Hmm... Did something political a second ago.

I signed up as a volunteer for the Obama camp and advised that I might contribute money as well...

hmmm.

Is it a slam dunk that I'll vote for Obama? No.

So why would I campaign for him? Because Hillary is just the left hand of the establishment. I have been evaluating Hillary for the last few months to decide if I could vote for her. I entered the election season with my personal pecking order topped by Wesley Clark, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Obama, Chuck Hagel, Al Gore, and that rascally Joe Biden.

Sadly Presidental Elections at this moment are mostly financial decisions. If you cannot generate a ton of cash, you have little chance of winning the nomination. As much as I love what Clark, Huckabee, Biden, Hagel have at their core, I don't think they will pull in the cash to win their primaries.

I think Gore won't run. The democratic nomination is likely a two way race between Clinton and Obama with Edwards (IMO) running for president with it in the back of his mind to try to land the VP spot if it doesn't work out. --- the thought being his X% of the democratic primary (15% or so?) would be enough for Hillary or Obama to bring him on.

Or at least that is how I see it.

So Hillary or Obama? I have been watching how Hillary has campaigned and initially I was impressed with her. In November CNN had the big three at 33%, 15%, 14%. Then Hillary and her handlers got bold. She got agressive, showing spine in a number of statements. She capped it off by putting out proclamations about how she would deal with the Iraq situation. In a time when the Democrats were not showing the public any backbone, Hillary stepped up and presented something that (at least from a distance) resembled an alternative to the Bush plan. (Even if I think history will prove me right in thinking it was strictly a visual aid to help her seal up the Democratic nomination --- afterall a plan written for the realities of todays' Iraq would be irresponsible to use in the Iraq of 2009, lol!)

In January, per ABC, Hillary had siezed 41% of the democratic vote with Obama at 17% and Edwards at 11%. With a sizable lead Hillary tried to squeeze out the other candidates by building a tremendous financial advantage.

This was a great strategy for her campaign. The Clintons, with their connections can raise money quite easily. As long as her vote and money leads seemed insurmountable, no other candidate would be able to raise the funds neccessary to mobilize the vote to compete. She could take the democratic nomination, find a VP who appeals to some strata of the population that disliked her, and hope that cash, dirty campaign tricks (assuming here), and general public dislike for Bush would sweep her into office.

Hillary has the highest negative rating of any candidate in the election at 38%. At the November numbers, Clinton was vulnerable to an Obama surge and frankly may have been even more vulnerable to Edwards (a vanilla white male --- the "safe" democratic candidate). Hillary is rated as unfavorable by 40% of independents, 33% of women, and 44% of men (quinnipac University poll). Having a poll that says you are a front runner 18% more popular than your next contender, over a year out, means nothing if you have that kind of disapproval numbers. All that means is that of the say 60% of society in play, you have only convinced half of them that you are a good candidate.

Obama has charisma and fortutiously for him learned his political skill in state politics. He thinks like a highly polished politician, but still is given the benefit of the doubt by the American public because he is "an outsider". His campaign did not appear to get any traction early on --- suggesting that his managers did not know how to present him or what strategies to take. If the expected Obama surge never came, the democrats would be looking at entering an election they should win with either a caustic Hillary or a generic handsome, white, male candidate in Edwards.

Hillary's handlers looked at the way the Democratic insiders jumped off of Dean to take the "safer" candidate, Kerry, in 2004 and they rightly knew the only way Hillary wins is as a front running candidate dominating the Democratic cash.

Then Geffen hit.

Geffen saw the strategy and hit Hillary really hard. Hillary should have just let it go. But she can't. Pundits said her handlers learned in the Bill years to hit back every time. Maybe. But to me, as an independent who often leans Democrat, it read like she took it personally. Like she was trying to crush out a Democrat she knew well because he rejected her personally.

The campaign further screwed up by trying to use fake outrage to create public pressure to force Obama into condemning Giffen, thereby alienating potential future contributors. Come on. How incompetent do they think any of the other campaign managers are? To me, it looked ridiculously contrived. The Hillary camp also publically tried to confuse the public into thinking Giffen was a part of the Obama campaign, and not just a contrbutor; a lie the media quickly dispelled.

