Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Clintons, now known in the media and some blogs as “Billary”, will say anything to get elected. By referring to Bill Clinton as the “first black president”, Toni Morrison’s is strategically low balling and tarnishing Obama’s integrity. During the past week there have been Implications, discussions, dissections, justifications and questions about whether or not Obama “is good enough” to run for office. Is he experienced enough to know change? Not allowing the Obama camp time to concentrate on building voters, which is the life blood of any campaign, is an obvious outcry of “building on fear” and “the notion that Obama isn’t as good as Hillary. She “deserves” the presidency because she is the wife of Bill, a woman and is hated by the Republicans. At the rate she is going many Democrats are going to start feeling the same about her divisiveness, tackiness, street fighting tactics and arrogance.
Today, the New York Times, endorsed Hillary and urged her to take the lead and to change the “ugly” tone in the election campaign. The editorial board expressed that Hillary’s comments and bickering aren’t good for the country. The American people don’t need this. The Democratic Party doesn’t need this. They suggest that any more of this just might cause a huge black backlash.
Hillary counters that “the stokes” are reflective of the difference between the two candidates. There is no mention of Edwards. Finally, I heard this was a three way race whereby Edwards carried South Carolina and Bill lost when he campaigned there. She isn’t taking responsibility for the comments exploding on black talk radio and blogs. It is just a cheap shot at giving her media access and sound bites, talk about saving on advertising. Instead she blows the statements off with an endearing, “her husband just got carried away” and vows to bring the debate back to the issues. She adds the party is proud of the fact that an African American and woman are running for office. There was no mention of the Hispanic governor that has recently dropped out of the race. Bill admitted yesterday that he has so much passion about Hillary’s candidacy that he has difficulty restraining himself. Yes, Bill we know about your personal restraints, but we are concerned about your recent heart surgery, so calm down, we certainly wouldn’t want to loose you to an aneurism.
When questioned by the media at a fundraiser with Jesse Jackson in the background, Michelle Obama takes the high road and a civil response to the bashing of Obama. “We didn’t expect the Clintons to use “win it at all costs tactics” that willfully distract and distort Obama’s record. Wasn’t Jesse Jackson Bill’s spiritual advisor when the Monica gate exploded? At another media questioning, she says, “If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House”, although Michelle says it was focusing on “her relationship with Obama”. The media is constantly repeating the later segment implying that Michelle was referring to the Billary household.
Hillary doesn’t believe that the “questions” she brought up about Obama’s record need more scrutiny. This 35 year public servant shamelessly gives her headlines and sound bites. With the attention coming back on “Billary”, she claims that what she said is the past, and “ let’s move forward”.
After much scrutiny of my own, I remember a discussion in poli sci classes on the “Bradley effect”. Is this what we are observing? Is this a reflection of what Whites (or any other group of people) say, one thing in public and behind closed doors, when the opportunity arises, something completely different. We called this process a matter of “should, could, would, and what I aught to do”.
I believe that Clinton going negative pushes and muddies up the civility of an election. To other pundits I watched this week, in the news segment “Keeping them Honest”, there is no surprise that ½ the voting population is black. To me the Clinton’s should know better. They understand the strife and injection of “racism” when they imply and state such lies about Obama. Billary has made the point of saying: “I didn’t inhale (marijuana caper)”, “I didn’t make love to that woman (Monica)”, “That property deal just went wrong (White Water)” , “We didn’t have anything to do with his death”, “We didn’t know that we couldn’t accept foreign contributions (Hsu)”, “Immigrants should have temporary identification”, ‘Immigrants should not have temporary identification”. The list just goes on and on and on with their kissing their finger to determine the direction of the politically correct.
The under current of race in this election is a lasting and reflective problem of the US’s real feelings about diversity. We as a party talk a mean rap but do we practice what we preach? Now we hear all kinds of stories regarding Rizco. The spotlight has moved to Rizco, a “slum land lord” who gave many Democratic politicians in Illinois considerable contributions while his tenants suffered with “no heat” in their apartments and their buildings being boarded up.
