Nas - Sly Fox

A new song by my man Nas called Sly Fox. Nas ripping Fox News on this track. This is what I've been waiting on from a mainstream Hip Hop Artist, they need to get back to message in the music.

How low can Hillary go?

How low will Hillary Clinton go to win the Democratic Nomination for President has no bounderies, she has now raised the idea of Barack Obama being assassinated as a justification to stay in the Democratic Primary race. The NY Post has the story:

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Obama's camp immediately fired back.

"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," Obama campaign spokesman said in a statement.

Clinton made her comments at a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader's editorial board while campaigning in South Dakota, where she complained that, "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

Obama, the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House, has faced threats, sources have said.

Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy, was gunned down in 1968 after winning the California primary. He had been a hero on the left for his civil rights agenda and calls to end the war in Vietnam.

Barack Obama, who leads Clinton by nearly 200 delegates and has already secured a majority of pledged delegates, has been the subject of threats. Early in the campaign, the Secret Service gave him a security detail at the request of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois).

Clinton criticized an "urgency" to end the campaign prematurely, saying, "Historically, that makes no sense."

She later issued an apology for the remark.

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson defended the comments to The Post, "She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68 election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone -- she used her husband's race in the same vein."

Black Elected Superdelegates "Day of Reckoning"???

From Daily Kos

Those Black elected superdelegates may be in for trouble if Hillary contines to play the race card and she isn't challenged by Black elected officials.On several historically black college campuses there is a strong movement forming to vote them out. Young Black democrats are outraged over the lack of a response from Black elected officals who are superdelegates. Here is a copy of the letter sent by a campus leader.

Let me begin by saying I am a longtime admirer of your work in Congress and beyond on behalf of your district, your state, African American people and our entire nation. . Given all that, I have had no problem with you Rep. Rangel, Rep. Tubbs Wilson, Rep. Jackson-Lee supporting Senator Clinton. I assume you are all capable and dedicated public servants and entitled to use your best judgment and experience to support the person you feel is best. I also felt not having monolithic black support actually helped to make Senator Obama’s campaign more credible among all voters.

I began this primary season also supporting Senator Clinton but grew increasingly disheartened and worried by the subtle and not so subtle race baiting, she and her surrogates, black and white, employed. The comments of Ambassador Shaheen; the Bob Kerry allusions, the BET founder Robert Johnson’s disgraceful antics and finally former President Clinton's code language in South Carolina was the last straw. No sane black person especially one born and raised in the South could mistake what he was doing, even though it was sad to see him stoop so low. In short I became convinced of the Clintons' craven desire for power at any cost even at the cost of destroying, discounting and denigrating the legitimate hopes of millions of Americans who see in Senator Obama a uniquely gifted leader.

Yesterday however, Senator Clinton revealed the real sentiments of her heart with her USA interview. It is time Representative Waters for you and the other national African American elected officials who have supported her to speak out in condemnation of her remarks. Not to do so is to support and countenance the kind of base racism, even coming from one we might personally or professionally have some fondness for, that you and others have spent a lifetime fighting. Not to speak is to betray our community and our country. I look forward to your response.

Clinton Touts White Support

As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.
It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
While she said her remarks weren’t meant to be divisive, they’re already whipping around the Internet. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that,” she said in the interview. (Hint, hint, message to the superdelegates still undeclared.)

In Indiana alone, six in 10 white voters went for Mrs. Clinton, where she narrowly won the primary.

Link

*****

Clinton/Obama has turned into a boring, slowed-down basketball game in the last 2 minutes

From BuzzFlash.com

I'm not a basketball fan. Oh, I used to follow basketball. And living in Chicago in the 1990s, you couldn't help but follow Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls.

One element of basketball that I hated even when I did follow the sport was the last two minutes of the game. Teams always seem to have tons of timeouts that come out of nowhere. And the team that is behind fouls the other team to force them to the free throw line, which slows down the game even more.

I feel like the Democratic presidential race is a basketball game in the last 2 minutes. Barack Obama is winning, but not by a huge margin. Hillary Clinton is behind and committing fouls to try and get her back in the game.

