Obama trying to silence critics?

The party of free speech and political dissent is at it again in an effort to ensure the only free speech is their speech. Barack Obama's campaign is reportedly furious over the following ad linking the new messiah to a former terrorist.

"It seems they protest a bit too much," American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said. "They're going all of these routes—through threats, intimation—to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit."

The Obama Campaign has apparently already addressed this issue in an ad attacking McCain.



This raises some interesting questions about what connection Obama has with Ayers. The Washington Post Blog addresses this by stating the only known link between Obama and Ayers is that they both served on a anti poverty group's board of directors, Ayers donated $200 to Obama's campaign, and they lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago.

So where does the allegation that Obama's political career began in Ayers'
living room coming from?

In researching this entry I have found numerous allegations that Ayers had invited people from the community to his home to introduce them to the aspiring politician, but I have no credible sources to support this. I have also read that Ayers hosted a dinner in Obama's honor which Obama attended. Again, these are things I have read but which I have no real evidence to support. If someone out there has some credible information on this topic, I would like to know about it.

Dem's on Iraq

I never get sick of these vids. Watched this one today on the jawa report





I really need to get cracking on that Hillary Vid I am working on...

A Perfect Example of How the Left Supports the Troops

It wasn't that long ago that the majority of Americans strongly backed our President and America's efforts in the war against radical Islam, more popularly known as the War on Terror. But in short order, the times, as Dylan might say, they were a-changin'.

Dean came way out of left field as an anti-war, anti-Bush candidate, and was but a "ye-haw!" away from winning Democratic nomination for President. Kerry, a former Vietnam protester who both accused his fellow soldiers and admitted himself to having committed war crimes, ended up with the nomination and began an all out assault on the war to liberate Iraq.

The Democrats, aided by the MSM, were able to convince the majority of Americans that Iraq was a personal war of vendetta, and unrelated to the greater war on terror.

I'll never forget watching Elizabeth Edwards host a townhall type meeting in which a large crowd of Kerry-Edwards supporting middle-aged women discussed how we leaned the lessons of Vietnam, and learned that we can support the troops but not their mission. Elizabeth Edwards said that the best way we can support the troops is to bring them home, to a room full of applause.

Since that time I have heard time and again the ridiculous assertion that Democrats support the troops, just not the war. The left repeatedly calls the war in Iraq a dismal failure, a quagmire, a "lost" war. When the right responds by asking, "How can you support the troops when you tell them that they cannot win, that their efforts have been a failure, and that they have already lost when they are still fighting and dying to keep you free?"

How can the left support the troops and simultaneously broadcast to the world that America has already lost? Try explaining that to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq!

The left usually responds by blaming the "failures" on the leadership (who, by the way, are still soldiers) and the President.

The truth of the matter is this: The left does not support the troops. They do not support the war on terror. They are not interested in keeping America safe from Radical Islam. Period.

I'd just like to thank Ted Rall for the inspiration for this post. He provided a stunning illustration of how the left supports the troops. Keep up the good work, Ted. Oh, by the way, I hope you get caught in a dark alley with some of the troops you "support."

Barack Obama: For a Higher America

Barack Obama has openly admitted to being a "pothead" and "junkie" in his youth. His youthful indiscretions include the use of marijuana and "blow," which is a street term for cocaine. In his candid admissions of drug use, Barack Hussein Obama said, "I inhaled, frequently, that was the point."

So in honor of his youthful indiscretions, I put together a little video to raise awareness about this would-be preseident. Enjoy!

Coulter Cash is Money Well Spent

The primping, preening, beauty queen otherwise known as John "da Fonz" Edwards has been putting your hard earned political contributions, aka "Coulter Cash", to good use:

Edwards' haircuts cost a pretty penny
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

It is money well spent... he is soooo pretty



So pretty...

Democrats, please.... please keep giving this man your hard earned money. He wants to run for President; but more importantly, he wants to look good doing it.

