Why Don’t They Like Her?

I was watching the Democratic debate last night and I couldn’t help but notice the veiled rancor that seems to exist between Barack Obama and John Edwards for Hillary Clinton. This is more than the normal rivalry that takes place when people with tremendous egos compete against each other or the underdogs attacking the presumed frontrunner. The animosity between them has surfaced from time to time throughout the primaries, but I think due to wanting Party unity there has been major efforts to keep it hidden. I like many others had assumed that the recent banter was just due to the competiveness, but last night was a real eye-opener. There is a real dislike that last night was palpable through the television.

My question or concern is that can the Democratic Party survive the general election with the three top tier candidates harboring such acrimony? Will the loser be able to overcome these feelings and commit to fully working for the election of the victor? I can’t recall an election on the Democratic side that carried such ill-will between the candidates.

Mr. Obama was as heated and intense as he has been at any debate over the last year. At times, he appeared angry and close to expressing it at Mrs. Clinton — and also at her husband, Bill Clinton, whom Mr. Obama criticized frequently during the debate for what he said were distortions of his views and record by the former president.[1]

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards their acrimony towards Ms. Clinton is being read by a lot of voters, especially women as anti-women sentiments. I think it came into play in the New Hampshire primary when Mr. Obama derided Ms. Clinton at the debate with the remark, “They like you well enough”. For some reason the hostility seems to go beyond the normal give and take of the campaign trail and borders on a deep personal dislike. To my knowledge there have never been any slights by either candidate towards the other of a personal nature. Is there some hidden history between the candidates or does this reflect some insight into the character of the candidates? Are we getting glimpses of a darker side to the candidates or is this just the fatigue of a nomination process that is too long and exhaustive?

My personal belief is that there is something to this antagonism that we are not aware of. I believe that there were private statements either made or attributed to the Clinton’s against Mr. Obama or his candidacy that he got wind of. We must remember that Ms. Clinton has always come across like this nomination was her birthright and destiny ordained from on high. I have researched this riff and I can’t find anything or anybody that can shed any light on it. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any theories on this topic. I have a feeling that as we get closer to the final days of these primaries and the candidacies become more desperate the fur is really going to fly. It will be interesting to see if the national Party leaders can prevent this from becoming a free for all and ensuring a Republican victory in the process.

Another thing I have noticed is that lately when Bill Clinton talks about Barack Obama’s candidacy he seems angry about it, almost as if to say how does he have the nerve to run. In the lead up to the New Hampshire and Nevada elections, it was more than just highlighting the differences between the two candidates, he was actually incensed. Where is this anger coming from? I can’t recall ever seeing Bill Clinton this animated, even when he was being attacked by the “far right wing conspiracy”. I wish I knew what it was about Mr. Obama’s candidacy that sparks these emotions in the Clintons.

While I understand that this is not the first time candidates from the same Party have not “liked” each other, we are at a historical place in our nation’s history and I would hate to believe that personal animosity between the candidates could lead to a missed opportunity. I have also noticed the degree of antagonism between the supporters of the three candidates whether they are public figures or in the blogosphere, there is a genuine dislike. Can such a deep divide be repaired for the sake of the Party in time for the general election? Let’s face it, of course the loser will publically support the winner, but will it be some half-hearted perfunctory support?

I remember following McCain’s defeat in South Carolina, he never truly supported Bush after that and I think to this day he still has an extreme dislike for Bush. Will this be our year for a similar situation? Can either Hillary or Barack succeed without the full support of the other?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!

You Call This A Recovery?

You want to know why John Edwards and millions of other Americans are angry. It’s simple really, the country has been hijacked by greedy and ruthless men who don’t give a damn about the poor people left in their wake. The funny thing about America is that there is parity, it just takes longer for it to get around. In other words, the same thing that’s happening to blacks and other minorities will eventually make its way around to whites. Whether it is the epidemic of drugs or the loss of wealth, it is all just a matter of time. It is precisely this effect that causes me to not understand why there is not more coalition building going on. NEWSFLASH – It all rolls down hill people. If you are not in the top 10% of the wealthy, you are in trouble. It won’t matter what race, creed, or color you are. Greed knows no boundaries or has no racial preferences.

The following depicts the nature of the so-called Bush recovery for millions of Americans, not the ones who have received the big tax-cuts or the golden parachutes. No these are the collateral damage stories and there are millions of them every day. As more and more jobs that once promised a decent standard of living disappear and are being replaced by the minimum wage service sector jobs there will be a political firestorm. The backbone of any democracy is the middle-class. If the middle-class loses its vibrancy and is allowed to dwindle, then the stability of our government will also diminish.

Between her husband’s factory job and her intermittent work, they made $30,000 a year in the best of times, Mrs. Joos said. Since last fall, when her husband was laid off by the Merillat cabinet factory, which downsized to one shift a day from three, keeping anywhere near that income required Mrs. Joos to take a second job. She works at a school cafeteria each weekday from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m and then drives to Wal-Mart, where she relaxes in her car before starting her 2-to-10 p.m. shift at the deli counter.[1]

The average American worker is having to work so hard just to try and keep their heads above water that they don’t have time for the intricacies of democracy and this is exactly what the top 10% want. Keep the workers so insecure and busy that they don’t have time to concern themselves with the business of democracy. Every day there are more Americans placed in these tenuous positions of having to decide how they are going to make ends meet. It is no longer the illegals or the minorities, but mainstream Americans are having to move back home at middle-age or downgrading their life-styles.

It is not a lack of hard work that has placed them in these positions, but a pattern of corporate greed and a race to the bottom of the wage ladder. In an effort to maximize profits, jobs are being moved to the lowest wage earner countries that are stable enough to sustain their slave workforces. While all this is taking place the politicians and the “experts” are saying don’t worry, be happy. We don’t need those jobs anyway, we will replace them with new better jobs. Tell that to Jeffrey Evans, who now lives with his mother at 49 because his factory job laid him off and now he is working for half as much at one of these “better jobs”, or the wife that has to take on a second job.

Mr. Evans said that moving back into the home where he grew up, after decades of independence, was a stinging reminder that “I lost everything I worked for all my life.”

