Apparently some 'high level' Democrats have asked Bill to tone it down with his attacks on Obama. The former president, either because he's listened to the requests or because he's playing on a new strategy seems to have done just as much.
Some see Bill Clinton's actions as being 'out of control' when it comes to falling in with the rest of Hillary's campaign. This has raised the question of what role he would be playing if Hillary makes it to the White House, and if Hillary's staff there would be able to keep him 'under control'.
So when all this is added together, is he actually hurting Hillary's chances to win the nomination?
It's a valid question and I have to say to an extent, I think he is. For the most, I like Bill Clinton. However, he really needs to step back and let Hillary just run. Right now, he's putting himself in the limelight a bit too much, and I think this can potentially turn off voters that might be undecided and wish to see Hillary being Hillary, not Bill Clinton's wife.
The best thing Bill Clinton can do now is to step back, be supportive, be there for Hillary; but be a background figure of sorts. A reminder of the good old days, but also a willing participants in letting Hillary execute the changes that this country needs.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Huckabee and the Constitution
I like Huckabee, at least, from a personal perspective he seems like a pretty cool guy. However a lot of his ideas I disagree with.
I'm glad he's not ashamed of his faith, he shouldn't be. However, to hear him come out about how he would like to change the Constitution be more in line with the Bible was quite scary.
Where is the separation of Church and State? Do people forget how the United States came to be? People had been escaping religious persecution. What happened to the idea of freedom of faith. I think that the President of the United States should be guided by his or her beliefs and ideals. However, when it comes to religious faith I think that the President has no business enforcing anything in that arena.
Everybody should be free to worship as they see fit. Civil laws should be based on a common moral understanding that we all can agree with. But the idea of changing the Constitution to be more like the Bible... The first question would be, more like which part of the Bible. The New Testament? So, lets exclude all Jewish and non-Christian American Citizens? What would making the Constitution more like the Bible accomplish? It's one thing for a President to say 'I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman' and quite another for said President to say that's the way it's going to be, because he or she says so.
The argument is that after all, the majority chose the President, therefore, shouldn't this mean that the President speaks for the majority of the country's citizens? Well, the reality is more complicated and people might vote for a candidate because they best align with their own beliefs, even when they might not agree with everything the President believes.
I don't think the President should have any right or business imposing religious views, concepts or morals on the citizens. To do so is to take us a step closer to a Theocracy and that's not a path I think we want to ake.
I'm glad he's not ashamed of his faith, he shouldn't be. However, to hear him come out about how he would like to change the Constitution be more in line with the Bible was quite scary.
Where is the separation of Church and State? Do people forget how the United States came to be? People had been escaping religious persecution. What happened to the idea of freedom of faith. I think that the President of the United States should be guided by his or her beliefs and ideals. However, when it comes to religious faith I think that the President has no business enforcing anything in that arena.
Everybody should be free to worship as they see fit. Civil laws should be based on a common moral understanding that we all can agree with. But the idea of changing the Constitution to be more like the Bible... The first question would be, more like which part of the Bible. The New Testament? So, lets exclude all Jewish and non-Christian American Citizens? What would making the Constitution more like the Bible accomplish? It's one thing for a President to say 'I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman' and quite another for said President to say that's the way it's going to be, because he or she says so.
The argument is that after all, the majority chose the President, therefore, shouldn't this mean that the President speaks for the majority of the country's citizens? Well, the reality is more complicated and people might vote for a candidate because they best align with their own beliefs, even when they might not agree with everything the President believes.
I don't think the President should have any right or business imposing religious views, concepts or morals on the citizens. To do so is to take us a step closer to a Theocracy and that's not a path I think we want to ake.
Judge rules on Nevada caucuses
Something that I didn't understand about this lawsuit was that if what the Teacher's Union was worried about was the inability of their members to participate in the process if they were working... on a Saturday, why didn't they move to try and get a similar deal to the one the casino workers got? Instead, they decided that blocking the casino workers would bring the equality they desired.
What kind of mentality is that? I can't do something, so here, let me make sure nobody else can? If you feel so passionate about the inability of some of the union members to participate in the process, why wait until now?
