About Me

Name:Deirdre
Location: Lanham, MD
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

Hillary is NOT Remorseful of her vote on the Iraq War.

In one of the earlier debates Hillary told Tim Russert that she wish she could take her vote for the war back and that she was sorry she had cast it.  However, in my opinion a person who is truly sorry for voting for the war would use more prudence before starting another war.  NOT SO for Hillary Clinton ... when asked what her response would be if Iran attacked Israel ..... she said "We would obliterate them."  Obliteration implies war ... NUCLEAR war ... in a split second Hillary made the decision that we would go to war .... this does not sound like someone who has learned something from their vote to go to war with Iraq ... this sounds like something Bush would say ... remember his "Bring It On!!!" and "Axis of Evil."    I believe Obama described this as Cowboy Politics ... We don't need Cowboys or Cowgirls in the white house.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Unelectable" is a label as dangerous as the label "N*gger"

Senator Clinton is trying to convince the Superdelegates that they should not nominate Obama because allegedly he is unelectable.  I find Clinton's use of the word 'unelectable' offensive and I find the term "unelectable" as it is being applied to Obama as dangerous as labeling him a "N*gger." Both words have a negative generational impact.

The Basis for Clinton's 'unelectable' argument is that Obama cannot attract white blue-collar workers.  Taken in its ugliest sense, Clinton's argument says white blue-collar workers won't vote for a black man therefore the black man is unelectable. Tonight on CNN the pundits tried to tie Obama's alleged unelectability on the fact that his Pastor was Reverend Wright.  But I think tying someone's race or religion to whether they can be nominated for President... I find that to be discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, and I am not one that would likely interject race into an argument.  But I think this situation would apply not just to Blacks, but Hispanics, Indians, Asians, Muslims and anyone not white or not practicing the same religion as white blue-collar workers.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "Unelectable" as  "Being such that election, as to high office, is difficult or impossible: The candidate's private life rendered him unelectable. "

Based on the racial history of this country, I think the black community has always had an unspoken knowledge that it was difficult or impossible for a black person to become president.  In fact, in my opinion, black people did not take Obama seriously until white people took Obama seriously.

However it is one thing to implicitly know that because of one's race they are unelectable, it is another for the country to confirm and verbalize it out loud.  How can you tell an entire generation and future generations to come that they can be participants in this society, must pay taxes, will be drafted to serve in a war if a draft is issued, they are equal in all respects but unelectable?  That is exactly what will happen if Obama is deemed unelectable.  And 'unelectable' will be the new 'N*gger." If Obama is labeled unelectable, then an entire black generation and black generations to come will be labled unelectable.  After all, that which would make Obama unelectable according to Clinton's argument or even CNN's argument are the same traits shared by other black people ...a) they are black and b)if they go to a Baptist, AME or christian church, there is a high probablity that a 20 year review of their pastor's sermons will resemble sermons of Rev. Wrights.  Heck, my former pastor was arrested and jailed for arson after he allegedly tried to burn his mistress' house down.  How does his actions reflect upon me.  Do I believe that a) one should have a mistress and b) one should try to burn her house down?  If the standards Obama had to face were applied to me, I might not get a particular job because people believe my pastor's words represent my beliefs. 

Thus if Obama is labeled unelectable then any white candidate will always be able to argue that a black candidate is unelectable because white blue-collar workers don't share the same values as black people .... if black people are unelectable then what about the other races .... are hispanics electable ... would white blue-collar workers believe Hispancis share their values ... what about asians ... would white blue-collar workers believe Asians share their values ...what about muslims ... would white blue-collar workers believe that muslims share their values?  

I don't think Hillary should be given the nomination simply because she can attract white-blue collar workers.  Because if Hillary is the nominee I truly believe that she will not win back the black vote ... not just because she brought Obama down, but in bringing Obama down she will have brought all black people down.  I can't imagine any black person voting for Hillary or any other person who has crushed their child's dreams, who have told their child they cannot aspire to the higest position in America because of the color of their skin or their religious affiliation.... I don't see any black mother whose job it is to build her child's self-esteem voting for somone who has crushed their child's self-esteem. 

I think this very argument is truly why I don't support a two-party system.  I think anyone who wants to run for President should be an independent and toss their name in the hat in a general election.  Racial politics is only significant in a two-party system.  So superdelegates, before you try to take the nomination from Obama you need to realize that neither of your candidates will be electable if Obama is deemed unelectable, and Democrats will lose not only in November but in years to come.  Black people may be forgiving when you hurt them, but when you hurt their children ... they are not so forgiving.