UPDATE:
Awwww, the Coulter Cash is no longer helping make John pretty.
Edwards reimbursing his campaign $800 for haircut

Parsing Words in the Global War on Terror

Democrats in Congress have recently banned the phrase 'global war on terror' from appearing in legislation and have discouraged Democrats from using the phrase when speaking about terrorism.

A new internal memo by a senior Democratic staff member urged aides to drop the term ["global war on terror"] from their legislative dictionaries because it was too broad. The directive quickly led to a linguistic dispute between the parties.

"The attempt by Democrats to erase the words 'global' and 'terror' from our current war is an absurd effort to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale," said House Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?"
More.

Por qua? To put is simply, Americans overwhelmingly support the War on terror. When a particular crisis is associated with the war on terror, American support for intervening and resolving the incident is very high.

Ex. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is considered by virtually everyone to be part of the global war on Terror. Support for the War in Afghanistan was very, very high.

Iraq is undeniably part of the global war on terror; however, the Democrats, with the help of the press, have successfully convinced the American public otherwise.

As soon as Iraq war was extricated from the global war on terror (never mind that it is universally accepted that Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism, Iraq supported Al Qaeda and Hamas, and Iraq's support of Al Qaeda was RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS as a reason for authorizing war in Iraq the Iraq War Resolution Act)... let me start over. As soon as Iraq was extricated from the global war on terror - labeled a "grand diversion" and a "distraction" from the "real" war on terror - support for the Iraq war began to drop.

Why is this?

American people DO support the war on terror. Furthermore, American people trust the Republicans MORE than the Democrats in carrying out the war on terror.

Americans do not support going to war for no reason. We are a peace loving nation.

As soon as the left wingers were able to extract the Iraq war from the war on terror - instead labeling the Iraq was a "Bush's war" - the war no longer was understood as a matter of national security and instead became a war which could be attacked along partisan lines.

What is going on here is this: The war on terror is bad for Democrats, because the American people do not trust the Democrats to win the war on terror. The solution is to stop associating global terrorism as part of a global war on terror. When each incident is looked at as a single, solitary, unconnected attack - there is no need for the US to intervene and there is no need for Republican leadership to fight the global war on terror.

That's my analysis, anyway.

Democrats Stab Soldiers in the Back

Senate OKs Iraq Troop Withdrawal Bill

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
Read the Article.

I am disgusted. Sick, even. There is no chance in hell of this bill becoming law, but that isn't the point.

The Democrats were elected because they promised the people a "plan for success in Iraq." They claimed that Bush's policies were a failure, that the Republicans had no plan for victory in Iraq, and that a new direction was needed. They claimed to have a "plan" - the details of which were never particularly clear. The plan would achieve victory and make America safer.

The Democrats didn't tell the American people they planned on cutting and running before the job was done. The Democrats didn't tell the American people they planned on spitting in the face of the US soldier by bringing them home before the job is done.

The Democrats want us to lose in Iraq. They don't realize that this war was waged for the security and safety of ALL AMERICANS. Saddam was a threat to the United States - a threat that in a post 9/11 world could not be allowed to remain. No matter how you want to look at it, the war in Iraq WAS justified. The Democrats, however, refuse to see the war as anything other than "George Bush's" war. They hate George Bush so much that they are willing to put political vendetta above the safety and security of the American people.

The Democrats hatred of Bush is so great that they will disgrace the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of US soldiers who paid the ultimate price to keep America safe by pulling our soldiers out of Iraq, effectively letting the terrorists win. Despite the sacrifices made by our troops, the democrats place short term goals of scoring political points by ensuring "George Bush's" war fails over VICTORY in Iraq. Victory which is attainable. Victory which is within reach.

Look at the recent Progress in Iraq!

If you are an American. If you are outraged by the Democrats' lies to the American people, their promises for a plan for victory. If you are outraged by "slow bleed" and pulling out. If you are outraged by the Democrats selling out American security and handing the Terrorists a victory in Iraq, then remember this when you head into the voting booth in '08.