The whole thing was just pretty suspect, in particular when four of the plaintiffs behind the lawsuit had originally voted to allow the casinos to serve as caucus locations. The ties to the Clinton Campaign make the whole thing even worse.
It's a shame to see such a move, I'd certainly be all about supporting an effort from the Teacher's Union to allow school workers working that Saturday to caucus at their schools, but all I can do is shake my head at this strange lawsuit they decided to engage in instead.
What kind of mentality is that? I can't do something, so here, let me make sure nobody else can? If you feel so passionate about the inability of some of the union members to participate in the process, why wait until now?
The whole thing was just pretty suspect, in particular when four of the plaintiffs behind the lawsuit had originally voted to allow the casinos to serve as caucus locations. The ties to the Clinton Campaign make the whole thing even worse.
It's a shame to see such a move, I'd certainly be all about supporting an effort from the Teacher's Union to allow school workers working that Saturday to caucus at their schools, but all I can do is shake my head at this strange lawsuit they decided to engage in instead.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Truce
So it seems that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have reached a truce of sorts
for the good of the Democratic Party. About time I say.
Both candidates need to focus on the issues going forward, leave the identity politics out of it and stop snipping at each other. They have different opinions issues, just present them and move on to the next one.
Hopefully said truce will hold. I can't say I'm very happy with the lack of acknowledgment regarding the last comment of Obama's teenage drug use, and the media keeps blowing out of proportion Clinton's comment regarding Dr. King, but hopefully we'll be able to just move on now.
Now, if the unions in Nevada would stop attacking each other...
for the good of the Democratic Party. About time I say.
Both candidates need to focus on the issues going forward, leave the identity politics out of it and stop snipping at each other. They have different opinions issues, just present them and move on to the next one.
Hopefully said truce will hold. I can't say I'm very happy with the lack of acknowledgment regarding the last comment of Obama's teenage drug use, and the media keeps blowing out of proportion Clinton's comment regarding Dr. King, but hopefully we'll be able to just move on now.
Now, if the unions in Nevada would stop attacking each other...
Monday, January 14, 2008
Negative Campaigns
The Democrats have to stop.
Really, just stop. I don't think the people that run these campaigns are as in touch with the voters as they want to think they are. Some pundits claim negative campaigns are necessary, I don't think they are and I think candidates do a disservice to themselves when they resort to these tactics.
Candidates contrasting themselves with other candidates is all good, but when the line is crossed to then put the candidate down in any way, then the whole thing takes on a new meaning. To be fair, the media rarely helps when this happens.
Obama has been very good at not playing the race card, yet, his campaign keeps getting accused of doing so. On the other hand, I really feel that the comments Hillary made about Dr. King are also being taken out of context.
The sad part is that these things are being done not by the candidates, but people supporting them. Still, it is up to the candidates to set the record straight and move on to the actual issues.
And please, this is a message to people supporting Hillary. Stop bringing Obama's past regarding drug use up. He was open about it, wrote about it. Someone already tried to use this against him and it backfired. Stop doing it. It doesn't help Hillary's case at all. She's enough of a candidate that she doesn't need this kind of defense.
All three candidates are excellent candidates. They have differences in opinions on how to handle certain issues, but that's fine. Please, do not fall in a trap that does have the potential to divide the Democrats when the time of the general election is upon us. I heard today on MSNBC a senior adviser of Hillary say she didn't believe for one second that this whole thing could divide the party.
I heard that, and all I could do was roll my eyes.
Really, just stop. I don't think the people that run these campaigns are as in touch with the voters as they want to think they are. Some pundits claim negative campaigns are necessary, I don't think they are and I think candidates do a disservice to themselves when they resort to these tactics.
Candidates contrasting themselves with other candidates is all good, but when the line is crossed to then put the candidate down in any way, then the whole thing takes on a new meaning. To be fair, the media rarely helps when this happens.
Obama has been very good at not playing the race card, yet, his campaign keeps getting accused of doing so. On the other hand, I really feel that the comments Hillary made about Dr. King are also being taken out of context.
The sad part is that these things are being done not by the candidates, but people supporting them. Still, it is up to the candidates to set the record straight and move on to the actual issues.