This concept of unelectable authored by the Clintons has lasting and negative implications, and I don't know if Rep. Clybourne was referring to this scenario when he said their will be permanent damage between the black community and the Clintons .. but I believe that if Obama is labeled unelectable, there will be permanent damage between Black people and America ...  there will be permanent damage period.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HILLARY IS CORRUPTING OUR CHILDREN

I think its sad what this primary is doing to our children.  Lest we forget, we are the role models for our children.  By Hillary winning last night it showed our children that you can get ahead by tearing others down, cheating, manipulating and all of those things that a moral society teaches children is wrong.   I don't think any parent who voted for Hillary in PA can complain when the soccer coach tells them that their kid stole the other team's equipment, or when the little league coach tells them that their child was upset with a loss and took a bat and beat another kid unconscious.

I think we have more than a Presidential primary at stake here.  I think our votes are answering the unspoken election question of the moral fabric of our society.  Will you vote for a society without morals, where anything goes, and you get ahead by tearing others down ... or do we want a society full of hope, fairness, dignity and prosperity?

I think if Clinton won the nomination we would have a choice between a President who will stay 100 years in Iraq or a President who will start a nuclear war ... just to show how tough she is.

In my opinion, toughness has nothing to do with how well you throw a punch, but has everything to do with how well you show restraint and wisdom.  

I pray for this country and I pray for this world ... because we are headed in the wrong direction if we as a nation join Hillary on her low road to ego-dom.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vision vs. Experience

Can anyone tell me what was necessary to invent the lightbulb ... vision or experience?  What was necessary to invent the wheel... vision or experience?  What was necessary to invent the telephone ... vision or experience?  My point ... when we want to keep doing things the same ... then we need someone with the most experience doing things the same ... but to accomplish change ... we need someone with vision.  That is why Barack Obama is the best candidate .. he has something Hillary lacks ... vision.  Hillary may have experience (which is questionable)... but her experience is limited to doing things the way things have always been done ... Hillary's experience cannot give her vision, and it cannot cause her to inspire people to work with her to manifest a vision... there is a time and place for everything ... what Hillary has to offer is just not needed in the white house at this time ...She says she wants to fight for us ... but it was fighting that got us into this predicament ... after all Bush is a fighter, McCain is a fighter and we see where fighters get us.  The greatest accomplishments that have propelled the world forward in a positive direction have come from people with vision, all inventions and new ways to do things come from people with vision .. NOT people with experience ... People with experience are limited by their experience as experience is not a prerequisite for invention and improvement.  Obama is a diplomat with a vision ...  and we need him right now.  
Tags: obama   clinton  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHITE BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS IN PA ARE RACIST!!!!

Now that I have your attention .... let me correct your mindset.  White blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania are NOT racist, at least not the majority of them.  However everytime I hear the media say that white blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania are not going to vote for Obama, what they are really saying is "code speak" for "white blue-collar workers are racist and they will never vote for a black man."  The truth is that the media, Hillary Clinton, and a small body of racists throughout the U.S. are hoping that they can continue divisive politics by interjecting race into this election; these people are projecting their personal feelings and desires regarding their racist belief onto the white blue-collar workers in PA.  When the media, Hillary Clinton and the small body of racists say that White blue-collar workers are not going to vote for Obama, that is demeaning and insulting to White blue-collar workers; it implies that White blue-collar workers are too stupid to vote on the issues and will only vote on race.  Now we know some people are that stupid, after all Bush got elected didn't he?   But the fact is, White blue-collar workers in PA are not racist, but the people pushing that idea ARE racist. 

The White blue-collar workers in PA can be categorized, much like White blue-collar workers all over the world ... three categories:  a)white blue-collar workers who make things happen; b) white blue collar workers who let things happen; and c) white blue-collar workers who wonder .... What Happened? 

My question to the White  blue-collar workers in PA is simple ... what kind of person are you?  One who makes things happen? as in voting for Obama.  One who lets things happen? as in letting the media and pundits label you as racist .... or One who wonders .... What Happened? as in you don't have a clue about what I am blogging about!

White blue-collar workers in PA --- don't let people define you.... you have the power to make a difference ... and make a change that will improve your life.  So on April 22nd do it!!! and do it simply because you can.  YES YOU CAN!!!!!

Tags: RACIST REV  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Subtle Art of Persuasion

Someone asked me what I think of Rev. Wright's comments which aired on Fox News.  I don’t think Rev. Wright was being racist, per se, I think he was tailoring his message to a specific audience of low income black people for the purpose of giving them a message in a language they can understand ...