And it's boring and really not entertaining.

Basketball is a rather popular sport, more so than hockey right now. And in hockey, the last two minutes of a close game are exciting. Often, the losing team will pull its goalie to give them an extra skater. Rare is a penalty in the last two minutes. And the best part, each team gets ONE timeout for the whole game. And yet, basketball is more popular than hockey.

In basketball, the losing team does what it can to try and come back. As distasteful as the strategy is, in basketball, without it, you can't win. But it involves not so much winning, but forcing the winning team to make mistakes. In the basketball analogy, you slow things down to take away momentum and force (ideally) a poor free-throw shooter hoping that person misses shots.

But as basketball fans can tell you, the strategy almost never works. And when it does, the result is usually a lot of luck from the comeback team and horrible mistakes from the team that had been winning.

Obama has done rather well under the circumstances -- he has made some free throws, but has missed a few as well. Clinton has shown expertise in fouling Obama without it being flagrant (in basketball, flagrant fouls allow for more ways to score points for the team in front). Her people say horrible things while the candidate doesn't say them.

And Clinton has also done well in "working the refs." Her masterful "why do I get the first question in the debate" move during the Cleveland debate was a prime example. While Clinton can legitimately complain about her press coverage for most of the campaign, she is getting much more consideration from the press. They won't even touch the credibility of her "35 years of experience" claim, and what that actually means.

So do we blame Clinton for trying this strategy? Yes and no. If winning is the only thing, it's the only thing she can do, even if it is almost certain that it won't work. But in the process, it makes the winning person weaker, regardless of who that is. And there is a rested opponent ready to face the winner of this game. This isn't the important game -- the next one is.

Another Lie Debunked: Obama actually outperforms Clinton in the Big States

The last myth standing is that Hillary has outperformed Sen. Obama in the "big states that really count"

The only problem, is that with all most all the other Clintonian spin it is not true.


1)In the top Nine contested primaries to date Sen.Obama has outperformed Sen Clinton by 156,000 votes

Here they are:


State . . . . . Obama . . . . . . Clinton

California. . . .2,126,000 . . . . . . .2,553,000

Texas . . . . . .1,358,000 . . . . . . .1,459,000

New York. . . . .698,000 . . . . . . . 1,003,000

Illinois. . . . . 1,302,000 . . . . . . . .662,000

Ohio . . . . . . 982,000. . . . . . . 1,212,000

Gerogia. . . . . . 704,000 . . . . . . . 330,000

New Jersey. . . .492,000 . . . . . . . 603,000

Virginia . . . . . 627,000 . . . . . . . 350,000

Washington . . . 354,000 . . . . . . . 316,000


Total . . . . .8,643,000 . . . . . . . .8,487,000

Source

10 Questions for Hillary Supporters

From the Huffington Post

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it general election campaign?

Hillary's House Negroes Vs. Obama

Video - 1:54

HILLARY FADING FAST AS OBAMA MOVEMENT BUILDS

The handwriting is on the wall ~ Hillary is a shrill desperate candidate with weakening support but Obama is a rapidly building movement gaining believers every day. If she doesn't recognize this soon ~ she'll be trampled and humiliated by her own self serving arrogance and sense of entitlement: Allen L Roland

As we rapidly approach a world wide shift in consciousness by 2012 ~ it is imperative that America be led by a man who can cross race lines of blacks, whites and latinos and offer a new vision of hope versus greed to not only the American people but also to the world.

James Taylor, a race and American politics scholar at University of San Francisco, says Obama " presents an opportunity to deal with race in an unconventional way .... If an African American man can become president of the United States in the 21st century, then it tells us that the remainder of the 21st century represents all kinds of possibilities ~ because in his person there is a representation of both black and white experiences. He allows us to exorcise some of the demons we've had in our history of race in America."

