ONN Report Offers Most Honest Analysis of Election Season Yet :)

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

See, i'm not all gloom and doom. Only when it involves Hillary Clinton, when I think about the direction of the Country, or when it comes to the Republicans & their smear machine. They can suck the life and the hope out of just about anything.

P.S.

May 6th, could be the end of the hostage standoff (Hillary Clinton holding the nation hostage that is), as I had predicted several weeks ago. Whether she gives up then or not may not matter. If she loses both N. Carolina and Indiana on the same night it could be a crushing blow in terms of momentum and could send a message to Superdelegates to make a decisive move to avoid a disaster at the Convention. It would take a very strange miracle for her to win after that. For Clinton to stay in the race after that point can only be seen as malicious....an attempt to do harm to Obama in the General Election. Of course, she has already done this...but after May 6th, it will be as clear as day. But Obama has to somehow win Indiana... a daunting task after the massive Swiftboat attacks.

Hillary The Beast Clinton will easily win West Virginia and Kentucky after her racist campaign efforts and her fearmongering aimed at White blue collar voters. Obama may come back & do well in Oregon (still an unknown...Oregon seemed like a lock for Obama a couple of months ago...but that was before the Swiftboating & race baiting kicked into high gear). The Caucus States of South Dakota and Montana are numerically insignificant either way (Sorry Montana & S. Dakota, lol). Clinton may actually win those Caucuses due to the changing dynamics of the past 6 weeks. But Obama's delegate lead should be big enough to blunt a Clinton win in Puerto Rico.

If I were Obama... I would publicly offer Clinton a 45%-55% split on Michigan and Florida. That would be hard for her to refuse. That would probably earn Obama the nomination outright. It would put Clinton in an awkward & almost impossible position. If she says no... she looks like an ass to the World and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell. If she accepts, she allows Obama to have a clear victory, and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell.

Obama’s Fading “Hope“: America May Be Too Sick To Elect a Black Man For President

Obama appears to be damaged goods, and may be done. You could probably stick a fork in him at this point. Or does he have enough miracles left to overcome the nations attempt to swiftboat his campaign? And yes…this has now become more of a national effort. Everyone seems to be getting in on the act.

That's one of the many reasons why I lost interest in this circus filled election season.

Hillary's race baiting campaign has done serious damage to Obama and his hopes for the nomination, especially in the context of the General Election. Even if Obama somehow stops the bleeding enough to win the nomination, the General (s)election will be a different story. Obama will have to garner a broader range of support in the General Election as compared to the Democratic nomination contest...and it's going to be a steeper hill for him to climb in the General to accomplish that mission.

Clinton has taken race, Rev. Wright, etc...& has tied it around Obama's neck with a ball & chain. It is going to weigh on him not only for the remainder of his campaign...but for the rest of his political career. Obama was naive to think that his attempts to run a race neutral campaign would somehow stop Whites from attacking him using race, ethnicity, and religion as weapons. They simply couldn’t resist. Obama was essentially put in a situation where he had to apologize for being Black. And people wonder why I hate being a Black man? I don’t know of any other ethnic group in this Country that has to apologize to the wider society for their race…..or has to apologize for comments made by other members of their ethnic group, the way that Obama had to. These developments have been breathtaking, although not surprising to me considering we live in one of the most racist Countries in the World. But this is why I had to step back from politics…the madness was becoming too absurd to tolerate.

I never thought that either Clinton or Obama were very electable from the beginning.... and now they are even more unelectable... That is especially the case for Obama.
Everything that I had predicted earlier on seems to be materializing. The media has duped Democrats (by steering voters like sheep) into nominating two marginal candidates....and by playing up issues of race, etc. And it has been all about ratings for the networks the whole time (from the time that the Obama/Clinton matchup was first introduced and played up as a possibility 2 & 1/2 to 3 years ago until today).