The $86,000 given to the Obama campaign was moved to other charities prior to this story ever coming out, but Clinton doesn’t mention this in her snipes. There wasn’t anything illegal, but Obama recalls the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the home. He was “boneheaded” in buying a piece of property $300,000 below the asking price the same day Rizco’s wife bought the house next door to Obama. This won’t be just a YouTube response; once it is turned off the situation is over, because the news media will now jump on the bandwagon and raise the speculations that there was some “impropriety” in Obama’s five-hour work relationship.
However I find that after weeks of attacking him publically, saying that if he can’t handle our comments, what is he going to do when he is running against the republicans who have “hounded the Clintons for 15 years” and Hillary and Bill having received front page coverage that voters have had the opportunity to read. The fact that their attacks are nothing more than “outright lies” and scrupulous distortions only gives one the true character of “Billary” and Obama. I don’t see “diplomacy” in the White House. Obama states that it is strongly needed. With Hillary in power, I question the style and approach that would be used that is required in negotiations. I could see the headlines in the NY times “the taming of the shrew” and visualize her cutting down heads of state and foreign ministers when they disagree with her, using her shrill voice, with her explosive wide eyed expressions and eventual sniffles when they tell her “no”. I can see Bill rushing into the room “defending her honor” because of his years of guilt and nothing else to do.
Robert Rice says Bill Clinton is being disingenuous when he apologizes and needs to stop taking the attention away from his wife.
Yes, Obama is up to being beat up because he is running for the highest position in land: President of the United States. Do the Clintons need to remember their own beating downs in Arkansas, the White House and when Hillary ran for Senate (“carpetbagger accusations”). Beating on Obama from his own party leader is a reminder of why many individuals register Independent, Undecided, or respond with “don’t get involved in politics”, “won’t vote’, ‘don’t believe politicians”, “my vote doesn’t count” and lose respect for the voting process.
“If what we have heard from Billary is what they are willing to say in public, imagine what they are saying behind closed doors?”, said one young voter being interviewed at the Democratic Alliance for Action meeting last night.
What I find interesting in the polling is that after all the puffery, only 59% of South Carolina African Americans are more comfortable with Obama. I would like to see those poll numbers. What led to this final conclusion? What other questions did they ask? Who were they interviewing? What methodology did they use to develop the sample and the final study group? Was the sample random? What are interviewees’ demographics, income, occupation, education, age, years of voting, gender and financial standing? How often do the respondents vote? Are they involved in any other political activities? And if this is true, there is still a lot of work the Obama camp needs to do to change the direction of the 2008 Presidential election.
I strongly recommend that the Obama campaign start a loud clear, concise and firm dialogue regarding immigration questions: What are we going to do about the borders (Mexico and Canada)? Are more border patrols needed? If you are controlling your borders, what about the foreign countries owning our ports? Do you recommend “temporary identification”? Why or Why not? Will you continue to provide healthcare privileges to farm workers (who are endorsing Hillary) to woe the Latino votes? Are you going to hire Hispanic speaking staff and campaign volunteers who speak Spanish? Are you running any ads in La Opinion, the Arabic, Sentinel, and other California, Arizona and New Mexico publications and other state’s “minority” base media? Will you assign a team that responds specifically to the lies raised by the Clinton campaign by visiting local democratic and college crowds?
Hillary left Bill and Chelsea in SC while she visited California. If SC African Americans fall for this “Bill Repenting Show”, I’ll have to reconsider my party affiliation, because the statesmen and women of this party really need to remind Clinton even though he is a spouse, he is still the public “head” of the Democratic Party. Though 24 states will be checking in on February 5th, let’s not limp to the finish line. The race certainly not over, we haven’t even begun see the Republicans all new level of fighting.
So today Hillary announced that she will be introducing her economic stimulus package to counter Bush’s questionable efforts. Stay tuned.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Change of subject: Well the television news isn’t covering it, but HE IS BACK! According to the Associated Press, Paul Wolfowitz was hired as Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board which runs “a high level advisory panel on arms control and disarmament, nonproliferation and related subjects. . . ” approved by Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. As President of the World Bank, when he blew off bank regulations by allowing his girlfriend a $150K loan, he caused an international uproar by not stepping down after the infractions were discovered. As Deputy of Defense Secretary and one of the architects of the Iraqi occupation, the US is in a militarily quagmire with 3500 and dead soldiers and counting. So what is next, more White House insider meddling called “hide the ammunition” ?