Christopher Malone, a Pace University political scientist, writes of a recent display of the unconventional racial dynamic at Obama's recent appearance in Kansas ~ " He goes to the hometown of his grandfather on his white mothers side and points to a cousin in the audience ~ a 72 year old woman who is as white as any other Kansan. Could you imagine him accepting the nomination and standing there and bringing up his family members, Kenyans and white Americans, and saying ~ I am America, this is America ! It really seems like a perfect storm here "

A perfect storm indeed and one that could well wipe out the divisive race tactics of the Bushes and recently the Clintons as America finally recognizes and celebrates its true diversity and comes together as one wherein 35% of its population are now minorities.

Meanwhile there appears to be an air of desperation in the Clinton camp, who were expecting a coronation on Super Tuesday and instead met the Obama express which is still building momentum while a fading Hillary tries to bully her way to victory ~ putting her on a potential collision course with Democratic party leaders who are increasingly seeing Obama as the future of the party.

Sarah Baxter, London Times, writes on February 17th ~ " With her rival ahead in the polls and wooing her bedrock Hispanic and female voters, Clinton is trying to force her way back with a risky strategy that could split her party."

It appears the Clinton's will not go quietly into the night but Obama could make it all but academic with expected solid victories tomorrow in Wisconsin and Hawaii along with pre-election polls showing Obama with a growing edge in Hillary's self declared last stand state ~Texas.


Source

Will America elect a white woman or a black man? America has already answered that question

Excerpt:

Corporate media idiots regularly ask the question: "Who would America elect first for President, a woman or someone who is Black?" History has already answered. Sixteen white women currently serve in the U.S. Senate, versus one lone Black, and "thirty white women have served as state governors compared to two Black men since Reconstruction." Every indicator shows white women are "the second most privileged category of human in the US." White America poses questions that history has already resolved, while seeking absolution (through Barack Obama) for past and present injustices that many deny occurred. The real question raised amidst the din of unreality is: "Are white liberals and progressives truly committed to social and racial justice?"

Black preacher critcize Barack Obama while Idolizing the Clintons

What the fuck is going on in the African American community? I swear the old heads, the old so called black leaders need to step to the side because their time has passed. It's been a long time since I've heard anything so ignorant. He don't understand why blacks are supporting Obama because in his words Obama is half white but yet he still idolizes Bill and Hillary who is all white. Now if that aint a Willie Lynch slave mentality, I don't know what is.

BET founder takes a cheap shot at Obama

Bob Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), decided to join the Hillary Clinton campaign and while on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton he decided to take a cheap shot about Barack Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager. Bob Johnson made the following statement, you can also veiw the video below:

And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved,” added Johnson.

Now for you all that don't know, Bob Johnson has made a fortune with BET by airing some of the most degrading and mysogonistic black videos and television shows of black people. BET is aired in numerous of countries around the world, the negative images that were portrayed by BET of black people has impacted the way the different races and people around the world veiw black people in this country. Bob Johnson played apart in shaping that negative image of black people in this country with his network. To the black community, Barack Obama is a role model, Barack is someone the African American community is extremely proud of and for the Clinton's to bring out Bob"Uncle Tom"Johnson to try to tear down Barack is unacceptable IMHO.

Clinton's attack on Obama are upsetting some black voters

Excerpt:

Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.

The furor comes just two weeks before those voters will have a significant say in who wins the Jan. 26 primary here.

The Clinton-Obama battle has the potential to become a wrenching divide for black voters. Historically those voters have been strong backers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. But many black voters now are drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency.

Those on both sides say watching the battle unfold in the Palmetto State, where black voters could cast half of the votes in the Democratic primary, won’t be pretty.

***

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., had pledged to remain neutral as Democrats competed for votes in the state’s primary.

But the state’s only African-American congressman was quoted in The New York Times Friday saying he is reconsidering that stance in light of comments from Clinton.

She raised eyebrows in New Hampshire when she credited President Lyndon Baines Johnson, not the assassinated John F. Kennedy or King, for passing civil rights legislation.

“It is one thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions, and it is something else to denigrate those,” Clyburn told the Times. “That bothered me a great deal.”

***

GROWING SPLIT

A generational divide has opened among black S.C. political leaders that matches a key difference between Clinton and Obama.