 “Vote for Barack Obama because he is like us and don’t vote for Hillary because she is not like us.”  

Ironically, I believe the only reason that the Rev. Wright excerpts were compiled and aired on National TV is because Hillary supporters (Fox News) are trying to do the exact same thing ….  convey a message to white people in a language they can understand ...

 “Don’t vote for Barack Obama, because he is not like us [he is a black separatist], vote for Hillary Clinton because she is [white] just like us.   For some people the anti-Obama message will be successful, but I think people with good insight will see the video of Rev. Wright’s comments for what they really are --- a strategy by Hillary supporters to separate white voters from Barack Obama.  The reason that I did not find Rev. Wright’s videos offensive, is because I was not part of the audience whom the excerpted video was intended to offend, plus I was a communications major and studied the very techniques used in the video … techniques to invoke feelings in and elicit response from people.  If I was given a homework assignment that gave me 2 minutes to paint any pastor in the world as a racist, I could go into any one of the candidate’s churches, even your church and come out with enough material to paint your Pastor as a racist, frankly any student that has taken video editing 101 could do it.    

Most people don’t understand the power and influence of the media, and most people don’t recognize when they are being manipulated. But media savvy people like the ones at Fox News understand that piecing excerpts of Rev. Wright’s sermons in the manner that they did is powerful enough to influence human behavior [for their friend Hillary] and boost their own ratings [another version of the two for one that Hillary talks about].   Let’s not forget these News outlets must make a living too.  The techniques used to create the Rev. Wrights excerpts were the same subtle techniques used to manipulate people into buying one brand of cereal instead of another.   

The reason black people were not offended by the Rev. Wright video, is because blacks were not the intended audience.  Black people understand the Black Church, the method in which Black Preachers preach, and Black culture.  It was white people that were the intended audience of this video and the video was designed to have a shock value and to invoke basic emotions of fear and pride in the white identity.  Many white people have never been to a Black Church, have never seen a Black Preacher Preach, and don’t understand black culture, which includes Black people still struggling to heal generational wounds from slavery and jim crow laws.

In my opinion, the reason white people are offended is because the producers of the video did their job, offend white people.  Keep in mind, Rev. Wright’s intention was not to offend white people, he did not preach this sermon to a white audience.  Rev. Wright was speaking to a black audience in a language black people understand.  This is not to say that intelligent people were not in the audience, but the rule of journalism is to write and speak in a manner that an 8th grader can understand regardless of the composition of the audience.  I imagine that most people in the church that day have been called a n*gger at some point in their life, so they would not have had an overwhelming urge to quit the church or denounce the Reverend.  I imagine if they applied for a job ten years later and learned that they were being judged by words their pastor said ten years earlier, I imagine at that time they would explain that they are not a racist, but I can’t imagine that any black person would have done any denouncing, rejecting or disassociating before that point because Rev. Wright was not conveying a message to promote separatism.  He was conveying a message in a language his audience understood … that is that Hillary can never understand the feeling that a black person gets after they have been called a n*gger.  As hard as it may be for some to swallow, it is a true statement, not a racist one.   I think if white people were to really examine the video, they would find that it is Rev. Wright’s  presentation that is offensive, and not necessarily his words.  If you don’t believe me try this test … Close your eyes and imagine for a moment that Rev. Wright is a white man and that in a very respectful manner he said “Hillary does not know what it is like to be a black man.” Do you think the statement bears any truth?  Would you still think the remark was racist if a white man made the remark in a respectful manner?  

What if a white man, still being respectful said,“Hillary does not know what it is like to be called a n*gger.” Would you think the statement bears any truth?  Would the white man be a racist for making this statement?

We heard that Rev. Wright is a former U.S. Marine.  I think it is fair to assume that he has been involved in wars and has more first hand knowledge of how America has acted in other countries, than people who have not put their life on the line for this country.  If Rev. Wright had said in a respectful manner that during his tour as a U.S. Marine, he participated in the bombing of other countries.  Would you still think he was Anti-American?  What if  Rev. Wright said in a respectful manner that his interpretation of the Bible says that anyone who kills the innocent will be damned and that instead of blessing America, it is his opinion that God is going to damn America for killing innocent people … is this really an anti-American sentiment or just the opinion of a citizen who the country gives the right of free speech?  Does God render punishment for  killing innocent people?  Has America killed innocent people?