His mother, Shirley Sheline, 73, had worked 28 years at the same auto parts plant, and shares his dismay. “Can you believe it, a grown man forced to move back with his mother,” she said.[2]

There is growing disappointment for millions of Americans as they watch their standard of living drop precipitously, while at the same time the corporate class standard of living continues to rise. They are no longer buying into the rising tide or trickle down economic garbage they are being fed. There is a trickle coming down all right, but it isn’t economic prosperity, it’s someone pissing on them. The bottom is about to fall out of this economy. The banks and Wall Street have built a house of cards that is about to collapse and it will take with it the dreams and futures of a great many Americans. They have layered so much false paper in their business practices that they now have to go begging from foreign investors to put value back into the economy.

Now more than ever we need someone to step up and face down the greedy. It is time for America to be told some hard truths, the jobs that we are hemorrhaging are not coming back. We need to come up with jobs that provide living wages and a decent standard of living. These jobs can and should come from our efforts to detox ourselves from the current sources of energy. This task will not be easy because the current crop of CEO’s are too greedy and short-sighted to willingly give up their cash cow which is predicated on our current sources of energy. They no longer should be given a choice, it is time for the government to lead with either the carrot or the stick.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/16ohio.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/16ohio.html

Read more!

Is This Ironic Or What?

In what has to be one of the most ironic moments in US political history, John Edwards arguably the best progressive candidate in the Presidential race is being ignored. Mr. Edwards is being ignored not because of his ideas or policy positions. It is not because he is not a tireless and exciting campaigner. No, my friends it is because he is a white male. Despite both other candidates call for and representations of change, no one is pressing the issue of changing the status quo more than John Edwards. In normal times with the mood of the country, Mr. Edwards would be the front-runner. However, times are different. I never thought I would say that being a white man in America is detrimental to being elected President. It sounds crazy just saying it, but here we are. With history weighing in the balance, Mr. Edwards could not have picked a worse time to run for President. There is Hillary Clinton making a bid to be the first woman nominated by a major Party and Barack Obama trying to become the first black man nominated. Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards the march towards history will not be kind.

After almost 220 years and 43 Presidents, all of whom were white males, the tide appears to be changing. Because of these history making events the Edwards campaign has been ignored and minimized by the media and a lot of the voting public from the start. It seems that the Democratic primary voters have decided to vote for anyone, but the white guy. This is not to say that the other two candidates are not capable or attractive. It is not to say that they do not present ideas and visions of America that the voters like, but no one has articulated the current struggles that America faces as well as John Edwards, in my opinion. So as the country and the Democratic voters flirt with history, a white male that seems to finally get it goes unnoticed.

There will be voices that say it is about time for the changes we are witnessing and I for one could not agree more. I have to ask myself though what is better, to have a history making President or a President that will make history. While I believe that either Obama or Clinton will do a better job of being President than any Republican, is that good enough for us? We are at a defining moment in American history and I for one do not want to choose a President that’s just better than a Republican. I want a President that will have the courage to take on the entrenched power structure that has allowed the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthiest Americans. While I applaud the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their historic significance, I don’t have confidence that they will take on the difficult task of reforming a system that is thoroughly corrupt and broken.

My sense is that they will attack some of the symptoms, but leave the disease intact. After George Bush this may satisfy a great many Americans, I however will not be one of them. I am not looking for Bush-lite in the war on terror, corporate influence over our democracy, or empire building. I want someone who will repudiate in no uncertain terms the past and not just the past eight years. I was watching Bill Maher on HBO and he had Tony Snow on the panel and listening to him trying to continue to justify the policies of this administration and the status quo was more than I could bear. What it did do was further illustrate to me the depth to which the propaganda has reached. This is no time for band-aids, we need to tear down the old and create something completely new. If I hear one more person say we are “fundamentally sound” as a nation, I am going to scream.

We are not fundamentally sound as a nation. We have hundreds of people imprisoned without trials in Cuba, we have over 2 million of our own citizens imprisoned, we have 150,000 troops in Iraq with no plans to get them out, we have over 40 million citizens without basic healthcare, we have just 1% of the US population owning 38% of the wealth, we have millions of people who are getting or about to get evicted from their homes, we have racial tensions boiling just under the surface, we have homelessness and poverty at record levels, we are torturing our fellow humans, we have a democracy that is being sold to the highest bidders, we are continuing to replace living wage jobs with service oriented minimum wage jobs, and we have a two-party system that is not responsive to anyone.

It is time we stop kidding ourselves, we have some serious issues that need to be addressed. We need a President that is willing to lead the fight to reclaim America for all Americans. It has always amazed me how the wealthy have used their talking heads to discredit those who talk about real change. Obama and Clinton are only offering to change how we do things, not changing what we are doing. John Edwards is saying we need to change not only how we do things, but also just as importantly what things we do.

The media has ignored him and they have labeled him a hypocrite. Here is what I don’t understand; when a poor person speaks out against the wealth discrepancy they are labeled a communist or a socialist that is jealous of the wealthy. When a rich person speaks out against the discrepancy they are labeled a hypocrite. My question is this, “who can speak out against the wealth gap”? The answer is no one can. The media will continue to ignore, denounce, and misrepresent anyone who has the nerve to speak out against the corporate raping of America.

I believe in John Edwards. I believe in his determination, his commitment, and his honesty. The American people are being offered a hoax. The hoax is that they are being offered the appearance of change in the candidate’s appearances, while the candidate that offers true change in substance is being marginalized. This is the real irony of the election, because it is the white guy.

Read more!

Don’t Cry For Me America

In what is sure to be condemned as a “why I hate Hillary” essay I feel compelled to discuss the last few days of New Hampshire and what I think the consequences of Hillary’s performance will be in the long term. While it is true that for many voters, especially women Hillary’s emotional melt-down was a final deal maker for her eventual win in New Hampshire. The problem is that just like most things in America men and women can see the very same event and interpret it differently, I guess that whole Venus and Mars thing.

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I admire Hillary tremendously. I think that she was probably the more talented of the two Clintons, but due to the country’s unwillingness to elect a woman we got Bill instead. I think Hillary will do a credible job as President if elected, but she would not be my first choice. To me Hillary represents the past. Even though I enjoyed some of my best year’s income wise with Bill Clinton I have no desire to see the country go backwards for any reason. I also have issues with Hillary’s foreign policy positions and I believe that she supports the American empire which I will discuss later.

