Temper - Temper Barack

Gee did everyone see poor Barack get a little upset at some of the questions asked of him at the debate on Apr. 16th. Now when giving one of his sermons he claimed that the questions dealt with the past - ancient history in his mind. Well when you have no policy experience to fall back on, your past history does come in to play. In play that shows one's character.

As I have stated before - if he thinks that he is above it all and feels he can just blow off the past. Wake up.... The general election will be even worse. The GOP will even find out who cut your umbilical cord.

Toughen up if you want to be the people's candidate. And learn and admit that maybe in your past you did do some stupid things that hurt someone running for President. Jeremiah Wright is not forgotten......

Out of touch or inexperienced?

The recent gaffe by Mr. Obama about rural Pennsylvanians is either do to being out of touch or being inexperienced or a combination of both. I think it is both, and this leads me to wonder what the GOP will do to him if he continues with rookie statements.

Karl Rove is already salivating at the notion that Mr. Obama will be the candidate. Not to say that Mrs. Clinton wouldn't be a good target for Rove, but admittedly she has been tested and has that pit bull on her side; Bill.

Mr. Obama has not be tested in the national arena. By saying that this primary process is preparing him for the GOP onslaught is a fallacy. With the little attacks that his campaign has claimed the Clinton's have done will be nothing compared to what the GOP attack machine will do. He can't be a cry baby when attacked and always claim racism and/or he can't always make a shoot from the hip rebuttal without preparing. That is when he makes his rookie mistakes and give the opposition amo.

Well if he (Obama) is the candidate, I just hope he learns how to weather the storm. I feel that his preacher like persona has a thin skin because he has never had to handle attacks in a campaign. His last big opponent Alan Keyes was and is a light weight in that regard.

Maybe there are some things that Mr. Obama could learn from Mrs. Clinton - whether he wants to or not...... Toughness......

Another Free Ride for Obama

Once again the media is giving Obama a free ride in the guise of not being perceived as racists. Here is a man who has attended a church that has been the bully pulpit of a racist, Rev. Jerimiah Wright. Now the people who want you to believe that he is not a racist will say that Rev. Wright was only trying to promote black pride, now there is nothing wrong with that except when it is at the expense of other races, ethnic groups and religions. Rev. Wright could and should have promoted black pride in a positive way - not by damming America. Now for 20 long years Mr. Obama has been sitting in the church pew listening to all this talk. Although I have never been there I could bet that this wasn't the first time Rev.Wright has spew hatred in the name of pride. Mr. Obama did not want to throw this man under the bus because of his close father like relationship with him. So what if this man was really his father? Does that mean Mr. Obama can't distance himself from the man from the first time he said words of the nature he spewed. Mr. Obama wants it both ways.... When something is said of him in a critical way he cries racism.... When someone he knows spews racists remarks he cries pride..... Wow... in the old days this was called flip flopping. He needs to get a thick skin in order to take the critics remarks. What would he do if a foreign leader makes a critical remark about his leadership - cry racism or have Rev. Wright include the incident in his next sermon.

We need to find out who is this man Mr. Obama. We have to stop being afraid of being called racist if we question our leaders of their actions. That is right, if Mr. Obama wants to be our president - then he better be ready to answer all of the people questions, good or bad, supporter or not.

What's wrong with Bill being there?

I am really getting tired of all the pundits and even some of our illustrious elected officials saying that Bill Clinton in the White House again would be a terrible thing. Who wouldn't want him there to give occasional advise? Why should Hillary be penalized because she happens to be married to an ex-president? I guess we American's would rather that our president consult someone like Dicky Cheney then Bill Clinton. Just because Georgie W. was too stupid to go to daddy Bush for advise; sometimes daddy even tried to force his people on GW but he didn't want the help; why shouldn't Hillary go to Bill. Would Obama talk to the Mrs. - would McCain have chats with his Mrs.? I am sure they will - but are they a former president? NO.... Will they occasionally heed their advise? Maybe, maybe not. If Hillary were to ask her hubby for his opinion on something and maybe or maybe not takes that advise is that any different? Well no different just for the fact that he is her spouse, but much different in that he was a president.

Just think when foreign leaders try to pull a fast one on Hillary, even with knowing that she if a powerful and intelligent person in her own right, they would also know that she would have a person in the White House living quarters who has been there and done that. Again would it be any different if Obama was president and consulted with Bill Clinton on an issue or issues. I am sure that Mr. Obama would gladly take the advise of Bill Clinton given the chance. Heck I am even sure Mr. McCain would.