Older, more experienced black elected officials, including Jackson and state Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, back Clinton. Younger politicians — including Steve Benjamin and Rick Wade, who both made high-profile runs for statewide office, and state Reps. Bakari Sellers and Todd Rutherford — support Obama.

Rutherford bristles at the notion, offered up by some of Clinton’s supporters, that it is foolish to back a relatively young black man for an office that no black ever has held.

“If they are going to call themselves black leaders, and people are running by them to vote for Obama and they are standing there and pointing in the other direction, then maybe they need to be replaced,” Rutherford said.

***

Despite broad popularity among blacks, the Clintons are employing a risky strategy in sharply criticizing Obama, said Marcus Cox, director of the African-American Studies Department at The Citadel.

African-Americans liked what they knew of Obama in the early months of the campaign, Cox said. But they wondered if white voters would support him. Now, after Iowa, some of those doubts are gone, and many black voters have come to see Obama as their best chance to have one of their own capture the White House.

Anyone who tries to get in the way of that, particularly anyone who is not black, will spark some anger, Cox said.

Hillary shits on Martin Luther King's Legacy

It's seems Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is getting a little desparate in her attempt to slow down the momentum of rival Barack Obama. It seems Barack has knocked her off her game big time:

From Daily Kos

In her efforts to take a leak on the idea of hope--because it benefits Barack Obama--Hillary Clinton decided that she needed to minimize the role that Martin Luther King Jr., and by extension African-Americans, played in securing their own civil rights.

The context, of course, lies in Clinton's regrettable statement from last Saturday's debate:

"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Obama, not being a stupid politician, pounced.

Obama challenged Clinton's claim in a weekend debate that he was raising "false hopes" about what he could deliver for the country. Obama told his audience that hope made President Kennedy aim to put a man on the moon and Martin Luther King Jr. to imagine the end of segregation.

"If anything crystallized what this campaign is about, it was that right there," Obama said of Clinton's comment in the debate. "Some are thinking in terms of our constraints, and some are thinking about our limitless possibilities."

Well, Clinton had her chance to respond, and oh boy did she deliver up a doozy:

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

Just how awful is this, on so many levels? "It took a President to get it done?"

NO.

It took a nation to get it done. It took a mass uprising to get it done. It took brave men and women to brave Bull Connor's thugs, firehoses, and dogs. It took an overriding popular will to see it throught. It took courage. It took inspiration. It took the the blood of martyrs and patriots.

It took a movement.

And the implication here is that African-Americans didn't make it happen, but rather that the nice white father figure in Washington got it done for them.

Get her off the national stage before she disgraces herself any further.

What Europe thinks of our candidates Clinton, Obama and Giuliani

Since George Bush has caused so many problems around the world with his cowboy-like foreign policy, he's caused problems not only for us here in the US but also in Europe. So you better believe people in Europe are following our Presidential elections closely, their anxious to know who will we choose to replace George Bush who's been nothing but a disaster. Paul Jenkins wrote an interesting article today on The Huffington Post. In the article he writes the following:

After a couple of years of political transition that have seen Europe's own warmongers/Bush poodles (Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi) and corrupt leaders (Jacques Chirac) retiring or kicked out of office, there is eager anticipation for the departure of George W. Bush. That he may be replaced by a Clinton (and a woman and that), or an African-American, or the former mayor of New York adds to the curiosity.

Then he goes on to write that the Europeans are somewhat astonished that in the 21st century America seems to be adopting a medieval European line of succession in nominating our presidents:

The affection many Europeans still hold for Bill Clinton doesn't precisely translate to Hillary, although it doesn't appear to be anything personal: it's more astonishment that the 21st Century United States may be in the process of adopting a medieval European line of succession. This is understandably strange to a people who managed about a century ago to root out all political power from their own royal families, and to generally pick leaders with working or middle-class backgrounds. In the meanwhile, Americans' recent nominations for president have included the son of a former president (Bush), the son of a former senator (Al Gore) and a descendant of one of the country's wealthiest families, married to a billionaire (John Kerry).