An example of the damage done to Obama can be seen in polling data...and it is showing in a big way. Whether it holds or not remains to be seen...but the negative results seem to be holding a month after the Rev. Wright nonsense. Obama had been leading by wide margins in Indiana on a consistent basis over several weeks. But after the negative racist gutter politics of Clinton.... the poll in Indiana has flipped the opposite way...with Clinton now enjoying a nice lead; although Obama has been able to improve his standing in Indiana in the last few days. There was an initial swing of about 15-20 points from Obama to Clinton within the span of two weeks. As if that’s not bad enough, new polling from Puerto Rico shows that Clinton enjoys a healthy double digit lead there as well. I was a little surprised by the Puerto Rico poll considering the rocky relationship between the Clinton administration and the island in the late 1990’s.

But Hillary’s support among blue collar White voters in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania says a lot about the impact of playing on the fears of White Americans, xenophobic Whites in particular. Hillary always had race as a built-in advantage.

At the end of the day... I don't believe that Obama is electable in a General Election....and he probably won't win. He may not even win the Democratic nomination now that Florida and Michigan are probably out of the picture (at least for now). This will leave the decision to the so-called Superdelegates. Losing the nomination may be an act of mercy for Obama and his followers. Some polling is beginning to show that voters would support McCain over Obama...and Clinton over McCain in key matchups (again...Hillary Clinton’s dirty racist campaign has started to pay off). Clinton is likely to finish strong in the remaining contests on the back of her race baiting & scorched earth campaign...and this may make the Supercrooks... or the "Superdelegates" doubt Obama's chances.

To put it plainly....America is too sick to elect a Black candidate to the Presidency of the United States. Sick meaning- too racist, xenophobic, ignorant about politics & basic civics, ignorant about Democracy, nationalistic, controlled by fear, manipulated by the media, uninformed about other cultures & the experiences of others within the borders of this Country...let alone in Countries thousands of miles away, blind about religion.... Etc. And this is essentially why I am noticing that the vultures are starting to gather for Barack Obama…waiting for a nice meal from the political remains of a man who started out with grand hopes but was soon consumed by the disease that is American Politics….a disease fed by a twisted social culture. In some ways, America is as sick today as it was 40 and 50 years ago. And Hope was never going to change that in my opinion. This is why I always said that Obama needed more than Hope to win the nomination and a General Election… I knew that he would face this racist onslaught. He needed a kick ass, cut throat campaign staff that wouldn’t take any bull……but this is something that Obama doesn’t seem to have unfortunately. To say that David Axelrod has been a wimp may be an understatement.

In the end, race & how comfortable voters personally would feel having a beer or having dinner with a particular candidate may prove more important than the candidates positions on actual issues. In American elections... this personal "feel good" test tends to carry the day over all else. This is what American elections have come down to....and it has been this way for quite some time. Whites will always be more comfortable with candidates who look like them, despite the fact that they may actually have more in common as Americans with the minority candidate (the guy who is barely a millionaire…and a fairly new member of that group). This phenomenon is part of the reason why George W. Bush still won re-election despite losing 3 straight debates to the cosmopolitan guy from the Northeast. Rural White Americans preferred George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan because of how well these men wore their boots and their cowboy hats...more than any plan they offered or policy that they supported. We are seeing a similar situation with Obama, and his ethnicity highlights this phenomenon that much more.

Americans consistently vote against their own best interests, even in election years when they claim to want change. If you recall….2004 was a “change” election year…but when it came down to voting, Americans chose the same cast of characters….largely out of fear and because of the impulse to choose the familiar. The same thing is happening in this election cycle. Americans will likely choose what is familiar and “safe”. Choosing something different requires voters to put in more work….requires them to think more…requires them to have a grasp of the issues. But for many voters, this is too hard, and they look for any excuse to pull back and retreat to their old patterns of choosing the most familiar. This is how issues like Gay marriage, guns (I am pro-gun by the way), religion, immigration, war, race and class, often trump more pressing everyday issues that all voters should be concerned with. This is partly what Obama was getting at when he made the comments about small town America. But he wasn’t blunt enough with his comments. If he could have gotten away with it, what he should have mentioned was the fact that race and racial prejudice are working against him in many parts of rural America, and rural Pennsylvania and Indiana especially. That’s what he wanted to say but couldn’t. Xenophobia and racism are huge issues in this campaign. And the fear mongering from Clinton and McCain are a testament to that fact. If these were not big issues, then Clinton & the Conservatives would not be working so hard to highlight and exploit racial & social differences for political advantage.