As Democrats I think we have to stop worrying if Hillary becomes president that Bill will always be tagging along. My gosh we should all know by now that Hillary (like Gore thought he was) IS her own woman. And Bill being as busy as he is will probably be giving speeches and seminars for his global cause. Let's stop being negative about Bill being in the White House. If I was given the reins of Microsoft - I would want Bill Gates there to advise me, if I were given the Trump empire I would want Donald the be there to advise me; so why, if I were elected President of the United States wouldn't I want an ex-successful president there to advise me. Haven't just about finished up with a boob who seeks advise from other boobs.... Would we want to risk that again.......

Is a third party needed?

As we get further and further into the election cycle we keep hearing the call for a third party. Is there really a need for a third party - and I mean a viable third party. Why hasn't a third party caught on in this country of democracy? Where we all have a say in how our government works; or at least think we do. If you were to google "third parties" there are plenty of them but none of them are taken seriously - why? Because in the past we have had some people involved with a third party run who seemed a short of cards in their deck. Some started off with good intentions and then fizzled. One must realize that a third party of any seriousness will take a while (a good 10-20 years) before it is taken seriously. The formers or candidates of potential third parties have to have the will and patience to grow their parties at local, county, state and national levels. I someone just starts a haphazard party for their own benefit then the seriousness is taken away.

That little millionaire for Texas, Ross Perot, was the first serious contender in a national race from a third party. Even after he started to go a little crazy he still had a strong following and garnered 20% of the popular vote. Imagine if he stayed sane in his mannerisms; we may have had at that time an election decided by the Congress. His so called Reform Party was on the move and signed up some very qualified field operatives. But after Mr. Perot's defeat they needed leadership - and he refused to lead. His lack of following thru with leadership just showed that he was in it for the ego trip and destroyed all hopes of a viable third party.

Same thing happened with Ralph Nader and the Green Party. His popularity and message drove a lot of progressives to the Green Party with hopes of making a difference. Like Perot if Nader had taken up the lead and got this Green Party going in the right direction we again could have had another viable third party. Like Perot all Nader wanted was a nationwide party he could use for his own purpose to get his name on the ballots. Just think if Perot and Nader had taken their respected parties seriously, we would have four viable parties.

As for being spoilers - SO WHAT..... Those running for office should always expect to be running as if they are behind. What is the difference if you have to run a campaign against one or three parties, the bottom line is that you have to compete for the precious privilege to represent the people. With more competition maybe candidates would take races more serious.

Give the people of the United States more choice. We are smart enough to study all the stances of the candidates. If you are disillusioned with your party and the other party - support and third party but be serious..... That is what we need ... Serious thinking in our party leaders....

Where is the Outrage?

What is wrong with the people of this country of ours? Why is no one outraged that nothing is getting done? Beside the fact the the Democrats have taken somewhat control of congress - where are the positive changes that they were voted in to do? I do understand that the Democrats do not have total control, but where is the fight and or arm twisting (ala LBJ) to get some of the agenda accomplished? Or do the Dems even remember they have an agenda?
- We are still at war in Iraq.....
-There are still children in this country and families with no health care
- Gas prices are still outrageous and we are still reliable on foreign oil
- Money, Money , Money is still the only resource by which a person gets elected
by or gets a chance officially debate.
These are just a few items of which I feel the Democrats could and should make stronger stances on. But where are they? And where are the people who voted them into office? It seems that maybe it is just me. Maybe every other person is happen with he above items. Maybe we have become so complacent as a country that we are afraid to speak out. But let us remember that it was because of speaking out that we are the country we are. Speak out people.. Hold your elected officials accountable for their actions or truly get rid of them and find someone who will take the people's concerns to heart and not special interest groups filtering them money.

Why DEMS loose in local elections....

Why is it that in local elections the Democrats always have a bad showing? Well it is simple - they just don't think they have to come out and vote. When you ask fellow democrats who only vote in state or national elections to come out and vote for local (city, township, borough, county races) elections you can bet you get the old-My Vote Won't Count- excuse. Well if anything it should have been proven in the last two presidential elections that every vote counts. Al Gore and John Kerry can attest to this.

But we also do things not to entice some of these votes to vote. We have to constantly field good, qualified candidates - not just anyone who raises their hand. The candidates that we field have to be well versed on the issues and must be able to convince the voters we do know what we are talking about. The democrats must be constantly vi sable to the voters - because they will vote for who the see and know about. Finally when we are attacked and demonized by the republicans - we MUST FIGHT BACK. Democrats have to realize that fighting back with the truth is not negative campaigning - but showing strength and backbone....

Once we get our candidates to act like candidates and motivate the voters - the voters will come to the ballot box. Let's stop fielding sacrificial lambs and get some lions on our side.....