Based on what goes on in Europe with their own Ethnic minority communities being completely shut out from the political process and America's own history of racism, it's hard for him to imagine America will pick an African American. Sad but true:

Conversely, after decades of being taught from the youngest age about American racism, many Europeans find it hard to believe that an African-American candidate has a good shot at the Democratic nomination and the presidency. This may, in fact, have more to do with what they see in their own backyards: countries with sizable ethnic minorities of African or Asian descent nearly completely shut out of the political and electoral process. The prospect of an ethnically Arab French president or of a German foreign minister of Turkish descent would currently be laughable, in a sad kind of way. And so the fact that a man named Obama is a contender in America is still hard for many in Europe to fathom.

And about Rudy Giuliani and religion in American politics he writes:

For all his international fame, Giuliani is the subject of a refreshingly accurate assessment by a number of Europeans: while in the US outside of New York, he is credited with having saved the city from its criminal underclass and 9/11 terrorists, in Europe he is as likely to be seen as the petty, brutal dictator that he was (in one not particularly liberal Brit's words: "he's the guy who hated black people, right?"). Why this would qualify him for the presidency is as much a question mark for Europeans as it is for New Yorkers.

An anecdotal survey on the ground in Europe reveals other aspects of the US presidential campaign that are more baffling than the selection process itself. The focus on religion in US elections is always intriguing to European voters, but this round has included debates about whether Mormons are devil-worshippers, the Bible should be taken literally and evolution is a fact. These are not normally topics that, say, Germans expect their potential chancellors to address. That said, religion has not been completely excluded from European campaigns: a debate about Muslim girls' and women's wearing of headscarves has featured in elections in France and the UK, among others

There you have it, a European view of our celebrity candidates and our political process. You can read the rest of the article he goes on to comment about other issues we seem to be focused on here in the US. He basically ends by hoping we put some thought into electing our next president, basically we need to look past the entertainment value and pick someone that's competent and capable of dealing with issues the world faces.

Clinton, Obama claim $100 million raised

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton will have raised more than $100 million this year for her presidential campaign, aides confirmed Monday evening, setting a historic new threshold in fundraising.

Rival Barack Obama's campaign indicated it had reached that record-setting mark as well. In a Power Point presentation to supporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, said the campaign would need "at least $100 million" to compete in the first 26 primary and caucus states. "Obama will have the financial resources," Plouffe said.

****

Clinton and Obama have been locked in a fundraising race, with both already breaking fundraising records. Obama, of Illinois, had total receipts of more than $80 million at the end of September, and had raised more money for the primary contests than Clinton had.

In his presentation to supporters, Plouffe said Obama had 472,630 unique donors as of Sunday evening.

At the end of September, Clinton and Obama each reported more than $30 million in cash available for the primaries.

John Edwards, who has trailed Obama and Clinton fundraising but is in a three-way competition for the Iowa caucuses, was expected to report between $4 million and $5 million raised in the quarter. Edwards has qualified for $8.8 million in public matching funds, bringing his total for the year to about $44 million.

On the Republican side, dark horse Ron Paul was reporting having raised $19.5 million during the final three months of the year, a sharp increase from the $5.2 million he raised during the previous.

That would bring Paul's total raised this year to more than $27 million. Paul's fourth-quarter haul would surpass the third quarter fundraising by each of his Republican rivals.

Paul has caught fire on the Internet, attracting a national following among donors drawn to his opposition to U.S. troops in Iraq and his libertarian views

Source

******************************************************************************

Damn our political system is broken, candidates are bought off before they're even sworn in to office. Doners that are writing those huge checks are not doing it for nothing, they have special interest that these candidates will be obligated to take care of first. That means you and me, the voters, come second. Our interest and needs will be pushed to the backburner.

Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, don’t-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clinton’s years in office.

That was the significance of former President Clinton’s remarkable Dec. 17 comment that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America’s damaged image.

“The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.

What was perhaps most stunning about the remark was its assumption that Americans would be impressed that the country’s two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.

The Bushes and the Clintons – who have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980 – essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.

