Allegedly . . .

. . . Republicans (not all, btw, just a good number) are still bitter over the recent Presidential Election. Go Figure. What are they allegedly doing about their bitterness? Well, in an MSNBC poll, they are allegedly giving the President an F. Again, go figure.

So, here's the link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093. Go here and vote fairly, without bias, and without bitterness. Just because the President is a Democrat and fairly, without bias, won the 2008 Presidential Election, is no reason to give him an F because you are a Republican.

Personally, faced with the mess of our government when he became President, I think President Obama is doing a good job. And, no, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, only a concerned citizen of the United States who voted with his conscience. I really don't think I can say the same thing about many (not all) Republicans.

S

WHOO-HOO

Okay, enough said! Yes, I'm ecstatic over the results of the Election. Whoo-frakkin' - hoo!

As my last official blog of the 2008 election, I would like to commend (in an odd sort of way) Senator John McCain for accepting blame for his failed election. Very few people today are willing to step up to the proverbial plate and say hey, I'm responsible and I'm sorry. In his concession speech, John McCain spoke those admirable words.

I'd like to point out, to him, to the country, that he is not solely to blame for his failure to get 270 electoral votes. The majority of the blame can be summed up in one, very simple word: Bush. Yes, our current President, as well as the Republicans in charge, along with some Democrats as well, are partially - if not majorly (I know, not a word, but I'm using it anyway) to blame for John McCain's failure to garner 270 electoral votes.

With that said, Senator McCain made a few missteps along the way:

• First - instead of sticking to his ideal of running an honorable campaign, he ran a dishonorable campaign.
• Second - he never should have suspended his campaign because of the economic crisis. He did himself more harm than good with that act, and then whined continuously about that act for the rest of his campaign.
• Third - he underestimated the effects of the economy, and George W. Bush, on the American voters.
• Fourth - he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate!!!! WTF!!!! Before her nomination as his running mate, who in the heck had heard of her? He picked - in my opinion at least - her for her gender alone and not her qualifications. That, my friends, is sexist!

Still, he accepted the blame, in part, for his failed campaign, so the man has earned some of my respect. I'm just saying . . .

S

Everybody is talking . . .

Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.

My question: why did it take her so long to release her inner diva? Why now, after months in the spotlight, is she suddenly trying to step away from the puppet strings of the Republican Party? What about in the first days as the spotlight first shined on her? Why now? Because she - in my opinion - is looking out only for herself (somewhat admirable, I must say, if not a little bit too late) and her political future. She is not looking toward November 2008, but rather November 2012 when she could (oh, shudder at the thought) attempt to run for President. Excuse me while I go barf. The only thing scarier than dear Sarah P as Vice President, is dear Sarah P as President. I think I'll need therapy (massive, massive amounts of therapy) if that ever happens.

Okay, back to what this post is about: dear Sarah Ps slow realization that her public image was doing her no good, no good at all. So, she steps to the forefront, grabs the proverbial reins, and attempts to wrest control of her life back from the all consuming GOP. She is called rogue and a diva for daring to even attempt to snip at the puppet strings so artfully (well, not really artfully, more travesty-like than anything) controlled by the GOP. Many women (no offense meant) are calling the term sexist. Yes, the term is sexist. The sad fact is, dear Sarah P, for whatever reason, allowed the GOP to present her as they did. She should have said no, this is not me, choose somebody else. She did not. She made the choice to allow them to present her as they (GOP) did. She made the choice to bow down to the pressure of her chosen political party. She made the choice to let the GOP, McCain advisers, McCain himself, or whoever, control what she said, when she said it, and all that jazz. The choice, my friends, was hers and hers alone. No one forced dear Sarah P to do anything. She alone made that choice, perhaps (though doubtful) for the greater good; but perhaps (much more likely) for her own political good.

In the end, her choices have made her a joke. Her choices have painted an ugly portrait of dear Sarah P. In the end, whatever terms (sexist or not) are used against her, whatever portrait the American public has of her, are all by her choice. If she had stood up for herself sooner, if she had said hey, thanks, but no thanks to the $150,000 wardrobe and make-over, than perhaps some respect might exist for her right now. If she had not put her political (future or otherwise) ahead of herself, than . . . well, I wouldn't be writing this blog.