In many of the interviews I have heard from women after New Hampshire, a lot of the women (which Hillary carried 46% to Obama’s 34%)stated that the turning point for them in selecting Hillary was her tearful response when asked how she was handling the campaign pressure. For many women it was a defining moment in that it presented Hillary as human for the first-time in the campaign. More women seemed to have identified with her more following the outburst than previously according to the interviews. I for one find this hard to believe in that one of Hillary’s strong suits from the outset was going to be women identifying with her. If these interviews are true are we to assume that she had them and then lost them and then got them back? I think for a lot of women it will be difficult to cast a vote for anyone but Hillary as long as she is in the race. This is not to say that all women will support her, but because of her attempt to make history and her shared history with many women who feel frustrated with the “good old boy” network she will garner a lot of female support.

This is the upside of the outburst; the downside is that while many women saw it as a strength to be vulnerable and emotional, many men will take the opposite tack. This scene will reinforce their belief that women are not emotionally stable enough to handle the pressure of governing or making tough decisions, so while it was a benefit to one group it can be a hindrance to another. The real question now becomes who will be most affected by it. Will it draw more women to Hillary than she already had like it did in New Hampshire or will it push away men who would have supported her? Will the Republicans use it in the fall?

While there are many who will dispute my conclusions the truth of the matter is that there are a substantial number of men who will use this as an excuse to not vote for Hillary. Would these men have ever voted for Hillary? We don’t know, but what we do know is that there is a long history of misogyny in America. There is a reason that we have not had a woman as President. And despite popular belief there are a large number of women who will not support Hillary, just as there are a large number of blacks who will not support Obama.

I read that the woman whose question elicited the emotional outburst from Hillary did not vote for her in the primary. After doing some blog crawling I have also found that there are women who viewed the incident as a sign of weakness. We are living in crazy times where every move a candidate makes is scrutinized and used for political fodder by both sides. I personally do not believe that Hillary showing emotions disqualifies her or anyone else from being President. I for one am tired of the phony “cowboy” persona that has been perpetrated the last eight years. I would hope that we as a nation have evolved beyond the day when a candidate crying would be a disqualifying factor for office, but stranger things have happened.

Hillary stated in an interview that there is a double-standard being applied to male and female candidates. I agree but crying isn’t one of them. In what is affectionately referred to as a Muskie any man that cries on the campaign trail is as good as history regardless of the circumstances. I’m sorry Hillary but that dog ain’t gonna hunt. While it is true you receive more scrutiny in some areas, so do the other candidates in others. I don’t think any candidate gets more grief for their appearance than John Edwards. I have never heard of a man being too handsome to be President. So let’s be fair, there is enough meaningless reporting to go around and so there is no need to get sensitive.

“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”[1]

As we continue this nominating process I am sure much will be made of the “boo-hoo” bump, but again it shows that we have a strange way of nominating people in this country. Will this be the moment that rights the Clinton ship and propels her to the nomination? It’s anybody’s guess, but for a lot of women it did solidify their solidarity with Hillary and for some it reminded them of why we need a woman in the White House. Maybe at some point before the convention we can get back to the important issues that are facing this country. Hillary Clinton crying in my opinion is not one of them.

[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/clinton-i-actually-have-emotions/

Read more!

When Does The Average American Worker Get a Raise?

Who says wages are flat-lining? They maybe if you are working in the private sector, but if you happen to be lucky enough to work for the Federal government, happy days are here again. President Bush signed an executive order authorizing the increases that affects 1.8 million workers. While I would never begrudge any worker their pay or any increase they can get, I can’t help but notice that those groups of workers who are organized continue to receive pay raises while those who are not organized do not. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if dark forces are at work here conspiring against the average worker?

President Bush today signed an executive order that provides nearly 1.8 million federal employees with an average 3.5 percent pay raise and also increases salaries by smaller percentages for the armed forces, members of Congress, federal judges, diplomats and others.

Under the order, the vice president will receive a $5,400 salary increase, to $221,100. The speaker of the House will receive a $5,300 increase, to $217,400, and the majority leader of the Senate will get a boost of $4,600, to $188,100.

In 2008, members of the House, senators and U.S. District Court judges will be paid $169,300. The chief justice of the United States will be paid $217,400, and Supreme Court justices will receive $208,100.

Members of the Cabinet, usually heads of large departments, will be paid $191,300 this year. Deputy secretaries of departments and heads of major agencies will receive $172,200.
Members of the Senior Executive Service, the government's career senior officials, will be paid from $114,468 to $172,200, according to the order.[1]

Now granted a 3.5% pay increase is not a lot, it does however underscore the disconnect between the Beltway and the rest of middle-America. When most other workers will be scrambling to hopefully this year get the increases that have eluded them in the past few years, it is nice to know that our Federal brethren will be taken care of. According to my crack research staff, there have only been two years since 1969 that Federal workers have not received an annual increase 1983 and 1986. I wonder how many of the other average wage earners in America can make that same claim.

Despite reports to the contrary, there are struggles going on in America. There is the struggle to return democracy to the people and away from corporate lobbyists and career politicians, there is the struggle to gain equal protection and opportunities for all Americans, and there is the struggle to balance the threat of terrorists with the freedom of democracy. There is also the struggle of closing the gap between the wealth and incomes of the wealthy with the average American, a gap that has grown larger in the last few years than at any time in our history. In this struggle I believe and agree with John Edwards that it is naive to believe those wealthy people will redistribute their wealth easily or happily. No my friends there will be an epic struggle. It is unfortunate that doing the right thing doesn’t come naturally to these folks, but I guess that’s how many of them got into their positions of affluence. There are those who would have us believe that everything is well in America, but that is a lie. In their usual fashion the MSM is failing to report the concern and in many cases the downright anger of many people with the disparity that continues to grow between the corporate interests and their interests.

People no longer believe the old mantra that what is good for General Motors is good for America. Corporate America has proven time and time again that their interests do not mirror the interests of the average American. The days of blind loyalty and trust of the American people to corporate America are coming to a close. The curtain is being pulled back and Mr. Edwards is exposing the greed for what it is. It is a shame that only one mainstream candidate is trumpeting the cause of the downtrodden and he is being marginalized and ignored. What many people have failed to understand is that as the middle-class goes, so goes America. With so many of our middle-class citizens finding it harder to make ends meet, drowning in debt and stagnant wages the very fabric of America is being unraveled. The sleeping giant is about to awaken and the silent majority will speak.