If you served in Vietnam, and you supported the war - because you were fighting communism, because you won every battle of the war, because victory was within reach and the communists were going to surrender BUT FOR the DEMOCRATS' "Peace Movement" - if you fought in Vietnam or had a loved one who died there, and you remember what happened AFTER WE PULLED OUT OF A WAR THAT WE WERE WINNING, then you know what will happen in Iraq if we pull out now.

If you think the world hates America now, see what happens if we pull out of Iraq and a real civil war breaks out. See how hated we are if genocide returns to Iraq.

No doubt today Al Qaeda is celebrating their victory in Congress.

Cheney: Update in the War on Terror

This is why I love Cheney... I wish the President had the courage to stand up to the Democrats and tell it like it is:

Cheney: The ones doing the fighting never lose their focus on the mission, or on what is at stake in this war. And neither should the rest of us. Five and a half years have passed since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 innocent people here in the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there's a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts. In fact, five and a half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having to confront a series of myths about the war on terror -- myths that are often repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and al Qaeda. We hear this over and over again -- not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself: "The most... serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this Third World War...[that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, Osama bin Laden declares, quote, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." End quote.

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war, and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines tonight are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in al Anbar Province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed a number of al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.

The second myth is the most transparent -- and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.

Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington -- but last month it reached new heights. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Dave Petraeus, who was up for confirmation: "Suppose we send you over to your new job... only we tell you... you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?" General Petraeus replied, "No, sir." Yet within days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate -- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus, not one single negative vote -- a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements and support that he believed were necessary to carry out his mission. The House of Representatives, of course, did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle." It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

Yesterday, the House Democrats passed the defense appropriations supplemental to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. This will hamper the war effort and interfere with the operational authority of the President with our military commanders. It's counterproductive, it sends exactly the wrong message because of the limitations that are written into the legislation. When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called "slow bleed," they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to run out the clock and wait us out.

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of this war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution -- after all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not to 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. If they really support the troops, then we should take them at their word and expect them to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached.

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this is one that is perhaps the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will strengthen America's hand in the fight against the terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a complete validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists do not expect to be able to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have, and they're not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission -- and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They've cited the cases of Beirut in the '80s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat. The result would be even greater danger for the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. And believing they can break our will, they'll become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, and ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

That leads me to the fourth, and the cruelest, myth -- and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to our interests in the broader Middle East. The reality is that, if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance in that country. The violence would spread throughout the country, and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan and fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror, to our interests in the broader Middle East, and to Israel. What would it tell the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? What would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through 20/20 hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen.

Five and a half years ago, the President told the Congress and the country that we had entered a new kind of war -- one that would require patience and resolve, and that would influence the policies of this government far into the future. The fact that we've succeeded in stopping another attack on our homeland does not mean that we won't be hit in the future. But the record is testimony not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women -- and to a series of tough decisions by a President who never forgets that his first job is to protect the people of this country.

We can be confident in the outcome of this struggle. America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of the Earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in the fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that is not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail.
Source.

I was thinking earlier today at how angry the US voter should be with the Democrats, who throughout the 2006 election cycle PROMISED a plan to WIN the war in Iraq. Yet today, several months into Democrat control of Congress, where are the plans for victory?

Where are the discussions of victory?

All they have to offer are plans to end the war. Plans to pull out. Plans to cut and run. How will this achieve victory? The simple answer is that the Democrats have no plan for victory. They lied to the American voter, promised a super secret plan to win, and then took their new found power and dedicated all of their efforts to ensuring we lose the war on terror - that we leave Iraq whether we have won the war or not... consequences be damned.

George Bush made Iraq the central front in the war on Terror. He essentially drew a line in the sand and said "Bring it on!" The result has not been the tragic loss of thousands of US soldiers, the unreported result is the killing of tens of thousands of Islamo-fascists, who would just as happily drive a plane into a building, or blow up as school bus on US soil, as fight the US on a battlefield.