Questions seemed to crop up. Why was Hillary freaking out over a guy she had a 25% lead on? Then the Civil Rights thing came up. Obama, as a black Presidential candidate, was of course going to have a good day. Hillary showed up with Bill in tow and tried to horn in on it. You can smell the despiration in the water.

As of March 9th, per bloomberg, Hillary is back down to 34%, Obama is at 31%, and Edwards is at 15%. Obama built his surge on winning over black voters (as contrary to logic as that might seem). I contend if Obama is a legitimate contender, people are going want to learn more about him. In compairison to Hillary (no knock intended), people are going to like him more and more as they find out more about him. He is pretty outside the establishment.

As it stands today, in terms of people who favor Clinton and Obama, it is a very narrow lead for Hillary. But once you figure in the elimination of Edwards as a candidate and Obama's comparitively non-existant negative ratings (8% of independents, 14% of Men, and 10% of women.) it seems likely that Obama will not only capture the anti-hillary vote, but also at least half of the undecideds.

Barring a Clayton Williams moment, of course. (Not out of the question.)

While I think Obama's handlers blew it a bit in the early running, overall they are taking the perfect tact for dealing with Hillary Clinton --- making her come to him. Hillary is essentially bringing attention to the Obama campaign with each little meltdown. With every percentage point increase, Hillary will fight harder, because that is how she knows to campaign. As she fights harder, the public perception of her as a shrill do-anything-to-win Washington politician will be reinforced in anti-Hillary voters. These voters will likely move to block her by electing the seemingly less shady, less abrasive Obama.

For me personally, I think the last month did a lot to clarify what I don't like about Hillary Clinton. I think she is too dogged, too willing to lie to get the desired results, and too corrupt. I have dealt with 6 years of Bush. I don't want 4 years of the democratic version.

The straw that broke the camel's back was an article I read on the dramatically named "10 most controversial presidential pardons of all time". #1 was Bill Clinton's pardon of filthy rich tax evader Mark Rich. I had not thought about this pardon for a long time. Rich allegedly knowingly ripped off the government in an oil scam and when the government wouldn't settle, left the country. If you read between the lines, it sounds like Rich was the asshole millionaire who rubbed every government employee who had to try to collect from him the wrong way. The Government employee's wouldn't take Rich's offers so he did an end around to the Clintons.

You can argue that maybe Bill Clinton really didn't Pardon him for his wife's fundraising efforts on his behalf, but I ask you --- why else would Bill come up with the idea of pardoning Rich? When you mix in the stories about the Clintons using coming to the white house as a fundraising tool, I have to question where they draw the line with fund raising, which then colors how I interpret the Rich situation.

I am tired of our government being for sale. (At least obviously for sale.)

I am also very leery of the Clintons for their seemingly wide open door to China. It is too similar to the the Bushs relationship with Saudi Arabia. I am tired of having a candidate in office who gives too much influence to a foreign power. 8 years of the Clintons and 12 years of the Bushs is more than enough for my lifetime.

So I am going to do my part to get Obama through the Democratic prmary.

How can anyone argue that there is a justification for pardoning Scooter Libby?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597658,00.html

Michael Kinsley fleshed out one of many arguements for pardoning Scooter Libby at time.com (link above). I have a huge problem with the idea of this even being considered.

The fact that Scooter Libby lied to the FBI is why he potentially could be going to jail. Kinsley suggests that the real issue is that the laws are unfair, because Libby had to chose to lie to the FBI as it was a better option than having to potentially face jail time for exposing a government spy.

To me this seems pretty simple. He made his choice.

How is this different from the criminal who violates his bond and gets arrested?

Scooter Libby was part of a heinous act that I personally feel was traitorous in intent. My only regret is that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are not also looking at jail time.

Sean Hannity of Fox News ran a show that said basically, why is Scooter Libby looking at Jail time when there is a scummy democrat who has gotten away with worse?

That is horrible logic! Does that mean that we should let a pedophile go free because an alleged killer like OJ didn't do time?