And please, this is a message to people supporting Hillary. Stop bringing Obama's past regarding drug use up. He was open about it, wrote about it. Someone already tried to use this against him and it backfired. Stop doing it. It doesn't help Hillary's case at all. She's enough of a candidate that she doesn't need this kind of defense.
All three candidates are excellent candidates. They have differences in opinions on how to handle certain issues, but that's fine. Please, do not fall in a trap that does have the potential to divide the Democrats when the time of the general election is upon us. I heard today on MSNBC a senior adviser of Hillary say she didn't believe for one second that this whole thing could divide the party.
I heard that, and all I could do was roll my eyes.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Religious Fanaticism
For some time I've been of the opinion that organized religion is humanity's invention to help ensure civil order. After all, the threat of the afterlife is certainly a strong deterrent when it comes to committing acts against society.
To give some background, I was raised a Catholic and for thirteen years of my life (K-12) I went to a Catholic school. I used to be that kid that would go to mass every single morning. But these days, although I do consider myself a spiritual person I admit I'm not very religious. There's a reason for it, and perhaps I'll discuss it in another entry but for now now let's just say that I have my differences with the Catholic church.
Still, even with such a religious background one thing that has always baffled me, and sometimes annoyed me is religious fanaticism. I'm not talking about being observant of your faith here. If you have your faith and you stick to it, I respect that. I'm talking about instances where religion seems to override what I like to label the 'collective' common sense. Now, granted, common sense is actually a subjective term. Different cultures have different things they consider common sense.
But, lets cut to the chase here. At the core the issue I'm concerned about is tolerance. I like to believe that we were given free will for a reason. That if god had wanted me to follow just one path, that would have been the option given. But... it was not. The argument is usually that God wants you to choose the right path. Well, who is to say what the right path is?
No, I believe that reasoning is what separates us from animals. Call it what you will, soul, reasoning mind, in the end it amounts to the same. We're able to decide which way to go. I like to believe that there is a final destination, but, unlike many groups I think there are many different paths leading there.
The idea of killing in the name of God, the idea of rejecting others because they have different beliefs those are concepts that bother me to no end. When I hear about incidents of this nature it makes me want to scream, to call at those involved to tell them to listen. To listen. So many times we fail to do that. We find ourselves so involved in our own thoughts, in our own beliefs that we fail to consider those around you, those that in the end we share this planet with.
If people were more willing to do a bit more of listening than telling each other what they are to think, I think the world would be just a bit of a better place.
To give some background, I was raised a Catholic and for thirteen years of my life (K-12) I went to a Catholic school. I used to be that kid that would go to mass every single morning. But these days, although I do consider myself a spiritual person I admit I'm not very religious. There's a reason for it, and perhaps I'll discuss it in another entry but for now now let's just say that I have my differences with the Catholic church.
Still, even with such a religious background one thing that has always baffled me, and sometimes annoyed me is religious fanaticism. I'm not talking about being observant of your faith here. If you have your faith and you stick to it, I respect that. I'm talking about instances where religion seems to override what I like to label the 'collective' common sense. Now, granted, common sense is actually a subjective term. Different cultures have different things they consider common sense.
But, lets cut to the chase here. At the core the issue I'm concerned about is tolerance. I like to believe that we were given free will for a reason. That if god had wanted me to follow just one path, that would have been the option given. But... it was not. The argument is usually that God wants you to choose the right path. Well, who is to say what the right path is?
No, I believe that reasoning is what separates us from animals. Call it what you will, soul, reasoning mind, in the end it amounts to the same. We're able to decide which way to go. I like to believe that there is a final destination, but, unlike many groups I think there are many different paths leading there.
The idea of killing in the name of God, the idea of rejecting others because they have different beliefs those are concepts that bother me to no end. When I hear about incidents of this nature it makes me want to scream, to call at those involved to tell them to listen. To listen. So many times we fail to do that. We find ourselves so involved in our own thoughts, in our own beliefs that we fail to consider those around you, those that in the end we share this planet with.
If people were more willing to do a bit more of listening than telling each other what they are to think, I think the world would be just a bit of a better place.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Kerry hurts Obama?