In responding to Bill Clinton’s remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son’s foreign policy. That also means Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.

So, to get the senior Bush’s cooperation on the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn’t investigate the younger Bush’s crimes – from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.

If Hillary Clinton does get elected, you can expect to hear lots of talk about “leaving that one for the historians” or about the danger of increased partisanship if the Democrats were viewed as trying “get even” by exposing Bush’s offenses.

Read more

****************************************************************************

Why in the hell is Bill Clinton acting all buddy buddy with the criminal Bush Sr. anyway? If Bill Clinton had allowed the investigation of Bush Sr. to go forward with that Iran contra scandal maybe the american people would be so turned off by Bush Sr. that they never would've elected the son. Hillary will be status quo president so I hope like hell she gets defeated in the primaries.

Hillary vs Obama, the American dilema

Only days before the Iowa primary, Obama, Hillary and Edwards are running neck and neck on the stretch to the finish line. As a betting observer, I put my money on Obama to win, Edward to place and Hillary to show.

The campaign rhetoric has been hot and negative mostly from the Hillary camp. The lady was dubbed the inevitable candidate to win the democratic nomination by a partial and manipulative media influenced by the Clinton political machine. The Des moines Register is an example. Every body would have swallowed the propaganda, matched along like sheep, just waited in the end to crown her majesty Hillary the president except, Barack Obama and the smart people of Iowa have something to say about it.

This race has come down to Hillary vs. Obama and it presents a serious challenge to the American voters starting with the Iowa primary. The dilemma facing voters is the choice between a fresh thinking and capable leader like Barack Obama and a crafty and divisive political opportunist like Hillary Clinton. Let's examine the two candidates carefully before casting the critical vote to turn this country around or continue in the path of national suicide.

Wordtodawise's diary :: ::
Barack Obama is a very fine presidential specimen. He is highly intelligent, intuitive, eloquent, charismatic and inspirational. He has methodically crafted himself, guided by great vision and inner strength into a very successful family man and influential politician. In a word, he is a great achiever.

Contrast Obama to Hillary Clinton and the difference is quite remarkable. Hillary simply doesn't posses the endearing qualities of Obama. She has ridden the coat tail of Bill Clinton to political stardom. Much has been made of her experience but this claim is weak considering that Hillary was no VP nor did she hold any political position in the White house.

Hillary flunked the only meaningful healthcare assignment that Bill gave her. She voted for the war in Iraq, and then supported the dumb declaration of the revolutionary guard of Iran as terrorist. She said we are safer now but not safe enough. She said she would not communicate with the leaders of the three axis of evil thus planning to maintain the failed Bush doctrine. It’s ironic that she has supported critical bush positions yet is a very vocal critic. Such opportunism reflects a very serious character flaw.

Hillary's report card is full of failures even without going into her personal life, something republicans delight in. This writer loathes that tactic and deplores it. Now, would you trust the judgment of Hillary Clinton as your leader if your money and life depended on it? The obvious answer is no. So, why should she be president of the United States?

Obama and Hillary should be judged by their performance in this campaign. Hillary started on third base, backed by an ex president and the full weight of special interest groups and their media. Obama started at first base and is now on third base while Hillary panics and sweats and we all see it.

Obama has clearly demonstrated superior organization, management and political skills. What better credentials can there be to qualify for the job of being president. No body from history has presidential experience because they never occupied the office prior to being elected. They are elected president because voters speculate on their strengths, character, likeability and fit.

About the issue of experience, no democrat should be elected to the White House simply because they have the experience of beating off miserable republicans in personal wars. The country has no need for such divisive encounters. If Hillary was nominated and became president, the country will be rocked with furious political and social wars and nothing will be accomplished in the next four pitiful years.

This is the time for real change and Barack Obama is the real deal. A vote for Hillary will be the third coming of George W Bush. No, please no, spare the nation the agony and the horror. Keep the Clintons away from the White House.

Link

The Oligarchy Has Picked Its Candidate!