The law doesn't catch everyone. When it does function properly, we shouldn't monkey with the results.

Scooter Libby may be a great individual with a pure heart. That really doesn't matter. He did a vile thing and then tried to avoid being punished for it. His efforts to avoid being punished have him facing Jail time.

This isn't a tradgedy.




I do also want to add that I do fully realize Bush will pardon Libby. The corruption of that administration makes this a forgone conclusion. They will protect their own.

I am merely angry that people would throw out that he should be pardoned. I am angry that Bush's base will get up in arms and insist Bush Pardon libby because a man they belive is moral got caught trying to lie his way out of trouble. I did not hear anywhere near this level of outrage from that chunk of the Republican base when the 2 border patrol agents were sent to Jail for doing their job.

Unlike Libby who twice was party to things that clearly were not patriotic, honest, or respectable, Compean and Ramos were attempting to capture a drug smuggler as part of their job. Then the drug smuggler cuts a deal with the US goverment and we bring charges against our agents that land them both in jail.

Pardons? You want to bring up Libby as "deserving" of a pardon 2 months after you largely ignored these guys in backing your president's decision to ignore conressional and public pressure to pardon these guys? To say that is like telling jokes at a funeral. It is offensive, unwelcome, and ill-timed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545

I consider what was done to Plame to be a traitorous act to a US citizen so loyal she was willing to spy for us. The actions of Libby, Rove, and Cheney in this and other matters are disgusting and totally lacking morality. IMO.

The strong words of Democrat Harry Reid demanding Bush not pardon Libby are sadly likely political show. Some Democrats are attemping to draw in the media and use it to further underscore the corruption of the bush regime and the republicans in general when Bush does pardon Libby. (I am not going to say "the corruption of the Republicans by association", because the majority of the Republicans in Congress bought into Bush wholeheartedly and were an active part of the whole Bush machine in the last 6 years. If you make the bed, you should lie in it.)

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/41518

I wish, as lawyer Williams Hughes writes in the article above, that the words of Harry Reid were the start of a movement to begin proceedings to impeach Dick Cheney, but the reality is the Democrats are too cautious to take action at this point. Some in the democratic camp are happy to allow the Bush regime to continue a slow bleed on the popularity of the republican party in the hopes of winning the big prize --- the presidency and strong majorities in the house and senate so they can proceed to ramrod in their initiatives like the republicans did for the last 6 years.

I wish instead of trying to take their turn and become the corrupt all-powerful party, they would instead settle for having a slight edge and instead do one of the functions of their jobs --- attacking governmental corruption.

Fox News, Harnessed Piranas, Anna Nicole, Scooter Libby, and Iraq.

I really shouldn't expect anything from Fox news, but the fact that their last name is "News" always leads me to expect more from them. And that always leaves me disappointed.

I was a reporter in college. Sure I was no award winning journalist or anything, but I researched and wrote up news stories. Reporting can be a great pasttime because you can investigate the pricks of the world and expose their assinine nature to ensure they get their just desserts.

I suspect that this is why the media has a label as being liberal and comprised mostly of liberals. There probably is a lot of truth to that. What other job allows a guy making 20K or less to have the ability to take down a corrupt, monstrous individual making billions?

To curb potential abuses, there are tons of rules to keep the media piranas in check. There are laws preventing slander and liable which may not offer as much protection for public officials, but still prevents gross abuses by the press.

So called "liberal" media sources like CNN follow these rules but still seek to deliver the news. That is why they would report on clinton's sex life every day for years. There was blood in the water.

Fox News, on the other hand, selectively reports on things that help the cause of conservitism in the US. Scooter Libby, VP Dick Cheney's former Cheif of staff, goes to trial for lying to the CIA. It has been heavily speculated that Cheney and Bush's Deputy Cheif of Staff, Karl Rove, hatched a plan to leak the identity of one of our spies, in order to get back at her husband, Joe Wilson, who after being sent on a fact finding mission by the president, came back only with facts...