Everybody is talking about dear Sarah P because she failed to stand up for herself in the first place. I'm just saying . . .

S

Wake Up and Smell the Manure

So, I'm flipping channels last night and land on CNN and Larry King Live. He has a panel of four women - Janine Turner (Northern Exposure) among them - discussing Sarah Palin. Two of the women were for Sarah Palin and two against. The problem: both sides were not actually listening to each other. They would spout their rhetoric and then, while the other side was speaking, they would plan their response, without actually listening. It was just amazing to see the defense/attack of Sarah Palin and/or the Republican Party.

I love the rabidness of politics. I just wish the fervor/passion would be directed in a better manner. Forget about a rabid defense/attack against Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Your voice, your thoughts, and your energy are wasted. Direct that passion, that fervor, that rabid single mindedness toward something better: fixing the system that no longer works.

The current system of government in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. How much better would our government be if the rabid defenders of either party actually put forth an equal, if not greater, amount of energy toward fixing the problem?

The current candidates are not going to fix the problem. The current candidates are part of the problem. Sarah Palin - love her or hate her - is part of the problem. The American People are part of the problem because we sit back and allow our government to stagnate and decay. We are responsible for who is currently in office, and who will be in office soon. We pick sides, when sides should not exist at all, and rabidly defend our position without looking at the bigger picture. We the people, to borrow a phrase, have failed as much as the government has failed.

It is time that we the people wake up and smell the coffee, roses, or huge piles of horse dung emanating from our nation's capitol. It is time that we the people stepped back from our rabid defense of either party, and focused on the actual ideal of fixing the broken, stagnating, decaying government that has inexorably driven our country into a recession. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, and their hope because we have a government that cannot cooperate with each other, even to save a failing economy.

So, hold onto your fevered beliefs, but direct them in a way that helps, rather than hurts this nation. Defend your politicians of choice, but not so rabidly that you lose sight of the greater picture: we are a country in crisis.

Just because you are Republican/Democrat does not mean you are honor-bound to vote Republican/Democrat. Sometimes, change comes from going against the flow, rather than with the flow. I see most political mind people as lemmings - those cute, adorable little creatures, that have no greater sense than to follow the leader over the cliff to certain death.

Wake up, dear little lemmings!!

S

Random Thoughts About Sarah Palin

Obviously, my I Want list is not working . . . yet. I still have hope.

So, I'm scanning the Internet (cnn.com - favorite news site), and what do I find, an interesting article with a ton of different pieces of information. The best, dear Sarah P talking about her $150,000 make-over. First, I'll admit, there is a double-standard in talking about her hair, make-up and wardrobe. Second - she still accepted a brand spanking new top of the line wardrobe.

According to dear Sarah P "most of the clothes are still in her campaign airplane . . . and the designer clothing she has worn, she said, will be returned, auctioned off or donated to charity" (http://www.cnn.com/). In fact, her "favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet" (http://www.cnn.com/).

First - thousands upon thousands of dollars of clothes are just sitting in an airplane? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where people are having a hard time putting gas in their cars and food on their table, let alone buying new clothes - and she has a frigging new wardrobe sitting on her airplane??? Go figure.

Second - the clothes will allegedly be donated to charity after the election. What charity? The RNC??? Like they need more money. I mean, if the clothes are going to be donated to charity, I'd like to think the money would go to a worthy organization . . . American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, a cancer organization, AIDS organization, etc.

Third - So, if dear Sarah P's favorite store is a thrift store, then why in the heck is she wearing the designer clothes? Why not present herself as a real person, and not some RNC puppet with the strings clearly showing? I'd be far more impressed - if that's even possible - with her had she presented herself to me, and not the image the RNC thought would draw in more votes. For the record - the clothes, the cars, the house, the jewelry - do not impress me. People - on their own, no adornments - impress me. I don't care what you wear, drive, or where you live. I care about you - as a person. It's that simple, and perhaps all politicians should get a clue!

Now, because it's so obvious, I must comment on her choice of stores. Out of the Closet??? Uh, is she sure it's not gay owned (you know her stance on gay marriage by now)???? I'm just saying . . .

Every Vote Counts

Okay, another election post. I know, I'm tired of them too. Only 13 more days, and then, at least for almost another four years, I can blog about something else. One can hope!