It is amazing how the media has been able to twist Obama’s comments around to have a completely different meaning or connotation than what was intended. Hillary Clinton is allowed to tell one bold faced lie after another with very few lasting consequences, yet Obama is vilified repeatedly for telling the truth. Obama is attacked relentlessly for comments that he didn’t even make regarding his former Pastor, or for comments made by the obscure Louis Farrakhan (support that Obama never sought & comments that he probably didn’t know about ahead of time) yet the media does nothing to hold John McCain accountable for actually seeking and accepting the endorsement of a known bigot and religious hate monger John Hagee. This is why I get the urge to strangle those who say there is no media bias in favor of these rich white candidates. Clinton in particular has had the media advantage from the beginning, long before she even declared her candidacy.

The media tries to create its own reality in order to boost ratings. They desperately want the Obama comments to be overblown into a huge new controversy. Even though a CNN Poll out today showed that 76% of viewers did not find Obama’s comments offensive at all. A majority were actually in agreement with Sen. Obama. Yet the corporate media continues to twist his words and then overplay those twisted words, hoping to influence voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere who may not keep up with the daily news and who would therefore be ripe candidates for this kind of manipulation. Meanwhile, while this manufactured news is being promoted, the media seems to ignore actual confirmed news surrounding Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn, and his support of a Columbian Trade deal, while she is in Pennsylvania slamming such deals. It’s the same kind of disingenuous behavior that we saw from Clinton in Ohio and that we have seen throughout her campaign.

What really bothers me is the assertion by Clinton and McCain that Obama is some sort of elitist and is out of touch. This is coming from a woman who reported making over $100 million dollars, and has been the biggest recipient of corporate lobbying money out of all of the candidates. This is also the same woman who has been in the White House, in Governors mansions and in corporate board rooms for upwards of 35 years straight. This is the same woman who defended corporations against consumers and even defended a wife beater in a brutal domestic violence case when she was a hotshot attorney, as a way to promote her career. And now she claims to be a feminist. Give us a break Hillary! And John McCain is not far behind. His entire campaign is virtually run by lobbyists. But Obama is the elitist? A man who started out in a job that paid about $15,000 a year and wasn’t born into wealth. A man raised by a single mother. A man who lived on Food Stamps as a kid and doesn’t know what it feels like to have $100 million.

If that’s not bad enough, Hillary is now claiming to be Annie Oakley…a pro-gun politician. Unfortunately Americans have a very short memory and will fall for that unmitigated foolishness. Those of us who have been paying attention know about the war on guns that the Clintons waged in the 1990’s. Now she wants gullible voters to believe that she is actually pro-gun. It’s another chameleon act by Clinton…. changing her colors to fit the current environment. We saw the same nonsense with NAFTA. And there have been similar embellishments in terms of her foreign policy (3am crisis) experience….which all turned out to be a very large bucket of Bull.

The media circus of the past 2 months has taken both Democratic Party candidates off of more meaningful topics, such as what they plan to do to save social security, what they plan to do about healthcare, what they plan to do about climate change and the environment, what they plan to do about energy independence & getting gas prices under control, what they plan to do to create jobs and to make the U.S. more competitive in the new global economy, what they plan to do about the cost of living and stagnant wages, what they plan to do about corruption in Washington D.C., what they plan to do to repair U.S. relations with the rest of the World, what they plan to do about the growing racial and social class rift (the new emerging caste system in this Country), what they plan to do about the cost of higher education and out of control student loan burdens, and the list goes on & on. I have not heard anything over the past several weeks about substantive policies and plans of the respective candidates. I have only been bombarded with replay after replay of the latest trivial comments from one of the 3 Senators.