After Senator Kerry's endorsement of Senator Obama, I've seen a few opinions floating around that this could actually hurt the hopeful Democrat presidential candidate.
It's hard to tell, Kerry is not exactly super popular, in particular when it comes to the state of South Carolina. That said, he does represent the 'experience' and 'establishment' and his support could help fortify what is seen as one of Obama's weaknesses, the experience factor.
In addition to this, one has to question the timing and location for Senator Kerry to do this. It's no secret that he and Edwards haven't been all warm and cozy since the 2004 election. Differences in how to best run the campaign led to the two not liking each other much. With South Carolina being one of the states that Edwards was expected to do relatively well, the whole thing makes me frown a little.
I'm not suggesting Kerry is trying to attack Edwards, but, I have to admit the whole thing makes me feel kind of blah.
In the end, I don't think Kerry's endorsement is going to hurt Obama's chances, although it'll be interesting to see how the other campaigns spin the situation. I mostly hope that, like now former presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has asked, the Democrats focus on running positive campaigns and don't fall into the trap of slinging mud at each other, potentially damaging the Democrats chance of getting to the White House.
It's hard to tell, Kerry is not exactly super popular, in particular when it comes to the state of South Carolina. That said, he does represent the 'experience' and 'establishment' and his support could help fortify what is seen as one of Obama's weaknesses, the experience factor.
In addition to this, one has to question the timing and location for Senator Kerry to do this. It's no secret that he and Edwards haven't been all warm and cozy since the 2004 election. Differences in how to best run the campaign led to the two not liking each other much. With South Carolina being one of the states that Edwards was expected to do relatively well, the whole thing makes me frown a little.
I'm not suggesting Kerry is trying to attack Edwards, but, I have to admit the whole thing makes me feel kind of blah.
In the end, I don't think Kerry's endorsement is going to hurt Obama's chances, although it'll be interesting to see how the other campaigns spin the situation. I mostly hope that, like now former presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has asked, the Democrats focus on running positive campaigns and don't fall into the trap of slinging mud at each other, potentially damaging the Democrats chance of getting to the White House.
Video Clip of the Week - January 11 2008
I'm planning to do this every Friday, mostly for my own amusement. In any case, here's the clip of the week!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Children
So while watching the news this morning, I catch one piece on a couple of children found dead at the second level of the house. The newscast went on to mention that a woman opened the door for the police, and talked about her calmed demeanor. The newscast stated that this woman might be the mother of the children, but apparently no details have been released by the police on it yet.
A second news story then came up, talking about a father that threw his four children off a bridge... because he had an argument with his wife.
As I listen to these stories, I know I shouldn't be surprised. I know things like this happen, but the question burned into my mind is... why? What is going on through the heads of these people. What wrong did the children do? Not knowing the details I'm still pretty sure the answer is 'nothing'. Sometimes, it makes me wonder if the world's gone crazy.
There's gotta be something wrong with you when you lash at children like that. It makes me angry, upset but more than anything sad. Having a daughter of my own, I cringe at the thought of anyone doing anything to her.
The whole thing just makes me extremely sad.
A second news story then came up, talking about a father that threw his four children off a bridge... because he had an argument with his wife.
As I listen to these stories, I know I shouldn't be surprised. I know things like this happen, but the question burned into my mind is... why? What is going on through the heads of these people. What wrong did the children do? Not knowing the details I'm still pretty sure the answer is 'nothing'. Sometimes, it makes me wonder if the world's gone crazy.
There's gotta be something wrong with you when you lash at children like that. It makes me angry, upset but more than anything sad. Having a daughter of my own, I cringe at the thought of anyone doing anything to her.
The whole thing just makes me extremely sad.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Lets talk about polls...
I keep hearing that the pollsters and the pundits got it all wrong. They got it all wrong, they got it all wrong.
So I guess, lets look at what happened yesterday. The Exit Polls (ironic) tell some of the story, the amount of support Hillary received from women voters is undeniable. Chris Matthews from MSNBC's Hardball mentioned today on Morning Joe that he believed the people being polled the past few days just lied about it. He mentioned white voters not wanting to accept publicly that they wouldn't vote for Obama.