If the next President does not begin to address these issues there will be large scale restlessness in America unlike any we have seen in decades. The media would have you believe that Mr. Edwards and those calling for change are anti-wealthy, that is false. They are not anti-wealthy, they are anti-greed. Americans have always accepted the tenets of capitalism that some will be wealthy and some will not, but the level of greed that is occurring today is unprecedented. Not only is there great disparity in wealth, but also in the democratic process. Our democracy has been hijacked by the greedy and their tentacles are reaching into every aspect of our lives.

No, there will be no surrender of the lobbyists, corporate interests, or the ruling-class. The change will only come with a fight. Many pundits and talking heads refer to John Edwards as the angry candidate, I for one am glad that he is angry. I know I sure am.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010402402.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Read more!

John Edwards Big Gamble

In an interview on Sunday, John Edwards dropped a bombshell and took an enormous gamble. My first thought was why would he make such statements on the eve of the Iowa caucuses? My second thought was to consider the viability of his proposal. I wondered if this was some last second ploy to pander to the anti-war voters in Iowa based on some last-minute polling data. The thing about the Edwards campaign is that he has never shied away from providing details to accompany his policy statements and Sunday appears to be no different. While others have continued to throw out generalities and vague statements concerning Iraq and ending our involvement, Mr. Edwards has taken the bold step of actually outlining steps he would take to do so.

“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.[1]

According to the interview Mr. Edwards would call for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 US troops, followed by the withdrawal of the remaining troops within 9 or 10 months. Mr. Edwards’ plan would leave a force of 4,000 to 5,000 troops for embassy duty and protection of aid workers. This plan of course is the most accelerated withdrawal of any of the other major candidates; it also flies in the face of the military, the State Department, and conventional wisdom. There are many who predict a complete collapse in Iraq if we withdraw.

While many will view this as a desperate effort to garner last minute votes in Iowa, I see it as a long-term strategic move to tap into the larger anti-war vote in America. In the last mid-term Congressional elections the voters of America elected the Democrats to end the war. In what has been the best example of spinelessness in the history of our country, they have failed to do so. In fact they have provided Mr. Bush with every piece of legislation and funding he has sent to them. Despite the “surge” is working rhetoric and the “good news” from Iraq, there is still a large number of voters, especially Democratic voters who are very disappointed with the efforts of the current Congress and their jellyfish imitation.

The anti-war movement in this country has been minimized and under-reported from the beginning by the MSM. Make no mistake about it, just as Mr. Edwards has declared war on the corporate elite and their disproportionate share of wealth in this country, part of his wide-ranging agenda is to also end the occupation of Iraq. Mr. Edwards recognizes that part of the historically high profits being made is a direct result of our involvement in Iraq. There is the war-profiteers being supplied at taxpayer expense, there is the high cost of gas being fueled by the instability in Iraq, and there is the corruption of Iraqi politicians that continue to allow them to drag their feet on reconciliation. We must begin to show some resolve not just against the terrorist, but also against those who are stealing us blind under the guise of terrorism. We need to think about all the costs we have paid since 9/11, I would venture that the cost of each one of those 2,900 plus lives has been to the tune of over 2 billion dollars each. Think about that for a moment. If we were to include all costs associated with homeland security, the two wars, and the war profiteering and corruption since 9/11, what has it been for each life lost.

I believe that what Mr. Edwards is saying is we must begin to put this all in perspective and the way to do this is by dialing down our involvement in Iraq and allowing the Iraqis and the rest of the world to take a part in this reconstruction. Since 9/11, we have not had a national conversation about what sensible and responsible responses we should be pursuing. We all just jumped on the Neo-con bandwagon and went off half-cocked around the world to extract our revenge. We must move away from the temple of 9/11 where too many have been worshipping and begin to look realistically at the world and our place in it.

“That is a very important question for the president of the United States because it is very much a judgment call,” Mr. Edwards said. “Do I believe that we have had a moral responsibility? I do. The question is, How long does that moral responsibility continue and at what juncture is it the right decision to end what we have been doing and shift that responsibility to them?”

“Let’s assume for a minute that come January 2009 we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq, which I think is likely,” Mr. Edwards added. “If that is the case, then I think another 9 to 10 months of American troop involvement and expenditure of taxpayer money with an intense effort to resolve the political conflict and intense diplomacy, then at that point America has done what it can do.”[2]

The time has come to end the crusade. We must begin to refocus on America and all that ails us. Many will say that this is the beginning of isolationism, they would be wrong. What it is, is the beginning of cleaning up our own house before we begin to clean up the world. We have a major struggle before us here at home, the struggle of corporatism and wealth strangulation from the top. The war on terror has been a distraction and it has allowed us to watch the biggest disparity of wealth accumulation in our nation’s history. It is time we focused on this struggle or it won’t matter what happens in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1199297375-nTvB2yKgo93g2bIG+4mpqg

Read more!

The Missing Experience Factor

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching the candidates are pressing their main messages with renewed intensity. The key to campaigning appears to be to “stay on message” regardless of the chaos around you. I am not sure how substantive it is to have a candidate repeat the same slogan over and over, to our political discourse, but this seems to be the conventional wisdom. The daily mantra for Hillary Clinton is “strength and experience”. The ex-First Lady cites her experience as a major difference between her and her opponents and one worthy of giving her the nomination. Something about her being able to “hit the ground” running, to where we aren’t quite sure. The experience that Ms. Clinton is touting is not just her experience as a junior Senator from New York, given that her closest two rivals also share that experience, no it is her experience in the White House as First Lady.

But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.[1]

I for one believe that her experience as First Lady is not necessarily transferable to the position she is now vying for, no more than I believe that First Lady Laura Bush is qualified to be President based on her experiences in the White House. For some reason in this country it is assumed and accepted by many that political positions are hereditary and therefore subject to transfer between fathers and sons, husbands and wives, or brothers. I have often found the reasoning for this strange and not very convincing. I think that many times history has borne out the fact that this idea of transference is not a reliable method of picking our leaders.