We have entered an era where we can now count on good people to be swift boated, no matter how good their message might be. The new tradition calls for election seasons that are turned into pure entertainment. Americans, fed by the corporate media machine, sit around to see who has made the latest gaffe, rather than seeking meaningful substantive information. This is why the American electorate tends to be less informed than voters in other Democracies. We are becoming a "gaffe" and 10 second soundbite culture. This, in part, is what will decide elections from here on out. Meanwhile, the same cast of characters will win elections over and over again, and nothing will change for ordinary Americans. The Well of American politics is now permanently contaminated. If JFK were to run for the office of President today, even he would be swift boated. So we as a nation are in this perpetual funk, and I don’t see how the cycle will be broken. As long as the nation has a corrupt Two- Party system that is controlled by big money, a largely disengaged uninformed public, and a corporate media that controls & shapes almost all public opinion, then nothing significant will change in the lives of ordinary Americans. Fear, ignorance, racism and xenophobia will continue to rule the day. Only a reformed, regulated political system with a real multi-party Democracy (more than 2 major Parties) will be able to change the status quo. Americans make up one of the most ill-informed and manipulated electorates of any modern nation on the planet, which is why we will be dealing with this kind of nonsense for the foreseeable future.

The Obama experiment, so far, is proving that despite all of the Senators attempts to run a race neutral campaign and to represent a new generation of minority politicians who want to transcend skin color, White America still could not resist using race as a weapon against him. Thus America is once again failing to move beyond its racist past. This will insure that America will remain one of the Neanderthals in the community of nations. Technologically and economically strong…sure. But socially, it is still too sick to move ahead…still stuck 2-3 generations behind.

I'm quickly moving towards a "shelter in place" bunker mentality.... more of a survivalist mode... gathering everything that I need for "SHTF Day" (whenever that day comes)...when the House burns down. That includes clinging to my guns, just like Whites in small town America. I am realizing that I can do nothing to stop the inevitable demise of this country.... that an Empire descending from grace is just a natural thing...and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. I can do nothing to impact (not in a meaningful or significant way) the politics of this Country... especially in a Country where there is no real Democracy to speak of. Yes, my cynicism has returned….in fact, it never went anywhere. I have always been cynical and skeptical. This Country has not given me any reason to be otherwise. And it’s not a blind cynicism….it is a justified cynicism.

One positive that could come out of a Democratic defeat in November….sort of a silver lining to the dark storm cloud of a McCain victory… is that such a Democratic defeat may be what the Country needs. It wouldn’t be a completely negative experience. Perhaps this would be the spark that the Democratic Party would need to finally implode, which would be a good thing, forcing the Party to clean house from top to bottom, starting with Howard Dean. Perhaps this would cause the Party to refocus its vision, mission, and strategy for the future. The current cast of characters give me nothing to be excited about.

But those changes would only be superficial. What we really need is a complete fundamental overhaul of the entire political system in this Country. I know… not likely, but that’s the only way to restore public confidence in politics. There has to be a change in the way that the nation chooses Presidents and other elected officials. Public financing of campaigns, where all candidates are on a level playing field, and enjoy a truly impartial media, is the only fair framework for future elections. Maybe a Democratic loss could convince enough people (fed up Democrats and independents) to form a separate political Party. And I would love to see Conservatives and Moderates do the same. Both Parties should split into 2 or 3 different groups in my opinion. A true multi-party Democracy (more than two or three major Parties) is the only way that all Americans can feel that their interests are being represented. You need more than two corrupt political Parties to represent the needs and interests of a diverse group of 300 million people. No other major industrialized Democracy has that kind of Party ratio in terms of political representation. You only see that kind of ratio in dictatorships and communist Countries. Voters need choice when they go to the polls… they have had to choose between the Demon and the Devil for too long. Until there are fundamental changes to this Countries political landscape…. nothing will fundamentally change in the lives of Americans.

Media Blackout Continues for John Edwards

There has clearly been a concerted effort on the part of the major media to take John Edwards out of the Presidential race. This has been going on for more than a year. They have successfully moved Edwards out of the way by sinking his campaign; allowing them to get the matchup that they want no matter what. And with so little time between Iowa and the New Hampshire Primary, Edwards has little chance of making up any ground.

All along, the networks wanted to see a matchup between Obama and Clinton because it would be the biggest ratings draw. Therefore, the networks proceeded to set the stage & set the agenda for what THEY wanted....(not what the people wanted), by giving disproportionate wall-to-wall coverage to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. In doing so, they set the agenda for voters...and established who the "favorites" were going to be...in order to get the matchup that they wanted.