A dangerous statement, and one that I hope Obama stays as far away from as possible.
Now, there might be a certain truth to what Chris said, but I think it actually goes beyond that. With the Economy being the main issue concerning NH voters, I believe the NH people simply went with the candidate that they felt offered the most stability. The question of change took a second seat to the issues that people feel affect us today.
Obama's message certainly resonates with young people, it resonates at a level that simply makes you believe. But I can't deny the comfort and security that Hillary offers. Is that image of stability that could end up giving her the Democratic nomination.
In addition I think these results send one more message. The race is not over. People want to see debates, they want to see what the candidates have to offer. No candidate is going to get a free pass to the White House, and they're going to have to earn their place in the general election. This is a good thing.
So, were the polls wrong? I don't think so. At least, not in the way most people would think. I think they speak to the fact people want change. They want to believe. But, they don't like being told what to think or how they'll vote. And, they proved this with their voting.
Hopefully as we go forward with this process the candidates can stick to something Obama mentioned in the NH debate. They can disagree, without being disagreeable.
So I guess, lets look at what happened yesterday. The Exit Polls (ironic) tell some of the story, the amount of support Hillary received from women voters is undeniable. Chris Matthews from MSNBC's Hardball mentioned today on Morning Joe that he believed the people being polled the past few days just lied about it. He mentioned white voters not wanting to accept publicly that they wouldn't vote for Obama.
A dangerous statement, and one that I hope Obama stays as far away from as possible.
Now, there might be a certain truth to what Chris said, but I think it actually goes beyond that. With the Economy being the main issue concerning NH voters, I believe the NH people simply went with the candidate that they felt offered the most stability. The question of change took a second seat to the issues that people feel affect us today.
Obama's message certainly resonates with young people, it resonates at a level that simply makes you believe. But I can't deny the comfort and security that Hillary offers. Is that image of stability that could end up giving her the Democratic nomination.
In addition I think these results send one more message. The race is not over. People want to see debates, they want to see what the candidates have to offer. No candidate is going to get a free pass to the White House, and they're going to have to earn their place in the general election. This is a good thing.
So, were the polls wrong? I don't think so. At least, not in the way most people would think. I think they speak to the fact people want change. They want to believe. But, they don't like being told what to think or how they'll vote. And, they proved this with their voting.
Hopefully as we go forward with this process the candidates can stick to something Obama mentioned in the NH debate. They can disagree, without being disagreeable.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
"... I found my own voice..."
The question is, has she?
As I've watched Clinton through this process, I've continued to feel that she needs to reach out to the individuals. Simply put, she needs to come across as more real.
Whatever she might say, I don't think her husband is helping her. Don't misunderstand, I don't hate Bill, but, some of the things I've heard him say just make me roll my eyes.
Obama is running on the basis of giving people an ideal. It's hard to fight against that, and Iowa was probably a wake-up call for Clinton. In NH, the race was quite close. She won, but as I've said in another post, Obama is not someone to be ignored.
Clinton, I feel, needs to make us believe in her. Yes, she has experience, but one could argue so did Bush when he entered his second term. She now claims to be an agent of change, and to be fair I'm almost inclined to believe her. I want to believe her. But, then Bill opens his mouth and... I roll my eyes.
She needs to stand on her own. Bill needs to shut up for a while. She needs to prove, that she's not just another Clinton. She's Hillary. She's different and she's here to make things better. I think she can do this, but I don't think she's actually done it yet.
I do admit that her recent vulnerable moment touched me. I've heard from some that they feel she can't share things like that, because as a woman she needs to make sure to project herself as a strong being. I agree that she must be strong, but I think that after everything that's happened in her life it would he hard to argue that point. No. I think she needs to show us that she cares, not only tells us, show us and that moment when she almost broke down. That was it. That was Hillary, not Clinton.
Then, of course, Bill opened his mouth and I rolled my eyes.
She's found her voice. I hope, for her sake, that she's honest with that statement. I do hope she's found her voice. I think she has a lot of potential, I think she can potentially deliver. But, if she's truly found her voice, I think she needs to make sure is not silenced by those around her.
She just needs to be Hillary.