George Bush brought the fight to them, and the fight is still ongoing. He said scores of times that he was bringing the fight to them, so that the battle with terrorists did not play out on American soil. When the violence stops in Iraq it will be a sign that one side was victorious. As long as al Qaeda and other terrorists are willing to wage jihad in Iraq the US involvement in Iraq MUST continue.

Cheney gets it. Cheney understands what is at stake. The President knows what is at stake, but has been too silent in the face of criticism. Has been to weak and ineffective in dealing with the American press, which is hell bent on the US losing in Iraq. Bush has been too weak in dealing with the Democrats, who are hell bent on making the War in Iraq a mistake, even if they have to be the ultimate cause of the disaster by bringing our troops home too soon.

Cheney is 100% right about the Iraq War Mythology, so I think I outta get cracking and write a few more posts for that series.

Democrats Make Enormous Mistake / Send Wrong Message

Just as the troop surge was beginning to show real promise that the tides are turning in Iraq and total victory is within reach (see progress in Iraq posts), the Democrats in the House have taken the first steps towards ensuring defeat in the War on Terror.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.

In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
More.

In doing so, Congress sends a powerful message to the troops:



The Democrats have claimed a "mandate" since the '06 election when they gained the narrowest of margins against the Republicans. They have taken their new found power and have at every opportunity provided no solutions for victory or for dealing with terrorism. Instead they have put forwards a "slow bleed," cut and run strategy that will only ensure that 9/11 is just a preamble to the what will inevitably come next.

Year of the Pork?

Democrats to load Iraq bill with add-ons
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons — from aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance.

"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

"In order to achieve a new America, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

Guess who said it?

That's right, Nancy Pelosi. Good to see the Democrats are serious about "fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility."

And since it was in the quote, "So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

What did they do with that DEMOCRAT congressman who had $90,000 of bribe money found in his freezer? Impeach him? Nope. What did they do? Oh, that's right, they appointed him to the Homeland Security Panel. Nancy even defended this.

Gore: Out in '08

Looks like Al Gore is out in '08.

AFP - Former US vice president Al Gore has ruled out a bid for the White House in the 2008 elections and will carry on his fight against global climate change

At least he still has global warming.

Cutting Off Funds: 60% of Americans Disapprove

Looks like the American public is war weary, and would like to see our soldiers safely home; however, 58% of Americans are opposed to a Congressional effort to cut off funding for the troop surge.

When asked: Would you favor or oppose Congress Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq:

Favor 40% Oppose 58% No opinion 2%

In the same poll, only the slimmest majority, 51% even support the non-binding resolution opposing the surge. 46% are opposed.

This debate is far from over. I think support for the Democrats is going to fade because of their efforts on Iraq.

Congressional Democrats have only a 30% approval rating on Iraq - which is admittedly higher than the Republicans' 27% - but the President has a 44% favorable rating, 37% job approval rating, and 42 % of Americans still support Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

What does this tell us?
1) On Iraq, Bush is more liked than both the Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
2) A fairly strong majority of Americans are opposed to Congressional efforts to cut war funding.

What can we infer from these two facts? Americans prefer that President Bush, the Commander in Chief, oversee the Iraq war - NOT Congress.

We can also see from these figures that our nation is pretty well evenly divided, even on Iraq (which the media would have you believe that nearly all Americans oppose).


President Bush was asked today in a press conference whether an American can oppose his decision to go to war but still support the troops. (Do you have to support the war to support the war hero) Bush answered: "I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission."

This response blew me away. Every time I listen to the President, I come away impressed. He's no dummy. He is basically saying, let the congress talk all they want; talk is free and talk is cheap. If you want to say I made a mistake, say it, but you cannot cut off the funds that support the troops and still "support the troops." He is right. Brilliant. Let them have their hearings and "symbolic" resolutions, that is still patriotic, but forcing our soldiers to abandon their mission, or cutting their funding to leave them in harms way, crosses the line.