Without the media hype, the Obama & Clinton campaigns would have gone nowhere... because neither candidate is the best that the Democrats had to offer, and neither candidate is the most electable.

What we are witnessing with John Edwards is one of the biggest travesties in American electoral history. And no one will do anything about it.... because there is no election authority in this Country that can regulate, enforce laws, recommend changes, or correct these kinds of injustices.

This is why fundamental electoral reform is so desperately needed...including the regulation of media coverage. Other Countries already regulate media coverage and public polling during campaigns.


Here are the latest examples of the media's Blackout effort against John Edwards... But this nonsense has been going on everyday for over a year.





Example with additional video



_____________________

Related Links

The Blackout of John Edwards and the Aftermath of Iowa

Other Candidates Banned from Participating in New Hampshire Debate

Iowa - A Test For American Democracy

Hear The Democratic Radio Debate From NPR

NPR hosted a great Democratic radio Debate earlier today.

Hear the entire debate here. This was one of the best debates so far.

Sparks flew on the subject of Iran, in light of the recent NIE Report on Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program.
Clinton supported the Bush Administration's effort to label part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, providing the Neo-Conservatives with all the approval they need to launch an attack against that Country. But Clinton bought into the Bush Administrations disinformation campaign on Iran far too easily, with little skepticism, just as she did when she voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. When you vote in favor of an ill advised war once, you may be able to get away with calling it a mistake. However, when you do it twice in a row, there is a thing called "judgement" that has to be called into question.

The Clinton Coronation Ceremony Continues

The coronation of Hillary Clinton continues, despite a recent Zogby Poll that questions her electability. The Poll shows Clinton trailing in a General Election matchup with leading Republicans. I agree that there were flaws in this poll, however, the results should not be totally discounted, especially since the respondents were "likely voters". Furthermore, the sample for the Zogby poll was quite large, nearly 10,000 people- or 10 times the size of the typical poll (in the 700-1200 range). Typical polls tend to gauge the sentiments from the "man on the street"- those who are chosen on a random basis. Often many of these respondents are not actual voters.

Also, see more on Clinton's mud slinging claim.

Hillary Clinton: Big In Name, Little In Substance

Why Is Hillary Afraid of A Real Debate On The Issues? Just Who Is Really Slinging the Mud? [2]

As I watch the campaign season continue to unfold I get the feeling that I am witnessing a giant coronation ceremony. It’s a feeling that I generally get every 4 years. This election year is no exception. This time the media’s chosen candidate is Hillary Clinton.

After watching last weeks Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, I was left with a feeling of dread for the future of Democracy in this Country, particularly as it relates to Presidential Elections. What we have today certainly doesn’t fit the definition of true Democracy. Few Countries seem to make a mockery of Democracy the way that the United States does. In fact, the U.S. ranked 17th in the index of the World's Democracies (a list of the most Democratic nations). Video

After the Debate in Las Vegas, I watched all of the annoying commentators talk about how great Hillary was, and how she really came out swinging. She restored her rightful place as the “front-runner”. I particularly recall sitting through a few segments of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Matthews talked about Hillary Clinton as if she had already won the Democratic nomination, when the voting process has not begun. He made the comment “How is Rudy (Giuliani) going to beat Hillary in the General Election. It was as if the half dozen other Democratic candidates did not even exist. It seems as though most of the polls that I see are Clinton Vs. Giuliani Polls. There is this assumption that Hillary has already won, before the voters have weighed in.

This is part of a clear pattern on the part of the media to coronate a winner before the Primary process has even started. There is an attempt to tell voters who to support in the Iowa Caucus and in the Primary States.

I was also annoyed by Hillary’s comments at the Vegas debate. She labeled opposition from other candidates as Mudslinging. I have not seen any evidence that backs up her statement. And of course the mainstream media pundits (those who have coronated her as the Democratic Nominee) never challenged her on her mudslinging comment. Since when does one candidate challenging another on principles, policy positions, behavior, voting record, work history, etc equate to mudslinging? Her claim was nonsense. Most of the criticism that I have seen regarding Clinton has been based on her policy positions and voting record. The criticisms have been based on facts. Her mudslinging claim seemed to be more of an attempt to distract voters from the real issues and the policy differences between the candidates, for which John Edwards has been attempting to highlight.