While I agree that as First Lady Hillary played an important role and was I am sure privy to more than she is letting on due to security concerns, but even so there is a big difference in being the mate of a President and the President. No matter how close the two may have been, the responsibility for decisions was always on Mr. Clinton, as well as the repercussions of those decisions. If Ms. Clinton can demonstrate where she was in fact the “decider” on policy and the recipient of the responsibility for those decisions then I think she has a case, until then however her claims to that experience I think is misleading.

Understandably, the relationship between husband and wife is exclusive and while the dynamics of that relationship is unique to each couple, it is commonly assumed that most decisions are shared or at least discussed between spouses. I am sure the Presidency is similar, but to what degree does a President discuss and share with their spouse? Because we have never had a female President we only have one side of the equation to consider. The question then becomes how much influence and information was shared between the Clintons? Ms. Clinton has been murky in this area, except to produce generalizations concerning her access to the decision making process. The problem I have with Ms. Clinton touting her White House experience is that we have no way of knowing the extent of her involvement and even if she were in fact part of the discussions providing input and making decisions are not the same.

Friends of Mrs. Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have.[2]

So, I guess my question is, does being First Lady give Ms. Clinton a leg up on her opponents in the experience department? Does my being married to a doctor give me valuable experience to begin diagnosing ailments, dispensing medication, and performing medical procedures? I am inclined to say no. While Ms. Clinton may have a better understanding of the stress, the difficulty, and the protocol of the Presidency, in my mind that does not equate to a marketable difference between her and her opponents in experience. The experience she brings as being the spouse of a President is distinctive compared to any of the other candidates this year or in years past, but again I have difficulty translating that to her now being uniquely qualified to be President. Maybe it’s a woman thing and I am not getting it, but what I do know is that being around the White House is no guarantee that someone is ready and qualified to be President. Maybe if that were true our current occupant would have done a better job.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?hp

Read more!

Is Hillary The Best Candidate?

Hillary Clinton made the case at the latest Democratic debate that she was the best candidate because the Republicans hate her. I got to thinking about the rationale behind this logic and whether it holds up to scrutiny. True enough the candidate the Republicans talk about the most is Hillary, at their last debate her name came up more than even the war in Iraq. Is that because she is the frontrunner or because she is the most formidable candidate or something else entirely? If the Republicans attack you the most does that mean they fear you the most, as Hillary depicts or is it as Obama and Edwards stated, it is because they believe she is the most unelectable candidate? In my opinion it is a little of all of these.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama almost stumbled over each other in offering a different interpretation of the Republican attacks on Mrs. Clinton than the one she offered.

“Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that’s a fight they’re very comfortable having,” Mr. Obama said. “It is the fight that we’ve been through since the ’90s. And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems.”

Mr. Edwards offered a similar line of attack. “I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, she — they may actually want to run against you, and that’s the reason they keep bringing you up,” he said, adding, “I think that if people want the status quo — Senator Clinton’s your candidate. “[1]

Despite her baggage, Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate. According to the latest poll numbers she has the majority of democratic women and independent voters. While her unfavorable numbers are still high, she continues to consolidate her lead with democratic voters. The real unknown I think will be whether women will continue to support her in her efforts to write history and become the first woman commander in chief. So far according to the numbers, they are solidly in her camp. The other question is will Republican and independent women crossover to support her bid?

I think part of the reason that the Republicans are attacking Senator Clinton is because she is the frontrunner and appears to be her party’s nominee. They are laying the groundwork of what will be the most contentious general election ever. It’s funny how every general election is becoming the most contentious and negative campaigns on record. I wonder if we will ever return to civil elections or even if we ever had any? Plus, attacking Hillary is a cash cow for Republicans, just the mention of her name gets the wing-nuts blood boiling. Much of the venom and hatred from the far-right appears to be irrational, but could be damaging during a close general election.

I think another reason for the attacks is the far-right believes that Hillary’s negatives will be too much for her to overcome and they sense a real weakness. I think that the wing-nuts are overplaying their hand on this issue and that Senator Clinton’s negative numbers will shrink significantly enough by November to do less damage than they presume. I also believe that a lot of the negative ads will backfire against Senator Clinton with women voters, many of whom will view them differently when aimed at a woman versus a man. I think that the Senator is savvy enough to use this to her advantage during the campaign. Many of the wing-nuts do view her as their best chance candidate to keep the White House and I think a lot of the pundits and talking heads have been trying to either plant positive Hillary stories or demonize her to ensure she gets the nomination.

The real issue for the Party and the progressive net-roots community will be is Senator Clinton our best chance to win? There are two months before the first voting starts and we begin to find out. I am curious, if Senator Clinton is the nominee, will the Party and net-roots rally around her and support her candidacy or will there be a voter backlash? Even though she is not my first choice, I would support the senator over any Republican candidate. I believe the majority of Americans will do likewise. I don’t believe there is anything in Hillary’s negatives that remotely compares to the negatives currently held by the Republicans and their continued support for the bankrupt policies of Bush.

While I believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency won’t be as unifying as maybe some other candidates, I do believe she will be a step down the road that will lead to a real progressive candidate. Until enough people get tired of the same old crap, the same old crap will stay on the menu. So, is Hillary Clinton the best candidate? Probably no, but she could be a lot worse.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Read more!

Economic Boom Brings Poverty

In what is a growing trend in America, it appears that even when the economy is booming, poverty continues to rise. The latest chapter in the trend is Washington, DC, according to reports the city is experiencing financial prosperity for the higher end wage earners. This however is not trending down towards the workers on the lower end of the spectrum. This condition is being repeated all over the country and other than John Edwards this trend is receiving very little coverage. We are in the process of creating wealth for only the high wage income categories, completely ignoring the low wage categories. How can we continue to justify the escalating wages of high income workers while keeping the low wage workers incomes at levels adjusted for inflation at the same scale of 1960? Why are more people not enjoying the benefits of economic prosperity? Is there a concerted effort to prevent the prosperity from reaching the poor?

The District's poverty rate is the highest in nearly a decade, and the employment rate for African American adults is at a 20-year low, according to a study to be released today.

Although the District's robust economy has spurred job growth, higher salaries, a construction boom and neighborhood revitalization, the city's poorest and least-educated residents have been left behind -- living "on the other side" of the city's "gleaming economy," the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute says.