The wreckage caused by the Republicans and the Bush Administration is even too much for the corporate oligarchy to take. Although Republicans have usually been their favored party, they now want a Democrat in the White House and they want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton.

The Hillary-Bill combo has worked for the oligarchy before and will work for it again. They've been tried, tested, and vetted to carry forward the oligarch agenda. Our two-party system pays close attention to the dressing of democracy; there always has to be a choice, a Tweedledee and a Tweedledum and always a way to vote for a lesser of two evils -- which, unfortunately, becomes the evil of two lessers. Through the strategy of triangulation, the Clintons have achieved the strangulation of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Where are you, Dick Morris, now that the Clintons need you again?

The running dogs (the fourth estate) have gotten the message and you can hear the slow build of their howl. They can stage a mighty convincing horse race. But the election is already being fixed, as it was stolen in 2000 and 2004.

That's capitalism, for you. Its nature is to show the appearance of democracy, masking the actuality of oligarchic control, while robbing the working class of the surplus value it creates. The Clintons have proven they can do the oligarchy's dirty work when called upon to do it. They will get the prize money for services rendered.

So, let's follow the money.

Read more...

Satan himself is preferable to Hillary Clinton

It is time to speak of pragmatics in the upcoming presidential election, now, before the primaries. In my opinion, if in fact Hillary Clinton is selected as the Democratic candidate, then -- even if Satan himself is the Republican candidate -- we ought to vote for the Republican, if he has a chance of beating Hillary!

There are two reasons for this. First is that Hillary is a Republican running as a Democrat. In college she even joined the Young Republicans club on campus, and to this day she is pro-war and corporate owned.

Not to mention the fact that she is a scheming, Machiavellian, B.S. "artiste" who will say anything to get elected. Her most recent fabulosities are that a) the price of oil will drop as soon as she is elected, and b) that she was actually "co-president" during the Bill Clinton presidency.

The reality on the ground is that scientists working on nanotechnology and synthetic biology are well on the way to commercializing affordable alternative energy products, without Hillary's benevolent, guiding hands.

And Hillary's stories about her 35 years of "experience" and her co-presidency for 8 years are a joke. Her actual experience consists of being a do-nothing New York senator.

The second reason why non-Republican voters should vote against Hillary by voting for the Republican nominee is that it is time to expose the lie of the Democratic party. It is time to rub their wet brown noses in their messes!

During the Bush Presidency the Democrats have been enablers and facilitators of every idiotic, unpatriotic, illegal, corrupt monstrosity that Bush and Cheney have put forward. Even with majorities in the House and Senate since 2006 they have followed the Bush-Cheney lead, apparently with the "vision" that by not alienating Republican voters that one day the Democrats would return to power and rule.

But because the Democrats have misused the power of change which they were given in November of 2006, even what little power they have ought rightly be taken away. Better that the country continue with divided leadership than to have both Congress and the Executive Branch controlled scurvy, opportunistic, lying Democrats.

The Democratic Party sought to trade off our liberties, our Constitution, our national wealth, and our good name in the world for political expediency. They really ought to be punished if they attempt to propel Sen Mrs Clinton into the Oval Office. If she is the nominee it won't be an election, it will be a selection. It will be more Bush agenda except with some degree of competence.

Hillary Clinton represents the Big Money, American Empire, Police State, Military-Industrial complex America. A vote for Hillary means voting to disempower yourself.

Do the math. It isn't enough to just not vote for Hillary. That alters the vote count by just one. To effect a two-vote swing you need to take your vote from Hillary and give it to the candidate with the best chance of defeating her. And remember: more than half of eligible voters won't show up, so your vote counts double. So if you vote for the leading opponent of Hillary in the general election you provide a four-vote swing in the totals.

If neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama is nominated by the Democrats then I will vote for Satan Himself if he is the Republican nominee and appears to have a chance of beating her.

And hey, the difference between Satan's leadership and GWB's is microscopic. In effect, a vote for Satan means a vote for continuity of leadership.

And you Red Staters want to take America to Hell, with more of the last seven years? Ok, do it! Let's go, baby -- you first...

Source