1. She voted for the war in Iraq. This is a fact.

2. She voted to provide the Bush Administration with backdoor authorization to start a war with Iran. This is a fact. She is a pro-war Democrat who has indicated that she would launch a war with Iran.

3. She does not represent change…she represents the Status quo in Washington D.C., where corporate lobbyists have enormous influence on our government. She has taken more lobbying money than any other candidate (from either party)… This is a fact.

4. As Michael Moore pointed out in Sicko, Clinton pretended to be in favor of healthcare reform, but allowed herself to be bought by the same drug and insurance lobby that she was supposed to be fighting against, eventually becoming one of the biggest recipients of their money. Meanwhile, her healthcare proposals went nowhere. This is a fact. But she walks around as if she really accomplished something regarding healthcare. This is one of the biggest myths in the whole campaign.

5. The fact that she flip flops on issues, such as the issue of ID cards for illegal immigrants. First she came out in favor of the idea, but she turned right around less than 2 weeks later and decided to oppose it, after a public outcry. This is a fact.

6. She has stated publicly (early on) that she would end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, but was heard stating off the record that she would keep troops in Iraq through her second term- This is a fact.

7. Her campaign has planted questions at rallies, reminiscent of Bush Administration tactics, in an attempt to stage her events- then she tried to lie about it. This is a fact.

This isn’t mudslinging, this is an effort by opponents to distinguish themselves from Clinton so that voters will have clearer choices.

Another myth is her claim that she is the most experienced candidate and can get the ball rolling from day one. Again, the mainstream corporate media refuses to challenge Clinton on these outrageous claims and comments. She has only been an office holder for 6 full years. And she has no experience running a major office or running a government. People (especially in the media) try to give her too much credit for her time as first lady, etc. Although much of that time was spent traveling and going to the typical events that first ladies attend. If she were going for a job as the CEO of a PR firm…her experience as first lady would be great. But it doesn’t count much for the most important job in the nation.

The only major project that she took on as first lady was Healthcare and, as I mentioned, that ended with her being bought by the Insurance industry. Healthcare reform failed miserably. I wish the media would stop the nonsense about her extensive experience for the job. She has not run a major government office, and has only been an elected official for one term.

She also mentioned during the Las Vegas debate that her opponents were not attacking her because she is a woman… but because she is ahead. But who put her ahead? It’s the media that put her ahead. She isn’t ahead because her policy positions are better than the other candidates. Not because her plans are better. Not because she is principled. Not because she is going to stand up for working people. She is ahead because the media chose her as the favorite early on…and she has received a disproportionate amount of airtime. We have hardly heard from the other candidates. And the few times when they do allow us to see the other candidates, it’s often part of some kind of political attack against them… such as John Edwards’s hair. And to see just one example of what I am telling you, take a look at a debate clock courtesy of the Dodd campaign. Dodd’s folks have been keeping up with talk time at the various debates. Hillary typically ends up at or very near the top. Some of the other candidates hardly get to speak, and when they do speak, they are often cut off by rude moderators like Wolf Blitzer.

Unfortunately, the American public often doesn’t vote for the most experienced candidate. Nor do they vote on the issues. They are some of the most disengaged and least informed voters of any major so called “Democracy”. The truth is, Americans tend to vote for the familiar… for people whom they feel comfortable with. And after 8 years of Bush-Cheney, people are willing to go back to the Clinton brand. Never mind the fact that doing so would not represent the change that so many people want. Clinton is certainly not the change candidate. But she is familiar to the American voter. Many of these voters probably believe that they are voting for Bill Clinton. This is how we ended up with George W. Bush… people were voting for a name. They thought that they were voting for George H.W. Bush…. someone familiar. With few exceptions, the average American typically votes the way they are told to vote, either by the media, their political party leaders, or by their religious leaders. If they do decide for themselves, they often make the choice based on who looks best in a Cowboy hat, who they feel “comfortable” with, who can give the best soundbite answer, or based on some other trivial matter. Americans are once again repeating the same pattern of not paying attention to what is going on. I just heard about a new Poll in my State of Missouri that indicated that Hillary Clinton would do better than Rudy Giuliani in the State in a General Election (once again, there was the assumption in the Poll that Hillary would be the nominee before anyone has voted). But another part of that poll indicated that the people of my State wanted a change candidate. This is where the disconnect is evident. They don’t seem to understand that Clinton would be business as usual.