The institute's study, titled "D.C.'s Two Economies," also shows that the gap between high-wage and low-wage workers in Washington is at an all-time high, with salaries for the least-paid workers (adjusted for inflation) virtually unchanged in three decades. Income inequality in the District is greater than in every city in the United States other than Atlanta and Tampa, the study says.[1]

The trickledown theory is once again proving to be the rich pissing down the backs of the poor. It seems that our economy is operating in two worlds; there is the high finance world that is booming and then there is the street economy where most poor Americans live and it isn’t doing so good. One could almost say that there is an effort to create the environment to force more and more poor people to turn to crime to survive. This of course would accomplish two goals, it would marginalize the poor by incarcerating them thus making them ineligible for most decent jobs, federal programs, and voting. The other would be to continue to fund the cottage industry that has replaced factory work in rural America with prison work.

By charging and convicting young poor people with a felony, you have sentenced them to a life without opportunity. You have stripped them of their rights to participate in our election system, you have made it next to impossible to participate in any employment higher than janitor or fast-food worker, and you have prevented them from participating in most federal programs. Therefore, you have removed all hope they have for any type of productive life. So, on the one hand you make street crime the only viable option and then you create a system of justice that penalizes the convicted for life. This allows you to claim that the problem is not with the system; it is that the poor are just prone to criminal behavior. If they would only play by the rules, their lives would get better. As if the playing field were actually level and the poor just choose to fail. This may get you on Fox News, but it adds nothing to the dialog of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are being forgotten.

There are many voices black and white that would have us to believe that success is some quantifiable objectives that if you just follow a few simple steps, the American Dream is yours to possess. Of course, along the way they ignore how unattainable that dream looks to a kid looking out of project windows. Are the poor doing things to intensify their downward spiral? Of course they are, but do any of us always do the things that would benefit us? When you remove all hope for a better life, you condemn men to more than just poverty. You condemn them to a state of hopelessness, which is far worse than just being poor. Hopelessness breeds desperation and desperation breeds frustration.

There is a disconnect taking place in America. It involves more than just white from black and vice versa, it is the haves and the have-nots. And if it continues unabated there will not be enough prison space available to contain it. Currently it is fashionable to ignore the needs of the poor, the SChips bill is a prime example. We are blaming the victim for the conditions that cause the disease. This of course helps to ease consciouses as we walk by them in doorways or on the streets. A country like ours must do better or we will reap the whirlwind of indifference and neglect.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302230.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Read more!

Poverty In America

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

If anyone needed a reason to support John Edwards this should do the trick. No one in the race Republican or Democrat is speaking out more or with the specificity of Senator Edwards. After we finally get untangled from Iraq, poverty will be an issue that must be recognized and dealt with. This administration has used the Iraq war to ignore and deprive the poor, while allowing the corporate profits and CEO salaries to reach all-time highs. There is a problem when you have these types of record extremes. It is an indication that the ones in the middle are disappearing. If we do not address this problem America will begin to resemble our Central and South American neighbors, where you have a few very wealthy people and the majority very poor. I believe that democracy cannot survive without a middle-class. I think that the larger the middle-class the stronger the democracy. Those with the largest stake in democracy are the middle-class. The rich don’t need it and the poor don’t believe in it.

So, what are we to do with the severely poor? How do we defeat the systemic causes of extreme poverty in America? Can we free those who are entrenched in this cycle of poverty?

Fighting poverty is a job for government, but it is also a job for all of us in our own communities. I believe our nation is up to this challenge. Hurricane Katrina exposed us to heartbreaking images of extreme poverty but it also reminded us of the extraordinary compassion of the American people -- millions opened their hearts, homes and wallets after the storm.

We need to speak up when we know something is wrong. Let's put poverty on top of the national agenda and pledge to hold our government accountable for ignoring the suffering of so many for far too long. I’ve traveled the country for more than a year, meeting with people who are struggling to get out of poverty. One thing I’ve noticed in these conversations is that they have never had a champion. They have no idea what it’s like to have somebody to speak up for them. All of us must champion their cause.

We must act both locally and nationally to fight for a higher minimum wage and other measures that will improve the lives of low-income families. And we need to get involved when our neighbors are in need. This can be as simple as volunteering your time to be a mentor to a young person or to help build a house for a homeless family. Each of us can make a huge difference.[1]

According to Senator Edwards government and individuals must play a role in solving this national scourge. There is no one right way to do this. It is going to require all of us to come together and collectively exchange ideas and resolutions. I think one of the biggest problems is that we have allowed Conservatives to scare us off this issue. So what everything we tried in the past didn’t work, but that doesn’t mean we throw out the baby. We must be willing to do what this administration is not and that is to evaluate our strategies and when they don’t work, we try something different. We need to include everyday people in the process as well. One of the things that help to drive innovation in the business world was the suggestion box. A simple little thing like that can make a world of difference. It allowed the people dealing with the problem an opportunity to help solve the problem. Who knows better where to start looking for a solution than those who are at ground zero of an issue?

Solving this issue is one of the most difficult and pressing concerns of this nation. We can no longer continue to let the gap between the richest and the poorest grow at these record rates. We have the money and we have the knowledge[2] of what works from years of studies and experience. What is missing is the political will to act. We are also missing the leadership to take up this challenge. When President Johnson launched his “war on poverty” there were plenty of naysayers and intransigents, but because of his strong leadership and political capital he made hard fought gains. And in doing so, he helped to reduce poverty by its largest margins since the depression.

Now it is our turn to complete the process. Will we continue to turn a blind eye to the poorest among us, while the wealthiest continue to make record growth? Will we continue to step over the fallen strangers pretending not to see, rather than being the good Samaritan? The answers to these questions will say a lot about who we are as a nation and what values we believe are important. We have the technology to solve this, do we have the desire?

---

[1] http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2006/07/senator-john-edwards-on-poverty.asp

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502442.html

Read more!

Electability

You can’t govern, if you don’t win. The important thing to remember is that we are very early into this election cycle and no one really has a clue what the electorate will do when the time comes. As much as I identify with the aspirations of Senators Clinton and Obama wanting to change history, the fact remains. Are they electable?