The other day one of my co-workers said to the other: Well, I guess your vote will cancel out my vote. My partner - yes, there is such a thing as a gay Republican (p.s., don't tell the Republican party, they might get scared) - said the same thing to me at one time. In his defense, he doesn't always vote Republican. Anyhow, the point of this post is: every vote counts. If I vote for one party and my partner the other party, both of our votes count. Neither vote cancels out the other vote. That, dear readers, is a frakkin' common misconception. The President of the United States - unfortunately - is not elected by popular vote. If he/she was elected in that manner, than, yes, votes might have the ability to cancel each other out. Since the President is elected based on Electoral Votes, every single vote counts.

So, what I'm saying with this post is: get your butts out there and vote. Do not think, oh, Suzi's vote is going to cancel mine out, so why should I vote???? Your (massive generalization, in case anybody is keeping count) vote counts. I'm just saying . . .

S

Is it so hard for a politician to tell the truth?

Case in point - during last night's debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

What Sarah, obviously either at her own discretion or the insistence of the Republican Party, failed to mention was the following:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Fact Check Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

The fact is, Sarah Palin told enough of the truth for her statement not to be an outright lie. She just failed to fill in pertinent details, obviously hoping the voting public was ignorant and would not bother checking facts. What, is she living beneath a rock?? Google is my friend. A good portion of the voting public knows how - and will - to check facts. Perhaps Sarah, and every other politician out there, might want to consider that option before they lie by omission.

Now, since I'm being fair here, let's pull out the following statement from Joe Biden - "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forthe health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Now for the facts, my friends.

In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.

In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the lastdecade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."

Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.
McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.

Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.

Verdict:Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

Again, Biden told a partial instead of a full truth. In effect, like Sarah Palin he lied. Enough with the lies, people. Try telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a change.


Also, check out this - very interesting.
S

Whine, whine, and more whine . . .

Whine, whine, and more whine . . . and the election continues! Is it November yet??? What's the latest whine from Republican country. Click here.

Basically, John McCain is down in the polls. His response, as can be found in the linked article is quite classic. According to the article, "Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."" (cnn.com). Sen. McCain went on to clarify (didn't read like a joke to me - I'm just saying . . .), "He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings." (cnn.com)

For the record, Obama did not do nothing. He did make plenty of phone calls - as McCain reluctantly acknowledges.

Would you like some cheese with that whine, Senator McCain? I mean, really. The only thing the suspension of his campaign proved (to me, and quite a few people I talked with) is that the man who hopes to become the next President of the United States is unable to focus on two things at once. I can picture it now: there's a hurricane a coming and nature is calling. What's a man to do? He can't handle two things at once. Oh well, guess since he's distended he'll have to go void. Okay, so two totally different things, but I think you get my point. Senator McCain - like Barack Obama - should have kept his campaign going and called whoever he needed to call to get things moving toward the economic bailout. This is the age of technology after all - telephones, cell phones, instant messaging, emails, and all that jazz. What he did in person, he could have done in some other way. There was no need to suspend his campaign. He should have proven, to himself and the country, that he is capable of multi-tasking.

Now that his decision is biting him in the nether regions, all he can do is . . . whine, whine, and more whine!

Senator McCain made a choice that did not turn out as well as he expected. That happens to everybody at some point in their life. I have three words for you Senator McCain: Get Over It! I'm sorry, I know this is probably harsh; but he sounds like a spoiled brat who did not get his way. Life is not fair, Senator McCain. Bad things happen all the time. If you cannot accept responsibility for your choices as a Senator, how in the heck are you going to take responsibility for your choices as the - potential (hopefully not in the lifetimes of anybody I know) - next President of the United States. Well, uh, I really didn't press that red button!! BAM!

S

Age

In a recent speech, Sarah Palin - again reading words written for her, because after the Katie Couric interview, everybody knows she can't speak on her own - made the following comment about Joe Biden: "I haven't met him, but I've been hearing about him since, like, second grade." Okay, here's the rub: Joe Biden is younger than John McCain. Isn't her slap in the face to Biden a double slap to McCain? I would think the Republican drones that write the speeches, would have a little more sense - oh, wait, that's an oxymoron isn't it? - than to bring up Biden's age, when McCain is older. I'm just saying . . .