Let’s be honest… if Hillary were not a former first lady of a popular President…if her name was not Clinton… would she be a serious candidate? No she wouldn’t. If she were running as Hillary Rodham and if she were not the wife of Bill Clinton, but had similar work experience, no one would be paying her any attention. She would be near the bottom of the pack, and that’s if she could have garnered enough financial support to begin with.

I am just hoping that the people of Iowa are more attentive to what is going on this time around and vote for plans, policies, issues and principles instead of just a name. Iowans typically are a little more astute than voters nationwide, because of the States unique position. I am hoping that they are not falling for the Hillary fluff. As Dr. Cornel West would say, I am hopeful, but not optimistic. Polls are showing pretty strong support for Hillary in Iowa, despite strong polling early on by Edwards. I think this could be attributed to the fact that there was a media blitz over the Summer in favor of Clinton, at the expense of the other candidates.

A Review of the Past Weeks Events

I meant to post this over the weekend, but never got around to it.

Hear a discussion of the past weeks events.

The guests spent most of the segment talking about the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas.
They hit the nail right on the head regarding Hillary Clinton.

Guests

· Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial page writer for the Chicago Tribune
· Rick Perlstein, senior fellow at Campaign for America's Future, where he writes the blog "The Big Con," and author of "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus."
· Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly

Listen Here

John Edwards Beginning to Distinguish Himself From Hillary Clinton

John Edwards has recently come out against a blanket program, supported by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It is clear that Clinton doesn't understand the possible security risks involved in such a plan, let alone the fact that it helps to support illegal immigration. Clinton's program would also go against the Real ID program.

Now we could consider some sort of special license for guest workers and students, but it should be tied to their visas. And I could support the idea as part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan. An actual New York drivers license establishes legal residency and gives an illegal immigrant access to all sorts of services, including airports, financial services, etc.

I guess Hillary has forgotten how the immigration system and domestic services were exploited by Terrorists in the months and years before 9/11. Would the lack of official State ID prevent another 9/11? Probably not. But the idea is to provide as many layers or barriers as possible to prevent another major attack. Perhaps tight ID rules would provide another opportunity for terror suspects to be disrupted or caught. The Clinton/Spitzer program has all sorts of ramifications, both domestically and on the international front.

Most Americans are clearly opposed to such an idea...and Edwards may have given himself a boost by making his position clear. And he was careful not to say that he was not open to other workable alternatives or that he was against immigrants or immigration (As Republicans so often do). Some criticize Edwards and say that he flip flopped on this issue because he supported something different in 2004, however, that is not flip flopping in my opinion. Several years have passed and things change over time. Edwards is evolving as good politicians have always done. Showing the ability to evolve and change over long periods is a sign of a smart politician who can adapt to new realities and to the needs and concerns of the people they serve. Flip flopping on the other hand is someone who says one thing and within a few weeks or months says something completely different...trying to respond to opinion polls.

Here are a few other issues where Edwards is beginning to distinguish himself from Clinton.

I don't really care for either Party... I see both as evils. Choosing from the current pack for independents involves making the least painful choice.
But I would love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket....although Obama has pretty much stated that he wasn't interested in the VP spot.

Democratic Race Tightening in Iowa

Watch Related Video (Courtesy of Errington Thompson)

(The recent Iowa Poll was taken before the Philly Debate).

And The Public Is Finally Taking Notice of John Edwards. Edwards seems to have had some impact in the recent Debate in Philadelphia.



See Daily Kos Entry Edwards To Clinton: "No More Politics of Doublespeak".