One must not get caught up in all the pre-election year hype. Anyone familiar with the electoral process in America knows that it is not who is ahead in March 07 but who is ahead in March 08 and beyond. How many immensely popular candidates early on have withered when the voters begin to ask the tough questions? Right now the media and the public are caught up in “feel good” stories to overcome the growing anxiety of Iraq and the myriad of other issues that we are facing as a nation. Witness the media frenzy over the death of a woman whose only talent was self-hype and the ability to marry an aging billionaire. It is good copy to have those two other candidates as frontrunner's; it allows us as a nation to feel that we have overcome the barriers of gender and race. We can pat ourselves on the backs and say how glad we are to be over those hurdles. The reality of course is somewhat different from the perception. It doesn’t matter how good your ideas or how solid your platform, if you don’t win you don’t get to institute your policies. In politics, there are no moral victories. Either you win or you lose and no one knows it better than the Dems after eight years of George W. Let them have their 15 minutes, in the mean time we will be creating a groundswell waiting to erupt when the time is right. And of course the media will be caught completely off-guard and will wonder where all this support and those victories came from and of course we will just give them that knowing smile.

For those with very short memories, the majority of party nominees were not leading in any poll prior to the primaries (i.e. Howard Dean). A few of them were not even known to the general public (i.e. Bill Clinton) beyond their regions or states. No ladies this party is just starting. What we should be doing is making sure we are dotting our I(s) and crossing our T(s). We should be shoring up our grass roots organizations, because these groups are the ones who get people elected (i.e. George W. Bush) not polls. We should continue to stress individual contributions as well as the larger donors to build the war chest necessary to overcome all the hype and keep the Senator out front and visible.

We need to position Senator Edwards in the right place for when the smoke clears, and make no mistake as we get closer to the appointed time the smoke will clear, so he will be able to accept the mantle and carry us to victory. No folks, Senator Edwards is where he is suppose to be, building a grass roots organization and campaign, creating policy and priorities, laying the groundwork for after the beauty pageant. Let us not lose hope because of the media frenzy. Let us do as our candidate has done in the past, let us roll up our sleeves and pour our foundation for victory. People elect Presidents, not polls.

Read more!

How Much Is A Haircut?

What really troubles me about the media hype concerning JRE’s recent “barbergate” incident is where the focus of the reports are leading. The media is trying to marginalize him with charges of being a narcissistic hairball.

These charges would be laughable if they weren’t so diabolical. Let’s review the evidence shall we. Prior to this hoopla the media was reporting that all of the other candidates were trailing Senator Edwards in presenting real solutions and policies to confront the issues facing our country.[1] The frontrunners were big on theory, but short on specifics. Senator Edwards was making real political hay by actually addressing issues. He has come out with specific plans on how to deal with Iraq, global warming, and poverty. So while the other candidates are dancing around the issues, Senator Edwards has been providing the American public with the facts to judge his candidacy.

What better way to derail this momentum than to present him as being a fluff candidate who is only concerned about appearance and without substance. I’m sorry; to me we have bigger issues to deal with in this country besides how much Mr. Edwards pays for a haircut. Does he pay more than I do? Yes he does. But I am sure he pays more for other things than I do as well. It is his money; he can do with it what he chooses. He has earned the right to do so. Does anyone question how Mayor Bloomberg spends his billions? I could care less what he does with his money, what matters to me is what he does with the public money. There has never been any question concerning Senator Edwards and his fiduciary duties as a public servant or as an attorney. This is a smoke screen to try to cloud the issues of this campaign with day time talk television fodder. What I, you, or your father paid for a haircut is irrelevant, what is relevant is where does he stand on the killing field that Iraq has become.

This conversation would have merit were it not for who they are charging. No candidate has articulated the needs of the poor in this country better than John Edwards, not just during this buildup to the election, but throughout his public life. A fluff candidate; you have to be kidding me! Is there some rule against a candidate wanting to look his best? To show you the media is no longer reporting news, but trying to make news the haircut became a discussion of his “sexuality”. Is there no limit to where these people will stoop to sell newspapers or kitty litter?

I, for one, will not allow the media to define what the issues in this campaign will be. I think I know what is important and what is not. Please media stars, let’s go back to reporting the news and not trying to create it. I have got to believe that there some really important issues and decisions this country has to make right now, besides where we will be getting our haircuts.

---

[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/16/111815/544

Read more!

Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Since 9/11 there has been much talk about the war on terror and on whether we are winning or losing. I submit that we are losing the war on terror.

How can I say we are losing after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? How can I say that when we have had no more terrorists attacks here at home? I believe that the war on terror cannot be gauged based on those criteria alone. The goal of terrorists is not to win militarily because usually they are a lesser force, no the goal of terrorist is to get us to change how we live. How we view ourselves and each other. The reason I say we are losing this war is not based on what the terrorist are doing, but based on what we have done in response to the terrorist threat. We now have more repressive legislation at home, we have resorted to torture and imprisonment without due process, and we use fear and paranoia to justify any and all activities.

Of course it would be easy to blame an administration that used the attack to enact its agenda and justify its world view. But these things could not have been done without our acquiesce. We live in a democracy that is supposed to have checks and balances. We are four years into a failed foreign policy and we just now want to institute oversight and review. I am far removed from the civics’ class of my youth, but even then we learned that in a democracy the people are the “deciders”, not one man no matter what the justification. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? When in a democracy is having a healthy debate about the path of this country’s foreign policy “aiding and abetting the terrorists”? When in a democracy are all the citizenry guilty until proven innocent. No my friends the terrorist are winning, because America is no longer America. In a democracy there will always be opportunities for terrorist to act, that is the price of having a free society. It is not the acts of the terrorist that defines us; it is our responses to those acts that define us; if we are truly a democracy. We can respond as we have with the politics of fear and divisiveness or we can respond as a true democracy and tell the terrorists of this world that we will not live in fear and attack each other. Of course there have always been those who have used our fears to promote hatred and division. I remember from my civics days a gentleman by the name of McCarthy who made quite a name for himself hyping the fears of others.