Ultimately the way we each individually react to Rev. Wright’s comments will depend on our frame of reference, our understanding of communication and the art of persuasion, our willingness to face the truth, and our political objectives.  For me, I can’t jump to any conclusion about Rev. Wright because I don’t have enough information to.  All I have is 2 minutes out of 30 years worth of sermons that have been cut and paste and aired on National TV for the sole purpose of painting Rev. Wright as a racist.

Now to the question of whether I believe Obama knew what his Pastor said, I think Barack Obama knew that his Pastor communicated to the congregation in a language members understand, (which some people would find offensive) but I believe Obama when he said he was not there for the sermons in question. I believe he does not support the divisive tone of the sermons and I believe he will do everything in his power to unify this Country and give us a better standing in this world. 

I believe Obama, because of my own experience with church.  In 1973, I was 11 years old and my friend invited me to go to church with her.  My family was poor and my best outfit was a pants suit that my mother made.  She could have made a skirt suit, but she made pants so that my legs could be warm in the winter. Well I went to the Christian church with my friend wearing the pants suit.  When I got to the door, the woman at the door said my friend could come in, but that I could not because I was wearing pants.  So my friend went in and I went home.  On the way home I asked myself would Jesus have turned me away.  Jesus answered "No.  I would have let you in. " From that time until approximately 1995 I never stepped foot into a Church because I thought they were all hypocrites.  Then I was required to take a Christian ethics course in college.  I explained to my teacher that I did not go to church because I thought churches were full of hypocrites.  My teacher said something so astounding to me, that it made me go back to church.  She said “Christians trust in the Lord Jesus Christ they do not trust in man.  Christians receive salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, they do not receive salvation through man.” No matter what church you walk into you will find men, women, ministers and pastors all who fall short of the Glory of God,  but we remember this  … man is merely the vessel through whom God speaks and operates, so it is quite possible for a man of God to speak God’s words, but yet fall short of the Glory of God.  When you go to church, you are going to hear God’s word and to praise God.  You are not going to church to praise the man who is delivering the message of God.

My teacher’s words made it possible for me to go to Church and hear and discern God’s message, while at the same time looking past, but praying for the weaknesses and faults of my pastor.  There are many things that my pastor has said that I don’t believe or agree with, and frankly are not the word of God.   But that does not stop me from going to church to listen to his sermons, because I never know, God might speak through him that day.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DO WE PARTICIPATE IN A POLITICS OF CYNICISM? OR DO WE PARTICIPATE IN A POLITICS OF HOPE?

Last night I watched in astonishment as Sean Hannity of Fox’s Hannity and Colmes Show called for Senator Obama to drop out of the race for President and to resign his seat as Senator after Hannity played a tape of Obama’s pastor, who is a former United States Marine, making what some believe to be racist, anti-American remarks.  Fox News, touts slogans like “We report, You Decide, and  “Fair and Balanced,” but there was nothing fair or balanced in last nights commentary or Hannity’s call for Senator Obama to drop out of the race.  Hannity, however,  did establish one thing ... he brought clarity to Obama's platform and underscored the need for Americans to vote for Obama. 

As Hannity pointed out there are people in America who are perceived as racists, whether it be Rev. Wright or call-in listeners on Hannity's own conservative talk show.  The fact of the matter is racists exists in America and we need to get over it.    During this race I have seen and heard White racists, Black racists, Latino racists and Asain racists.    Obama's platform is important to all of these racists and to all Americans because he challenges us to come together to manifest a request one voiced by Rodney King several years ago "Can't we all just get along?"  

I am amazed at the pettyness that I have seen displayed on Fox News and frankly other shows like MSNBC's Morning Joe which operate in poor taste and embody a production quality that rivals a Jerry Springer show or the cover of Enquirer Magazine.  Is this really what American Politics has been reduced to?  Are these really the type of people who influence our country?  If anyone truly understands the power of the media, the thought of shows like Hannity's that is designed to manipulate the public is a lot more scary to me than any hatemongering, black or white.

Obama has a video on "youtube" called "Obama: One Voice."  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg)  I challenge America, the haters and supporters alike  to listen to it .  It is a call for Americans, all Americans, to heal the black/white divide.   I have added the words to the tape below, but listening to it is much more powerful.  It is easy to hate and easy to divide, but now is the time to start healing.

The words to the speech are below. 

“Now even as we speak there are those who are preparing to divide us.  The spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who emprace the politics of “anything goes.”  Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America , and a conservative America, there is the United States of America.  There is not a Black America, and a White America, and  Latino America, an Asian America,  there is the United States of America.  The Pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our Country into red States and blue States, Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats, but I’ve got news for them too.  We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like Federal Agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.  We coach little league in the Blue states and yes, we got some gay friends in the red states.  There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.  We are one people; all of us pledging alliegance to the stars and stripes.  All of us defending the United States of America.  