S

Suspended Campaign

I'm sure by now everyone has heard that John McCain wants to temporarily suspend his political campaign for President so he can help deal with the current economic crisis. WTF!!! As a dear friend of mine pointed out: when he becomes president, will he not be able to handle two things at one time???? I agree 100%.

I also think that McCain has probably done one of the more stupid moves in his political career. If one person - my dear friend - has the thought that McCain cannot handle more than one thing at a time (definitely not an assest for the leader of a country), than other people have thought the same thing. I know that if I had any confidence in McCain's ability as a leader in the first place, it would have completely disappeared after his latest statment.

Now, some might say - oh, it's a good thing, he's showing priorities by focusing on the economy. The question is: as President, what happens when there are two major things he needs to focus on at the same time? You can't just suspend one major thing to deal with another major thing. Life, unfortunately, is not that simple. We don't have the leisure to decide what we want to focus on in this life. To me, it is a slap in the face to the American people for John McCain to suspend his political campaign. He should be able to campaign and focus on the economic crisis. If he can't, then perhaps he needs to bow out of the election.

S

The Honeymoon is Over!!

For those who even care . . .

• Sarah Palin's favorable rating drops, unfavorable rating rises
• Barack Obama regains lead in national polls
• Obama has been aggressively attacking John McCain's economic policies
• Neither candidate has shown expertise on economy, David Gergen says

The above bullet points come from this article.

As you'll find out if you're not lazy and actually click on the linked article, the honeymoon with Palin is over. Her favorable rating has dropped and her unfavorable rating has increased. I guess more and more people are checking out the fact websites and realizing that there is more - not necessarily better - to Sarah Palin than the Republican hype first seemed to indicate. I could have told you that much - please see earlier posts about Palin and the links to anti-Palin sites and well as political fact checker sites. In all honesty, Sarah Palin's emergence into this election was cleverly staged by the Republican Party. Her speech was written for her, and I'm she she had hours of rehearsals and couching to make her appear invincible. Obviously, the people behind her presentation failed to consider the fact that the majority of the American public is NOT stupid, and has the capability of googling Sarah Palin and learning the actual facts that she, and the Republican party, don't want them to know.

The election is far from over. Anything can, and probably will, still happen. What we, the American public, need to do is stay informed, stay involved, and keep checking those facts. The political ads are slanted and very biased. The political ads take things out of context and paint a very inaccurate picture. The only way to learn the truth is to research the facts and make an informed decision on Election Day.

Okay, I'm done with this rant . . . and very little snark was involved.

S

How can you disagree with perfect logic?

When in doubt - copy and paste. If you want the prettier version, click here.

I happen to agree, more than I would like too, with much of what Glenn Beck has to say. He's forthright, direct, and gets straight to the point. I don't agree with 100% of what he has to say, but the below post is brilliance in motion.

NEW YORK (CNN) --

Glenn Beck: Florida and Michigan leaders have only themselves to blame if their delegates aren't seated.

What do these stories all have in common?

• A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.
• People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.
• Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.
• Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.
  

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.

Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

From Eliot Spitzer's alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there's never been a shortage of "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrites in politics.

But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.
Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.

"But Glenn. ... Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don't want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. ... You don't understand. If we don't seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. .... The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don't let their voices be heard."

Too bad.

If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let's talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let's talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let's talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.

Americans aren't disenfranchised because our leaders won't count votes in a couple of states. They're disenfranchised because our leaders aren't doing their jobs. They're disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.

In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I've patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a "do-over," but quite honestly, they're not arguments at all. They're excuses. If this race wasn't so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.

But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.

In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.

Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules." And Brazile knows a little something about that ... she ran Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.

Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it's time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?

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

Polls

According to CNN, the latest polls have McCain as the next President of the United States.

If I remember correctly from my statistics course, polls really aren't that accurate. If only 100 people are polled, and 46% (i.e., 46 people) say they would vote for John McCain versus 44% (i.e., 44 people) say they would vote for Barack Obama; then what about the other gazillion eligible voters not polled? The fact is, CNN does not provide the data (i.e., number of people polled, ages, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliation, conservative/liberal label) behind the polls. Did they poll the entire country? Did they poll a majority Republican versus Democrat area? Were the people polled liberals or conservatives, whites or blacks or Latinos? I guess only CNN knows, and they're not freely sharing the information.