The next administration will need to heal this land and reunite us as a nation. This will not be an easy task considering all of the damage that has been done. The first thing will be to roll-back the imperial presidency and return this country to a healthy democracy. The democracy we learned about in the fifth grade; remember the one “of the people, by the people, for the people”. It will require letting the world know that we do not have imperial aspirations on other lands. It will require us to once again take our role in the world community not as a bully, but as a leader by example. We must be a beacon of hope and freedom that the downtrodden of the world can look up to; a respecter of international law and international cooperation, and above all a nation that believes in diplomacy for solving conflict and uses force as a last resort. I believe that John Edwards can and will embody this philosophy more than the others. It is now up to us to choose what type of country we want for our children; what type of democracy we want to give them. Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Read more!

Can’t Buy Me Love

Is it just me or is there an obscene amount of money being raised? What does all this money mean to the body politic as a whole and to the aspirations of our potential candidates? Whatever happened to our desire to have publicly financed elections?

It appears that publicly financed elections are good as long as it is not an election I’m in. There was much talk about campaign reform when there was no campaign. Now that the architects and sponsors have joined the fray we have lost our zeal for cleaning up the process until the next “swift boat” incident. Does it really take a half billion dollars to be president of the United States? And if it does; what does that say about our process. It seems like every cycle we set new all-time records for money raised and money spent and after each we say we want reform (everyone but Mitch McConnell, but at least he is honest about his dishonesty), only to start the cycle all over again when the dust settles.

It has been stated that you cannot buy the presidency, but money has never hurt. One of these elections it would be nice to have an election based on ideas and plans, not based on how much money you were able to raise. Already the media has proclaimed the front runners and eventual nominees based on the money earned in the first quarter of an election that is two years away. I wish I could be that sure of what was going to happen to me tonight let alone two years from now. The only problem with prognosticators is that they are rarely if ever right. I remember when Howard Dean raised all the money on the internet and made online fundraising viable; he was pronounced a “force to be reckoned with”. The thing is that money does not always translate into voters or true support. If that were in fact the case then instead of having elections we would just have fund raisers and whoever raised the most money wins.

While money is important and helps to get a candidates message out to a wide range of voters, campaigns are more than money. Campaigns are about people, they are about ideas, and who can communicate those ideas most effectively. Campaigns are about meeting people, they are about endurance and sounding fresh after giving the same speech over and over and over. Campaigns are about relationships, relationships between the candidate and his supporters, the candidate and the undecided, and the candidate and the media. This could actually be good for Senator Edwards; both “front runners” have enough money to bludgeon each other before the primaries even begin. Make no mistake when this process gets started the kid gloves will come off, both of these people are serious campaigners and they want this nomination. It may appear to be civil now, but it is going to get ugly and standing above the fray will be Senator Edwards unsullied by the excesses of both those campaigns.

Read more!

Desperate Times

Throughout the course of human history there have been certain times that have required remarkable men to meet desperate and difficult challenges. The list includes Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi, King. These men were ordinary men who through circumstances beyond their control were presented the opportunity to rise above their common lives to experience greatness. While these men share very different backgrounds and challenges the thing that they did share was strength of character and courage of convictions.

Today, our world is in desperate need of such a man who is willing to overcome his "commonness" to lay hold of greatness. Our country and our world has been ravaged by partisianism, sectarianism, and fanaticism. Overcoming these strife's will take a man of courage and vision. It will require someone who is not leading by opinion polls, but by an "internal compass". The thing that George W. has shown is that the country will follow a leader with a vision, the problem was that his vision was flawed.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish"

People do not follow programs or plans-these things are important because they are the nuts and bolts-but people follow visions. Look at the history of man, those who were able to move and change history were those who were able to articulate a vision. Mr. Rove is a master of this, however just as Mr. Goebbels was, the problem is that their visions were not to unite but to divide.

Now is the time for leadership and a vision that will unite the "many Americas" into one America. If we are to lead the world we must do so united and morally centered. As a result of the actions of the current administration we have surrendered much of the moral high-ground at home and abroad. It will be difficult to restore our position in the world. It will require consensus building and not gun boat diplomacy. If our way is right we should not have to export it at the end of a gun. If our path is true, terrorism can not stand against us. They may attack us, but they will never defeat us. The politics of fear and division must end if we are to truly win the war on terror and not destroy ourselves in the process.

Is John Edwards this man of vision and destiny? I don't know, but I pray that he is...

Read more!

Learn From Past Mistakes

Let me start out by saying that I have been a fan of John Edwards for awhile now. I watched as he became the senator for North Carolina defeating the incumbent Fairchild when many said he didn't have a chance.

I think that the campaign of John Kerry made many serious mistakes in the last cycle. Two of the monumental mistakes I thought was not allowing Senator Edwards to attack the vulnerabilities of George Bush enough and the second was allowing the Rove machine to define the campaign. He had the Kerry campaign reacting instead of acting and creating the message he wanted disseminated. While this of course is all spilt milk and that election is over, I think that there are a lot of lessons that can be learned from that campaign.

I think that we as democrats have conceded too many "hot button" issues to the Republicans in an effort to be politically correct. In an effort to be all things to all people we have appeared to be shifty and pandering. If George W. has taught us anything it is that the voters will follow someone who stands by his beliefs even if they are dead wrong. I think the voting public has in the past viewed Democrats as pandering to too many interest and not having a solid base of core beliefs. Instead of saying why the voters should not vote for the Republican candidate we must show them why they should vote for our man. This will be especially tempting now that we have a weakened President and the waters have been bloodied because of Iraq. However, I think the more prudent course would be to again develop our core issues or our central values that are not going to appeal to all of our old interest groups, but that represent the common interests of most Americans and stick to them come hell or high water. While public opinion is important, it is also just as important for a leader to lead and sometimes where they lead is not popular, but it is right. It is also the duty of a leader to educate and show why this may be unpopular, but it is the right path to go.

It is time we began to craft strategies and solutions that we can stand on and not just criticize the other guys ideas. Not only must we be able to articulate the problem, we must also be able to articulate the solution, which is always the more difficult.

I believe that John Edwards will be our next President. Ms Clinton unfortunately has too much baggage that she will not be able to get rid of for the general election and America is not ready to elect a Black President despite what the polls say. Polls are always misleading, most people answer those questions the way they think they are suppose to, not necessarily how they truly feel. They say one thing and vote another. Mr. Edwards it is time to get out in front on the issues and more than just Iraq. It is the driving force today, but it will take more than that to govern...

Read more!