(The administration theoretically needed something that fit in with their "weapons of Mass Destruction" theme they were trying to sell to the public. When Joe Wilson loudly presented his facts, it was embarrassing for the administration, so they theoretically sold out one of our spies to get back at him.)

How is that not newsworthy? It reeks of sliminess. It reaches to the top levels of our government. How is the surge in Iraq getting what seems like no more than 5 minutes or less of each hour? Fox has buried them both under "Anna Nicole death watch... week 3".

(To be fair CNN was only a little better. I won't deny that ratings play a huge role in news---especially in the world of 24 hour news TV. Sex is an easier sale than corruption or war. With Fox near totally ignoring the case in favor of Anna Nicole, CNN execs probably felt they too had to give that signifigant airtime too to retain the TV surfers. Showing pictures of the deceased Anna Nicole in eveningwear is a lot more eyecatching than Scooter Libby walking in and out of a courtroom.)

The problem with all this is that media is a police force in the US. Media exposes corruption in all areas of US life. Liberals AND Conservatives have a right to know when their representatives are being shady. When the media is working for us, we are shown these abuses and we either become enraged and force action or we let it go.

Would our fathers' and grandfathers' media have left this story alone, or would they have covered it in depth? Perhaps even to the point where America as a whole rose up and demanded the removal of Rove and Cheney?

Our media, in the era of 24 hour TV news, lead by fox news, buried the story under Anna Nicole's breasts.

If as a news service you cede your responsibility to reports stories to your audience, you are doing a great disservice to your audience and you have no right to expect them to stay. How can media be bewildered by their audience tuning out to them and looking for people who actually report the news (like John Stewart on his mock news show, The Daily Show)?

America needs harnessed Pirana, not muzzled ones.

I need to remember the word "news" in a name doesn't actually convey any news is actually affliated. "The Weekly World News", "The Weekly World News", "The Weekly World News".....

The surge makes news --- with me anyway

I was struck by something watching the news this week. I saw that the Iraqi covernment is cutting ties with some high ranking politicians who are tight with Al Sadr. This came in at the same time US troops were making good progress through Sadr city.

My first thought? What gives? Sadr City is an area firmly controlled by one of the most powerful local militias in Iraq. Could the US army take Sadr City? Sure, but if that militia didn't go along with it, it would be one of the bigger battles in Iraq.

(Please be advised, I said "take", not "hold". Our military is one of the best thought out, best trained, and best funded militaries in the world. The strength of our military is our ability to take positions, but I think the size of our military does not lend itself to holding positions in Iraq. We can take an Iraqi anthill, but the cost of holding it is an extremely difficult political sell to the American public.)

By all reports, although Sadr City is not an Al Quida hangout, it may be the biggest ant hill in Iraq. But our troops are in and the fighting is nothing like what we were told to expect by reporters in Iraq...and with Al Sadr's people are being forced out of the upper level of government --- losing their voice in political issues --- shouldn't we be seeing more resistance, not less? What gives?

My second thought...A deal has to have been cut. Al Sadr lets the US do their thing for a while in Sadr city. The militia out there cools it and hides all their weapons. The Iraq government can present the image of working to meet Bush's public expectations for the surge, and Al Sadr gets his reward on the back end.

What would Al Sadr's reward be...? Total guess. I'd say part is by letting the US go into Sadr City early and "clear it" it may be less destructive to his people than having the troops go in there at the end when patience is sure to be at a minimum. Al Sadr probably has a deal with the Iraqi government that rewards him with more political power on far end and guarantees him that they will not actively seek him out at the behest of the US. He probably also has a deal with the US government either directly or through the Iraqi government that they will not take action against him if he lets the US do their thing in Sadr City for a while.

I wonder how the relative lack of media coverage to this sits with the white house...?

Welcome to the Swizzle Stick

I am consumed by political thoughts and like to weigh in from time to time to try and get a better understanding of what is actually happening in the world of politics. I don't have all the answers, but when I do hear something that rings true, I'll post it for your consideration.

I don't beleive in shouting down other's opinions --- likewise I hope to keep others who pratice that off this blog.

Please pull up a stool, have a cocktail, and join us.