Meanwhile, the military is making the case that the surge needs time to work:

‘Plan needs time to work’
“It would be a mistake if expectations are raised so high that people give up on the new strategy prematurely,” Caldwell said. “The enhanced iteration of the Baghdad Security Plan needs to be given time to work.”

I still support Bush. I still support his Iraq War plan. I do not support the Democrats efforts to force us to cut and run.

Obama: on Fallen American Soldiers in Iraq

via lgf

Thoughts on '08: Democrats: Barack Obama

The next Democratic front-runner is a short, formerly Muslim, half-black, Senator with notably large ears: Barack Obama. I think he has a MUCH better chance of getting the Democratic nod than Hillary; however, I do NOT think he can win in '08.

I know a lot of people on the left will strongly disagree with this idea; however, I can honestly say that I do not personally know a single racist Republican. I do know a LOT of racist Democrats.

I live in a Democrat stronghold. I live in a city that has been decaying for decades, under corrupt leadership, and immense poverty. I live in a city that used to be a really, really nice place to live. Sadly, blacks have been used as a scapegoat by MANY of the Democrats who live in this area. I blame the Democrats for holding this position, because all the people who have expressed that position to me are Democrats. I've not met a single Republican who ever shared that sentiment. Ever.

The position held by the Democrats where I live is this: "Everything was perfect before the blacks moved in; but after they moved in, property values plummeted, crime increased exponentially, and all the decent people had to move out of the city. Since the whites lest, the city has done nothing but rot and waste potential ever since."

I know that is disgusting. I agree. But that sentiment hasn't been coming from the Right, at least not where I live.

I live in a union stronghold. The unions have basically run every business out of town. No business would want to come to where I live because the union mentality is so pervasive. Along with the unions this area has a long sad tradition of organized crime. Between the union crooks and the mob, no big corporation would even consider wanting to do business where I live. Because jobs are scarce where I live, MOST intelligent, well educated, ambitious youth move as far away from this city as possible.

Local politicians have a history of being owned by the mob and the union interests. The leadership in this area have been corrupt for generations. In recent years, the federal government has been cracking down on the organized crime and political crooks. Some of those who were sent to jail said matter-of-factly, "It's just the way things are done around here."

Amazingly, the Democrats in this area don't see the organized crime and the corrupt unions as the problem with this area. Where I live, Democrats know who is really to blame.

This kind of thinking is disgusting. I do not hold those beliefs at all. Not at all. It just isn't how I was brought up. BUT, I do know that racism does still exist. The conservatives and Republicans in this area tend NOT to hold those sorts of beliefs.

A well-educated, capable black has a better chance of being elected as a Republican in this town than as a Democrat. That is the sad reality of race-politics in many cities in America.

On his skin color alone, I do not believe Obama can win. I'm not racist for thinking this, I am intellectually honest. It is because I truly believe that Democrats, as a whole, do not want to see a black President: that is why I think Obama cannot win.

I do think that a Colin Powell type figure COULD win. (With regards to Mr. Powell, I think his work for Bush in the lead up to the war has damaged his image politically to the point that he probably could not win in '08, but he is a great example of the type of candidate that the Republicans could put forward and who actually could win). I also think the first black President will be a Republican, which would be fitting for the party of Lincoln.

It will happen, it is just a matter of time, but it is not going to happen in '08.

Now, one could easily argue that the race issue (even if I am right) is not the only reason that Obama will not win in '08.

He is too young. He is too politically inexperienced. He has converted his religion from Islam - not the best fact to have on one's resume when running for the position of commander in chief during a war against radical Islam. His political views are too uncertain - I know that conservatives are putting out the image that he is as far left as Clinton, Pelosi, et al; however, I'm not so sure that this is the case.

All these things said, my mother thinks he would be a good president. (And my mother is a good judge of character). I don't know enough about Obama to say whether he would make a good president, but I know enough about America to say that he won't win the Democratic nod, let alone the White House.