In the end, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled, and as truthful as those same people. Another thing I remember from statistics class, sometimes people lie when being polled for fear of the information (whether as simple as a political election or as complex as did you cheat on your spouse) being used against them. Then again, there was always that famous political poll from years ago when the people doing the polling made up the answers. I'm just saying . . .

S

Another Day in Politics

Welcome to another day in the political arena!

At last nights debate, there was far too much whine! I mean really!

The point of the blog this morning is - surprisingly - to admit that I (to a certain extent) agree with Hillary regarding the photo of Obama discussed in an earlier post.

Clinton denied any knowledge of the photo coming from one of her staff. "So far as I know, it did not," she said. "That's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign - (cnn.com 02/27/08)."

On the other hand, just the other day, her campaign manager issued the following statement: In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

I still believe her campaign had something to do with the photo. Hillary is only human, and she's not omnipotent (all knowing). She does not have 100% control over the gazillions of people working on her campaign. It is highly likely that a member of her campaign allegedly released the photo. It is highly likely that Hillary allegedly did not know about the photo. Personally, that's always the greatest excuse in the world. Still, I'll give her a semi-break on this one issue.

I still won't give any of the candidates a break on the negativity they are spewing at each other. Enough already.

S

The Endless War in Iraq

"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us - John McCain, 02/2008"

Isn't it odd, how suddenly, John McCain changes his stance on the war in Iraq? His earlier comments about the war - U.S. forces may need to remain in Iraq for up to 100 years - were not what he meant. They were misinterpreted, misunderstood, and - the best of them all - distorted by his Democratic rivals. Yeah, and the Pope's about to allow all priests to marry!

The fact remains, the United States is currently fighting a war in Iraq that we cannot win. We need to pull our troops out and quit funneling billions of dollars per year into a war we cannot win.

My opinion about Senator McCain's comments: he realizes the war is no longer popular, and that his support of the war (hundreds of years of war) could result in him not getting elected (fingers and toes crossed on that option - for me at least) President of the United States. Go figure!

On the CNN scroll this morning, a little blurb floated across the screen about President Bush hoping that Republicans would elect a President who would continue the war in Iraq - or, something to that effect.

Let's hope not! As stated earlier in this post, the war in Iraq needs to end. It needs to end today, not tomorrow. Our troops need to come home. We cannot win the war in Iraq. We cannot win the war on terror. All we can do (United States, any nation) is to persevere and prepare. We need to remain strong and positive. We need to spend the billions of dollars spent on a war we cannot win, on counter-terrorism efforts, on strengthening our country. It does not take rocket science to come to that conclusion. It might take more than a third grade education, but definitely not rocket science.

My only hope for this country is that we elect a leader capable of change, capable of standing up against a governmental system that is archaic and in need of drastic repair, and who is capable of realizing our troops need to come home, our elderly need to be taken care of, that the influx of illegal immigrants into our country is not a good thing, and that the selling off of our country to other nations is a bad idea!

S

Politics - Either You Did It, or You Didn't (No Middle Ground)

Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional Somali attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

Okay, so today I thought - there's nothing worth writing about. Wrong!

A photo is circulating of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali attire. The phoe has allegedly been circulated by Hillary's camp. Hillary's camp does not deny circulating the photo, nor do they confirm circulating the photo. Typical Political BS! If you (Hillary's camp) did not circulate the photo all they have to do (real simple here folks) is say: We did not circulate the photo. Evading a denial, in my book at least, is confirming the action.

When will it end? For the love of . . . will it ever end? Issues, people, issues, not negative ads, not what somebody did 10 or 20 years ago . . . ISSUES!!

Hillary - you're losing ground. Instead of focusing on the negatives you believe Barack Obama has, why not attempt to focus on your (if any) positives? Forget the attacks; they're obviously not working. Case in point: Earlier this year, some Clinton volunteers left her campaign in those states after circulating e-mails that falsely claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim – an inaccurate rumor his campaign has worked hard to dispel — and suggesting that his drug use as a young man might make him vulnerable to Republican attacks were he to become the nominee - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

In the end, I know I cannot expect a positive political campaign. Politicians only seem to know how to fight negativiely, rather than positively. Politicians - so history has shown (and present day as well) - are incapable of running an honest campaign focusing solely on their qualifications for office.

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