In the end …in the end  …. in the end. that is what this election is all about.  Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? 

Once voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city and if it can change a city, it can change a state and if it can change a state , it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation it can change the world.. YOUR VOICE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.  Please write Fox News and let them know that we choose to participate in a politics of hope and that we will not tolerate divisive politics and we will not patronize divisive media.

 

Thank you.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Saturday Night Live become a Political Action Committee?

Has the comedy show "Saturday Night Live" (SNL) become a Political Action Committee(PAC) in disguise? Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election. 

No one would argue that the cost to produce just one SNL political skit exceeds $1,000.  But the real questions are do SNL's political skits influence the Presidential election? And if so, are these skits written for the purpose of influencing the Presidential election?  I believe "Yes" and "Yes," respectively.  It seems to me that Saturday Night Live's political skits have become Swift-Boat in nature.  The skits started out attacking the Media for its coverage of Barack Obama's Campaign, but after criticism from Hillary Clinton, have evolved into outright attacks against Obama. 

When SNL airs these political skits, they know that these skits will be used by mainstream Media to draw distinctions between the candidates and, more likely than not, used by Hillary Clinton to gain an elective edge.  This is exemplified by the fact that during a National Debate, Clinton asked "Did you see Saturday Night Live? ... maybe we should give Barack a pillow."  The very next week in response to Hillary's complaint and the public's perception that Hillary's personality is harsh and she is not likeable, SNL produced a skit where they addressed Hillary's personality.  In the skit they said "*itches get things done" then followed with a call to Ohio and Texas to vote for Hillary.  During the same week Rush Limbaugh made a call to his talk show listeners to  go out and vote for Hillary, this was followed up by Bill Clinton appearing on the Rush Limbaugh show with a subtle appeal to Rush's listeners to vote for Hillary. Ohio and Texas then voted for Hillary.  More recently a U.S. Representative, a man who sits in a position of public trust was heard making racist, defamatory and derogatory remarks in his official capacity on a radio talk show for the purpose of influencing the Presidential election.  Now, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I don't watch Saturday Night Live,  I only became aware of these incidents when I turn on primetime news expecting to hear news, commentary and analysis about the election, but instead was forced to  watch comedy shows and listen to talk shows that were calling on people to make  a political decision.

Now I don't have anything against comedy or talk shows that incorporate politics without bias, but I do have a problem with them being incorporated, on a regular basis, into prime-time news.  My point is simply this ... if Comedy Shows or Talk Shows are going to get into the business of advocacy, then there needs to be some disclosures to this fact.  In other words, if Saturday Night Live wants to walk like a PAC and talk like a PAC, by making a call to Ohio and Texas to vote for one candidate over the other, then they need to disclose themselves as a PAC and be regulated. 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Call to Diminish Power of Superdelegates and help Obama Win the Election

As usual, Politicians are mucking up our lives with divisive Politics that will result in a third term of President Bush, and the American people will suffer another 8 years. Just why should superdelegate votes be more important than your own?  The Politicians want us to fear the splitting of the democratic party, but an inevitable split of the democratic party is good for Americans if it happens now as opposed to later. So, please join me in the urgency of NOW, in neutralizing the Superdelegates and ensuring that Barack Obama wins the election by cutting and pasting the text below and sending it in an email to Barack Obama; then send this email to all of your friends and relatives and ask them to do the same. To send an email to Obama go to his website at www.barackobama.com, go to the bottom of the page and click the "Contact Us" button. Scroll down to the end of the page and click the "Other thoughts and Questions" button and a data-entry screen will appear allowing you to send the message below to Obama. 

***CUT AND PASTE THE FOLLOWING TEXT:

Dear Senator Obama,
We, the people request that you call a meeting of the Superdelegates right away and from a BOLD POSITION of Strength state: 

"Pundits in the News Media are predicting a Democratic Train Wreck.  Republicans are salivating.  I think that the Democratic Party will surely split and lose respect, dignity, and a large block of voters no matter how we handle this current crisis. Therefore, I think it is in the best interest of all Democrats, if the party splits sooner rather than later, because it gives us a chance, actually a better chance of defeating McCain in November. Along these lines ...I think the problems of the Democratic Party can best be solved by having Obama run as an Independent. 