(It is probably important to note that I did not focus on Obama much at all. I didn't give much in the way of reasons not to vote for him. I simply stated why he won't win and why)

Thoughts on '08: Democrats: Hillary Clinton

There is a tremendous amount of attention being given to the 2008 Presidential Elections. I believe '08 will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. I've been writing a series on the '08 elections, Thoughts of '08.

Originally, I planned on making this all one post, however, my ambition sometimes gets the better of me. There is no way I could talk about the Democrats, Republicans, and all of the front runners, and keep it down to just one post. It seems every day a few more Presidential hopefuls throw their hat into the race, and I just can't keep up. Instead of trying to do one comprehensive post, it makes a lot more sense to look at all of the elements individually, one at a time. This post will focus on one Democrat front-runner who in considered by many to have a lock on the '08 election.

This post will focus on the shrill, middle-aged, socialist, woman who has already spent 8 years in the White House with her perjuring, philandering husband: Hillary Clinton. This woman has more baggage and skeleton's in her closet than perhaps any other candidate. That she is considered a front runner for the '08 Elections is a marvel.

Even if Hillary were everything her supporters claim she is, she still must overcome the fact that she is a woman running for a position traditionally held exclusively by men. It doesn't make you a chauvinist to point this out.It does not make one a chauvinist to point out that not all of America is going to be on board with the idea of a woman President.

America is a "melting pot" full of sometimes goopy, sometimes chunky, sometimes slimy, mixing, melting, melding "stuff". In this melting pot we find: Ethnic groups with long traditions of gender defined roles and positions in society; Elderly voters who will typically tend to have a more traditional approach to gender roles; ethnic groups that will vote along party lines, haters: actual bonafide chauvinists, bigots, and the like. Hillary will not get these votes. Not in the primaries. Not in the general election.

America will not elect a woman as president in '08. Not yet, not during a time of war, and certainly not if the woman running is Hillary Clinton.

Even if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, she is going to need help to win the White House. Republican women will not cross party lines just to make a "gender vote."

The Democrats I know are largely union members who have strong negative feelings towards minorities in general, strong negative feelings towards gays, and strong negative feelings about women in positions of power. Those Democrats, who seem to be in the strong majority where I live, are NOT going to vote for Hillary. (They won't vote for Obama either, for that matter)

The fact that she is a woman aside, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in America. The Clintons are hated and vilified on the right. I am a former Clinton supporter. In my youth, I bought into the MTV image of Bill Clinton with the saxophone. As I matured, as I paid closer attention to politics and current events, as I became educated and gained a degree in Political Science, I started to see the Clintons for what they really are: Narcissists who want nothing more than money, power, and fame... and they will stop at nothing to get these thing. They will stop at nothing.

Conservatives tend to see the Clintons for what they are. If any candidate would be capable of lighting a fire under conservative America, it is Hillary. Even if she could win the Democratic Primary (I don't think she can), she will NOT win the general election. It will never happen.

On another note, I don't believe Hillary will win American Idol this year, either.

Next time she sings the National Anthem, she should make sure she knows all the words.

Stealing a line from Sean Hannity, "Let your heart not be troubled," Hillary can't win. Despite the all the warnings from the likes of Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, and the stop Hillary crowd, I do not believe Hillary can win. She is unelectable.

The Democrats aren't stupid, so they probably already know all of this. I predict a white male gets the Democratic nod. Likewise on the Republican side. I think America does want the privilege of a woman president and a minority president. I doubt very much that when it happens it will be a Democrat, but I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I just don't believe it is going to happen in this election cycle.

Next time on Thoughts on '08, Barack Obama. As you can tell from above, I don't think he as much of a chance, and I'll tel you why.

Kerry and Khatami at World Economic Forum in Davos

John Kerry was a speaker at the 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos. While in attendance, Kerry made several harsh comments about the current US Administration, US diplomacy and foreign policy, the US Military, and the American people. His comments have drawn a lot of criticism.

