defend our country, on our soil, and not some foreign war that we cannot - and will not - win, not matter how long we stay over there. And, before the right wing conservatives take aim, I currently have one nephew in Iraq, and another set to go at some point in time. I support our troops 100%. I just do not support the administration that started a war we could not win based on false (WMD) information. We need a President/Administration that is going to see to the needs of the United States first and foremost - homelessness, illegal immigration, the economy.

We need a government that is for the people, by the people, and not the current state of government that is for the conservatives, by the conservatives, and to hell with the rest of the population.

What do I want in a political candidate?

1) Honesty - tell me what you think you can do, what you want to do, but don't give me false promises. Don't tell me, that when you're elected, you're going to create a fair tax, create national healthcare, blah, blah, blah . . . It's not gonna happen! Tell me that you would like to create a fair tax, but, you know it's probably not going to ever happen, but you'll try your best. Don't tell me about your plans for national health care, rather, tell me about your plans to set fair and stable pricing across the board by hospitals and physicians. The reason insurance companies charge so much in premiums, is because the hospitals/physicians charge so much to the consumer. A band-aid does not cost $2.99. The mark-up on hospital/physicians bills is incredible - I should know, I work in the insurance industry. So, national healthcare candidate, tell me how you want to solve that problem, outline your plan, and finish your statement with the truth: you'll do the best you can. The country has listened to the false promises of candidates since the beginning of our established government. What the country has not listened to is honest statements about what they hope to do once in office. Try that for a change and see what happens.

Okay, so I ranted off subject, but so what, since it all ties in together. The United States is failing. We are a country in crisis. It is time the energy of we the people (that means the government as well) went to fixing our problems, rather than focusing on the problems of every other country in the world.

S