I, Barack Obama have decided that I WILL be a candidate on the Presidential General Election ballot in November.  I would like to be on the Ballot as the Democratic Nominee, but I also have the option of being on the ballot as an Independent.  If I am forced to go on the ballot as an Independent, Hillary will not win the big states because my voters will follow me, and the Democrats will surely lose the race.  In addition Hillary will have to fight a two-front war against two strong candidates, me and McCain, and she doesn't have the resources to do it ... no  money, no  voters, and no vision.  Now I realize that I will also have to fight a two-front war, but I am in a better position to fight a two-front war against Hillary and McCain than they are to fight a two-front war against me.  Why? 

First, I have shown that I can raise $55 Million in one month, more than any candidate.  McCain will have to spend a limited $85 million according to FEC Financing guidelines on a two-front war.  If I resign as a democrat and become independent, I will not be bound to any agreement made as a democrat to limit my campaign to the FEC Financing limits. 

Second, I have shown that I can bring new and enthusiastic people into the process: Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I can build a coaltion that will not only enable me to keep my voter base, but I will eat into both Hillary and McCain's voter base.  In fact as an Independent, I have a better chance of winning the Presidential race because the votes will be split 3 ways instead of two, and I am the strongest candiate of the three and will carry the most votes. As you know the winner of the Presidential Race must obtain 50% of the electoral college. Therefore my act of forcing the votes to be split 3 ways combined with weakening McCain's resources by forcing him to fight a two-front war will lead me to victory.  Even if no one reaches 50%, the American people will still decide the president because as you already know, in the case that no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives votes by state. Thus every state in the House of Representative gets one vote."  This, in my opinion, is the absolute fairest way to elect the next president.

Third, I most certainly can garner up enough signatures to beat the May 13th deadline to get my name on the Texas ballot as an Independent and it will be easy for me to garner up enough signatures to get my name placed on the ballot in all states."   So I respectfully request that the superdelegates immediately withdraw pledges from Senator Clinton and before we leave this meeting provide a written, legally binding agreement and declaration that I am the democratic nominee. I think by doing this the superdelegates may retain dignity and integrity in front of the American people. If you do not adhere to my request right now, then I will render your voices inconsequential and I will change the dynamics of this race into a race that will result in the TRUE WILL of The People and True Democracy will be restored.

Now If I strike out as an Independent things won't be an all bad  for the Democratic Party.
 
First, the Democratic Party will avoid a public train wreck which would cause the public to think that the democratic party is weak and incompetent.  

Second, the Democratic Party will maintain dignity in the public eye. 

Third, the Democratic Party will appear to maintain competence in the public eye

Fourth, the fighting about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates will end, as their delegates can be seated as is and without cost to the citizens of Florida and Michigan, and Hillary can become the Democratic Nominee, and both Hillary and my name will be on the ticket as Presidential Candidates in the November General Election, so all of our supporters will be happy. 
 
Fifth, the Democratic Party can focus time, attention and money to the General Election right now instead of squandering it unproductively on party in-fighting.

Finally, as an Independent, I will take votes away from McCain and it will actually give both me and Hillary a better chance at the white house.  So in actuality my action of becoming an Independent will improve the odds that a Republican will not be in the white house because we will in effect initiate a 2-front war on McCain and cause him to have to spread his resources fighting two wars.  I believe this solution is the best solution in the interest of the American  People.  At a minimum, we will have increased the odds of taking the white house away from the Republicans with a 2/3 chance to beat the Republicans instead of a 1/2 chance.  So lets end the bickering now and move forward in a positive direction. "

**** END OF CUT AND PASTE ***

If Obama uses the above position as leverage against the Superdelegates, then I believe true democracy will be restored. Perhaps one day we can even create a third party "The HOPE Party. "So please,  join me in neutralizing the Superdelegates, taking power back for the people and ensuring that Barack Obama wins the election by cutting and pasting the above text  and sending  it in an email to Barack Obama; then send this email to all of your friends and relatives and ask them to do the same.  This is Our Moment.  This is Our Time. Our Voice Can Change the World ... YES WE CAN!!!!

Thank your for your time.


Deirdre Glascoe
Obama Supporter and
Future "Hope Party" Member Hopeful.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary did "the old wink wink" and got a Free Pass

In the days leading to the Texas and Ohio primaries, the Media flooded our televisions with video and sound-bytes of Hillary accusing Obama of doing “the old wink wink.” … That is Hillary accused Obama of telling the American public that he would use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA to persuade Canada and Mexico to negotiate more protections for workers and the environment, while at the same time he was alleged to have told the Canadians to take his words with a grain of salt.  Pundits believe that Obama's response to Hillary's false accusations contributed to his losses in the Texas and Ohio primaries.  But now I learn that it was not Obama, but Hillary that did “the old wink wink.” According to the Toronto Associated Press “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodam Clinton’s campaign gave Canada back channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were [to deceive the American people] for political show.” 