As I've watched Clinton through this process, I've continued to feel that she needs to reach out to the individuals. Simply put, she needs to come across as more real.
Whatever she might say, I don't think her husband is helping her. Don't misunderstand, I don't hate Bill, but, some of the things I've heard him say just make me roll my eyes.
Obama is running on the basis of giving people an ideal. It's hard to fight against that, and Iowa was probably a wake-up call for Clinton. In NH, the race was quite close. She won, but as I've said in another post, Obama is not someone to be ignored.
Clinton, I feel, needs to make us believe in her. Yes, she has experience, but one could argue so did Bush when he entered his second term. She now claims to be an agent of change, and to be fair I'm almost inclined to believe her. I want to believe her. But, then Bill opens his mouth and... I roll my eyes.
She needs to stand on her own. Bill needs to shut up for a while. She needs to prove, that she's not just another Clinton. She's Hillary. She's different and she's here to make things better. I think she can do this, but I don't think she's actually done it yet.
I do admit that her recent vulnerable moment touched me. I've heard from some that they feel she can't share things like that, because as a woman she needs to make sure to project herself as a strong being. I agree that she must be strong, but I think that after everything that's happened in her life it would he hard to argue that point. No. I think she needs to show us that she cares, not only tells us, show us and that moment when she almost broke down. That was it. That was Hillary, not Clinton.
Then, of course, Bill opened his mouth and I rolled my eyes.
She's found her voice. I hope, for her sake, that she's honest with that statement. I do hope she's found her voice. I think she has a lot of potential, I think she can potentially deliver. But, if she's truly found her voice, I think she needs to make sure is not silenced by those around her.
She just needs to be Hillary.
Obama's Speech in NH and some other musings...
"We can disagree without being disagreeable."
I find that line so inspiring and important. It's something that is so easy to forget in politics. Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her win, but with Obama being so close she now has to realize -and- deal with the fact that he is a serious option.
There has been some talk about an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. Personally, I like the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I do recognize that a ticket with the two candidates currently at the lead would certainly be a powerful pair when the time for the general election is upon us.
If I remember correctly, both Obama and Clinton have stated they don't intend to run for the Vice-Presidency. I'd urge them to reconsider this position. I feel Obama would be more likely to do so, as I think Clinton is a bit more arrogant in that regard. I don't use arrogant in a completely negative way, mind you. I'm just not sure if she could handle not being the one at the top.
Although I think Obama would make a good President, I also think he would be a great Vice-President. Between the message of change he brings, and the support of older Democrats that Hillary seems to have... yes, it's certainly a powerful idea to see those two running together.
I find that line so inspiring and important. It's something that is so easy to forget in politics. Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her win, but with Obama being so close she now has to realize -and- deal with the fact that he is a serious option.
There has been some talk about an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket. Personally, I like the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I do recognize that a ticket with the two candidates currently at the lead would certainly be a powerful pair when the time for the general election is upon us.
If I remember correctly, both Obama and Clinton have stated they don't intend to run for the Vice-Presidency. I'd urge them to reconsider this position. I feel Obama would be more likely to do so, as I think Clinton is a bit more arrogant in that regard. I don't use arrogant in a completely negative way, mind you. I'm just not sure if she could handle not being the one at the top.
Although I think Obama would make a good President, I also think he would be a great Vice-President. Between the message of change he brings, and the support of older Democrats that Hillary seems to have... yes, it's certainly a powerful idea to see those two running together.
New Hampshire Primary
What an exciting time. As I sit here taking care of my daughter and following the primary on MSNBC, I can't help but get excited about the idea of voting this year. The message of change resonates so much with me, even though I see it used more and more by more candidates as their way to try and improve their ratings.
Change. We need change. We need a new direction. I'm not going to lie, I consider myself a Democrat and I find myself leaning towards both Obama and Edwards as my favorite candidates. I don't hate Hillary, though.
If anything, I'm pleased at the choices available and look forward to what is to come.
Change. We need change. We need a new direction. I'm not going to lie, I consider myself a Democrat and I find myself leaning towards both Obama and Edwards as my favorite candidates. I don't hate Hillary, though.
If anything, I'm pleased at the choices available and look forward to what is to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