Below is a partial transcript of the event at which Kerry spoke. It was a panel discussion on the Future of the Middle East. The panel was chaired by David Ignatius, Associate Editor and Columnist, The Washington Post. Also speaking were: Adil Abd al-Mahdi, Vice-President of Iraq; Abdullah Gül, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey; Mohammad Khatami, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1997-2005); John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts; and Ahmed Mahmoud Nazif, Prime Minister of Egypt.

I have decided to post Khatami's speech separately.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (gathered from webcast by yours truly)

John Kerry: I, I think, uh I happen to- uh look I am speaking as a Democrat also, and it is no secret through the last Presidential race that I have deep, abiding differences with this administration and its approach. I agree with Amre Moussa that we have opened Pandora's Box - I'm not sure I'd call it "gates of hell" but what we did was - and, and Prime Minister uh Nazif said it would be good if we didn't think of this and define ourselves in the context of the sectarian, the Shia and Sunni and so forth.

But the truth is we have to - deal with the reality that is on the table. The fundamental differences between these sects and those interests are not being addressed. And I think that uhm ehm uhm Mr. Vice President (Adil Abh al-Mahdi), you would agree with me.

What I hear is that both sides believe they can win, and as long as both sides believe they can win and the United states is providing a kind of security blanket against a full explosion they are going to exploit that situation and that's what they are doing.

And so the oil revenues issue has been on the table for three years. We are no clo- it is not resolved. The fundamentals of the Constitution with respect to federalism are not resolved. And unless those issues can be compromised and resolved, I don't care how many troops are put in. Iraq is not going to be pacified.

Now we are currently responsible. Uh. The absence of lilugitimate diplomacy is a disgrace. Quick flights in by a Secrtary of State are not diplomacy. There should be a special envoy. Maybe a joint, bi-partisan, special envoy. Why not a President Clinton together with a Republican of high abiluh-ability, and bring them together and and and really work the processes. Because I think you have to have a new security arrangement for the middle east. I think you ought to reduce the American troop presence as fast as possible because I think its exacerbating the situation. And we have to address, obviously, the middle east peace processes.

***END PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT***

After each panel member addressed the future of the Middle East, apparently questions were asked from the audience (unfortunately not available on webcast, and I can't find a transcript).

It has been widely reported that Senator Kerry continued his tirade of negative comments saying the Bush administration has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."

Kerry is reported as saying "When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,"

and

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today"

and

"We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that's what diplomacy is about," ... "But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories." Kerry criticized what he called the "unfortunate habit" of Americans to see the world "exclusively through an American lens."
Source.

Update: (all text in this color not part of original article) I have posted a few video's below of Kerry's comments. These quotes are a little more complete than the ones above:

Kerry: "Americans have an unfortunate habit of seeing the world and other people exclusively through an American lens, and judging their aspirations through that lens."

Kerry: "We should engage. We should have been more supportive in other ways. We should be less engaged in this neocon rhetoric of regime change and more involved in uh building relationships and living up to our own values so that people make a different judgement about us."

This is causing quite a response in the blogosphere. Pictures of Kerry and Khatami are circulating around.

Kerry recently announced he would not be seeking the Democrat nomination in the 2008 presidential election. Between these recent comments and comments he made about US troops a few months back, it seems clear why he is staying out of the race.

Kerry's comments about the troops/botched joke from a few months back:


Kerry's recent comments, condensed:
"we have opened Pandora's Box"

"unless those (2 domestic Iraqi) issues can be compromised and resolved, I don't care how many troops are put in. Iraq is not going to be pacified."

"we are currently responsible... The absence of (legitimate) diplomacy is a disgrace. Quick flights in by a Secretary of State are not diplomacy."

"I think you ought to reduce the American troop presence as fast as possible because I think it(American troop's presence)'s exacerbating the situation."

Bush Administration has caused U.S. to become "a sort of international pariah."

"we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards"

"we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy"

Americans see world "exclusively through an American lens."

Update:
For slow connections:



For faster connections (or more patient people)