 If media were fair and stood still, Hillary’s deception should be given equal air-time.  But Media is a business and there is bigger news … the Florida and Michigan delegate fight and the growing perception that the Clinton family is maneuvering the presidential nomination fight out of the public arena and into smoke-filled back rooms where the Clintons have the opportunity to call in Political Markers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama as an Independent? ... Why this is a Viable Solution for Democrats.

Pundits in the News Media are predicting a Democratic Train Wreck.  Republicans are salivating.  I think that the Democratic Party will surely split and lose respect, dignity, and a large block of voters no matter how they handle their current crisis. I think the problems of the Democratic Party can best be solved by having Obama run as an Independent.

First Obama is the most viable Independent Candidate:

a)      He has shown he can raise funds and does not have to limit himself to the FEC Financing Guidelines.

b)      He has shown that he can bring new and enthusiastic people into the process: Democrats, Republicans and Independents

c)      He most certainly can garner up enough signatures to beat the May 13th deadline to get on the Texas ballot as an Independent and it will be easy for him to garner up enough signatures to get his name placed on the ballot in all states. (In fact, he can have staff working on the signatures and petitions while he is still preparing for the PA primary)

d)      Pressure is removed from the superdelegates as their votes become inconsequential and the race becomes a true Will of the People.

e)      True Democracy is restored.

 

Second Obama as an Independent would  actually help the Democratic Party by.

f)        Derailing what is sure to be a train wreck.

g)      Enabling the Democratic Party to maintain dignity. 

h)      Enabling the Democratic Party to maintain an appearance of competence.

i)        The Democratic Party can focus time, attention and money to the General Election instead of squandering it unproductively on party in-fighting.

j)        Obama’s participation as an Independent will take votes away from McCain giving both Obama and Hillary a better chance at the white house.

 

The down side is –Obama’s status as a Democratic Senator may change.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guess What People are Saying about the Hannity America Show?

Sean Hannity is biased against Barack Obama.   He went out and randomly asked people if they knew Obama's specific accomplishments but he failed to ask if they knew of Hillary's  and McCain's specific accomplishments. If he had asked, he would have found that people outside of New York don't know Hillary's specific accomplishments and don't know McCain's specific accomplishments either.

Sean Hannity also says that the media has given Obama a free pass, but the media has not given Obama a free pass, they have given Hillary and McCain a free pass.  An unbiased Media would ask ...
a) What elected positions Hillary has held other than Senator in the last 35 years of experience?
b)What international crisis has Hillary handled?
c)What is Hillary's specific budgeting experience?
d)How has Hillary applied her financial and budgeting skills to her campaign?.
e)How does McCain's decision to remain a POW translate into budgeting skills?
f) How has Hillary and McCain used their financial and budget experience  to mitigate the fact that they both ran out of money during their campaign?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Does America Want To Manage The Budget?

Have McCain and Hillary forgotten that the role of President is comprised of many functions, Commander-In-Chief being only one?  Another major function of the President is to be Chief Executive  Officer (CEO) of the Federal Government.   The CEO is responsible for management and budget.  So instead of answering who I want to answer the phone, I'd rather answer who I  want to manage the budget.  If we use the financial management of the candidates' campaigns Barack Obama would win by a landslide.  Not only has he raised more money than both Hillary and McCain, he is is the only one who has effectively managed his campaign's budget.  Both Hillary and McCain ran out of money, and Hillary had to loan herself $5,000,000.  The questions I would like to ask Hillary and McCain is to name their specific experience with respect to managing budgets, and have them explain how that experience was applied in their campaigns?  That way the American people can get a feel for what to expect with respect to managing the American budget.

Tags: phone   budget  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSNBC, Hillary's New Strategists.

After Hillary's failed strategy, it appears that MSNBC has stepped in to replace Mark Penn as Hillary Clinton's chief strategist.  In the last two weeks I have heard various pundits on MSNBC make suggestions on how Hillary can improve her strategy and low and behold Hillary has implemented every suggestion I have heard the pundits make, which in my mind discredits her as being ready to govern this country on day one.  For example in an interview with Pat Buchanan on Chris Matthew's Hardball, after being asked what Hillary can do to overcome Obama's momentum,  Pat Buchanan said "She [Hillary] has to go negative or go home."  Shortly thereafter we heard the negative attacks on Obama including  "Shame on You Barack Obama," the mocking of Barack Obama's Hope Message where Hillary mocked the concept of the skies opening up, celestial music etc. etc,.( which as a Christian, if found offensive);   we saw pictures circulating of Obama dressed in Somali Garb, and we heard several references to Barack "Hussein" Obama, in which both the photos and the reference to his middle name which were legitimate standing alone, in my opinion the photo and the middle name usage were circulated in the context of "code speak" to the racists that exist in our society to vote for Hillary Clinton.

A few days ago, I caught a clip on MSNBC .... but not the name of the interviewee who actually came out and said that Hillary will need the media to help her win in Ohio and Texas.  Since when is the media's job to help a candidate win an election? 

Then other morning on the Morning Joe Show, Joe had a red phone on the desk and said that Hillary Clinton should run an ad hitting home the message asking Americans who they want to answer the phone.  I woke up this morning only to learn that Clinton is running a new ad where she is now asking democrats who do they want to answer the phone.   For a candidate who claims she is the candidate of solutions, her pail of solutions on how to overcome Obama sure looks empty from where I stand, as she now has to rely on the media to provide her with solutions to save her dwindling campaign.

I say Enough is enough! I want news, I don't mind commentary and analysis, but I am sick and tired of the pundits using propaganda to attempt to influence me and I'm tired of them coaching Hillary.  I want to see Hillary stand on her own to feet and fight for herself.  Right now she's not. The fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton, who asserts herself as ready to govern the country on day one,  can't successfully govern a campaign several hundred days after she launched it.

Based on the way Hillary has run her campaign, there is one thing that she can count on,  and that is that I won't be voting for her, even if she wins the nomination.  While I recognize her as being smart and I appreciate her for her life of public service,  I find her tactics to be less than presidential and downright dirty.  And as far as experience, I am still asking What Experience?  I don't think she can credibly count Bill Clinton's presidency as experience.  And frankly the type of experience that Hillary does possess is exactly the type of experience that I do not want in the white house.  Judgement is everything, and bad judgment, in my mind equates to bad experience.  Hillary has had bad judgment about the war, and she has had bad judgment in running her campaign, I don't want to give her the opportunity to use bad judgement in the oval office.  We've had enough bad judgement in the white house through George Bush.  

I think the news media should report the news, I find the analysis entertaining, but to MSNBC, STOP trying to persuade the American people.  We know what we want, the people who will vote for Hillary will, and the people who aren't going to vote for Hillary don't necessarily want Hillary Clint shoved down their throat.

 

Deirdre Glascoe
Bowie, MD.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michelle Obama v. Michelle Malkin

I think Michelle Obama's comments were inappropriate for a potential first lady and I believe that she spoke from her heart. But I think that the only thing that Michelle is guilty of is not hiring a coach to teach her how to cover up her true feelings like all other politician and politician wives. I think Ms. Malkin's article Michelle Obama's America -- and Mine was on point in one respect only ... Michelle Obama's America IS different from Michelle Malkin's. First Michelle Obama is not a "woman of color", Michelle Obama is a black woman and to insinuate that Michelle Obama and Michelle Malkin share the same history tells me that Ms. Malkin is both out of touch with reality and with history. First , ancestors of women of color came to the U.S. voluntarily, whereas ancestors of Black women came against their will. Ancestors of women of color were able to establish communities of their immediate families and extended families. Whereas black women were raped, beaten and separated from their children and their husbands. Black women witnessed their husbands lynched, beaten and chased by dogs. Now I would be interested to know how many of Ms. Malkin's ancestors were slaves, how many of her family were separated, beaten and lynched. How many of Ms. Malkin's ancestors were killed if it became known that they knew how to read? I think there is a difference between being grateful that slavery ended and being proud of a country that engaged in and then later ended slavery. How many anti-Obama people are proud of slavery? How many are proud of lynching? How many are proud of people killing others for learning how to read?

Frankly, I am proud of Michelle Obama for being able to find something in her adult life to be proud of after black women and black people have been treated as thought they are less than human.


I am a black woman and I have served this country and my children have served this country in the Iraq war, but I can honestly say that I am grateful for the opportunities that I have received; I am loyal to this country, I am proud to see people vote without regard to color and I am happy that slavery ended.  And while I agree that this country has a lot of things to be proud of there are a lot of things that this country has to be ashamed of and so a statement such as Michelle's that she is really proud, is not a statement against patriotism, but a statement showing patriotism, but acknowledging that America has not always done things that a black person can be proud of. 
Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »