"CLINTON NOT GETTING A FAIR SHAKE, IN MEDIA"

Prime time Sunday night, one hour before the "biggest night in Hollywood" ("The Oscars"), there was a three piece story on the remaining two Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). The media coverage, increasingly over the last two months, has been heavily slanted towards Obama's rise in the party. There is no wonder why the media has been taken in by such a figure, Obama is suave, charismatic, and possibly one of the best speakers of a generation. However, the public, cable and print media news outlets (unless by an opinion/editorial piece, or writer), should be a down the middle venue. Obviously, they have not received the memo, on this, because Hillary Clinton is the latest in a line of people to take a fall, from their lack of ethics and standards.

The first lead in, of the democratic election coverage, was how Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the race for president. He announced his candidacy, today on "Meet the Press." The CBS News reporter (Nancy Cortis) showed several clips, of Nader, including his actual announcement. Then she commented about Nader's "spoiler factor." Nader has always been viewed, taking away votes from the democratic side of the ticket (each time he has ran for president, the Democratic side of the ticket has howled). CBS then switched to commentary and stock footage of Al Gore, commenting on how he was perceived to have won the election, against now president Bush, if Nader would not have been in the picture. Here is where the presentation and slant of CBS' story starts, picturing Hillary Clinton, as a "woman complaining." Where Obama's coverage, when he states almost the exact same thing, is portrayed in a completely different light, in charge, calm, and most important statesmanlike.

Without any introduction, the story immediately goes to Hillary Clinton, standing in the middle of a private jet (reporters all around), saying, "Obviously it is not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is."

Without any introduction, or words about Clinton after the quote, she was off of the screen. CBS switched to Obama, with this segway, "but Nader's support has slipped since then (2000), and Nader has only garnered one half, of one percent of the vote (since '04)." Immediately showing Obama, on the stump in Ohio, CBS introduces him by saying, "Senator Obama said today, he is not that concerned."

Then Obama is shown, left of a podium, "Keeping America's Promise" banner on it, booming, "He thought that there was no difference (raising his voice) between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize, that Ralph did not know what he was talking about." That statement does not say, "I am not concerned." It just shows Obama in a more confident and flattering light, overall. Immediately after this blatant manipulation of the airwaves and the American voters, CBS piles on more. The reporter states, "meanwhile the quarrel {Senator Clinton} started yesterday, over Obama's mailers, flared up today" (on screen, behind this statement, Mrs. Clinton is shown holding up and shaking fliers/mailers, saying the "Shame on you Obama" line). The story goes on to show Barack standing onstage again (perfectly calm and collected answering a reporters question):

"The notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what you find to be politically inconvenient, doesn't make sense," (after being asked by the reporter, what he thinks about Senator Clinton's anger about the NAFTA mailer).

To top off the three piece story, CBS and Nancy go on to show Obama in front of (what appears to be a huge crowd) voters and Mrs. Clinton face to face on a fence line, holding her hands out to potential voters. The words over the top of the two scenes, "While Obama campaigned in Ohio today, Clinton focused on fundraising. She was outspent by Obama, five to one, on ads in Wisconsin. Today, she is up to "GIN UP" more cash, in Rhode Island and Boston."

The story ends with Hillary Clinton on stage, in front of supporters saying, "I need your help, to talk to your friends, and your neighbors."

In a race, dubbed "one of the most significant in history," it is appalling to see such a stark contrast in how two candidates from the same party are being shown. When a candidate is either shown shaking hands with voters, and the next thing out of a reporters mouth is "the candidate is 'GIN UP MORE CASH," it does not matter what the next picture and/or line is going to be in the story, or news piece. It leads the public to believe that the candidate is completely desperate and destitute. The words and clips shown on the public, cable and print media news, should all go hand in hand. The words should be said in a straight and forward matter, to a public that is starved for the truth and honesty. Until that happens, why even ask for the status quo, when all that the public will keep getting is the same set of "status woes."

"CLINTON/OBAMA TO "INSTITUTE" CHANGE, NOT WORDS"

The things democrats seem not able to focus on, are where the actual change and hope is going to come from and how it will be instituted, not to mention who can institute it. There are points throughout the stump speeches, the constant radio and television talk shows, and finally the debate on Thursday where the actual differences of the democrats bleed thru. In the debate Thursday, the moderator asks about the economy and "how to keep the economy from going into a recession, if it is not already in a slight one, right now?"

Both Obama and Clinton had answers to the question, like they always do, but the answers were quite different. Clinton spoke of creating "green" jobs, revitalizing America's infrastructure, and finally "stopping Bush's war on science." However, Obama's answers were more vague and opaque, stating that he would stop the "Bush Tax Cuts," quite spending $9 billion a month in Iraq, and thru change. When Clinton and Obama's answers, to a direct question are analyzed, they are very different.

Clinton's answers to the economy did not give any specifics on how she would pay for the "green jobs," building of infrastructure (to create jobs), or enhance and rebuild "Bush's" war on science (whatever that means, since we have had countless successful NASA projects, multiple satellite feeds coming, the building/starting of military defense pads 'in Croatia,' and also this week's shooting down of a negated satellite, with an intercontinental ballistic missile, in space). The billions of dollars needed to do all of these thing, that are needed very badly, will only be attained thru the raising of taxes of "all" people in the United States (especially, since Hillary wants an amnesty project for illegals, which will not bring any monetary stimulus into the economy.). Although, Clinton's answer to the economy question was not complete and eluded an actual way to pay for the items she wants to fix the economy with, she did give specifics in how she wants to accomplish her stimulus package, if elected.

On the complete flip side, Obama did not have any specific answers, on how to stimulate the economy and create jobs for American people. Saying that he would, "cut the $9 billion a month in Iraq," does not give a specific way he will do that. Will he bring all of the troops home in a three month period? Will have one base open, bringing in all of the American equipment, soldiers, and overall treasure (in the form of hardware) there? There was not any explanation in this avenue, of revenue, for the country. Stopping all of the "Bush Tax Cuts/Bush's stimulus package," in order for the rich to pay more taxes (or that is the general idea, the rich pay more for the lower tax brackets (illegal immigrants who use the emergency rooms across America for primary care physicians, people who bank off shore and big business, and others like drug dealers, felons, and others off of the tax grid). Other than the two above solutions, Obama has nothing concrete in his policy solution for the economy. Faith, change, and hope are huge slogans for the Obama camp and the Obama supporters seem to be enthralled with the message, as hollow as it may be.

With the two above contradictory ways to fix the economy (as only one of the main topics, for the American people to worry about), their is one thing that Americans can rest easy about, with both Obama and Clinton. The nominees, with hands clasped together at the debate, both agreed to this comment from Hillary Clinton, "At the end of all of this, we're going to be fine!" It is a good thing that the two democratic candidates, will be finem regardless of who wins the nomination. However, it is the American people that may not "be fine," if they do not get some absolutes, from each candidate.

If the voters, the media outlets, and anyone else with access to the candidates does not insist on answers, not a set of opaque and "pie in the sky" answers, then the United States will be forced to have one side of the ticket to be voted in, by faith. After having President Bush in the White House for seven years, which the democrats have made out to be the end of the world, they are putting out one of two candidates that has experience, but is not being "genuine," or else they will elect a candidate that has no experience, but a lot of "ideas" with no way to institute them. Change is only valid, if there is a way to institute it. The American people are not electing "The Beatles, Elvis, or The Rolling Stones," but a President. Fainting, buying into the words and speeches is all right, but the only way to change the country is thru ideas and ways to put those ideas into action.

CLINTON & OBAMA DEBATE, A WASH?

Thursday was supposed to be a day of news and action, for the democratic candidates, in the Texas debate. However, neither candidate actually made news, or came out swinging. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are in a "dead heat," for the democratic nomination and the final voters approval, had a mediocre performance, at best. Although, Thursday night had to be a "sparking night" (as pundits, media outlets, and radio talk shows bloviated all day), for Hillary Clinton, in order to stop the momentum of Obama. Simply, because Obama cannot seem to be faded. Even after his wife's comments earlier in the week and his gaffs using three exact quotes, on several stump speeches (from Deval Patrick's Governor's stump speeches, a mere two years ago).

In Thursday's debate, carried on CNN prime-time, neither Clinton, nor Obama could actually separate themselves on the exact issues. Both pandered to the predominately Latino crowd, on the issues of immigration and health care. The CNN moderator's did not question either candidate, in enough detail, on any issue. In actuality, as per their answers, it was no different from any of the other 18 debates before. Hillary Clinton could not get any traction, to separate herself on issues and actual personages. She resulted in taking a cheap shot at Obama, on the copying of his stump speeches (from Patrick), saying "that words of change are important, but what you had done was comparable to Xeroxing change."

With the exception of the very last question and answer from senator Clinton, she did not gain any ground. However, that last comment she made (from the question, "What was the thing that most shaped your life?") was eloquent and made her evening. She commented on how her life was not even close to being tough, by comparison, but rather life was for the women working two jobs, the people who were losing their homes, and finally she recounted a visit to a Walter Reed Benefit. She vividly described the Walter Reed moment, "the men and women who drug themselves onto the stage in wheelchairs, crutches, gernies and hobbling onto that stage, they all were in the best of spirits and accepting their awards, made me realize how great our country is." It was a huge statement, being that she spoke last and it was a really poignant moment in time, making her seem connected with America and real (which she desperately needs). After the Walter Reed moment, in her closing she spoke saying, "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama [shaking his hand], no matter what happens we will be fine."

With a flurry, they were both away from each other and onto the signing of autographs. The night as a whole was dull and not full of anything that the media wanted it to be. For that alone, only God knows who will win the next "Super Tuesday." However, even if Clinton, or Obama, sweeps the Tuesday Primaries, neither will actually win the democratic nomination. It will have to go to the democratic convention and the "Super Delegates" who will choose the representative. Once again, the people may not be served (as Michigan and Florida will still not be in play, as they were punished for "not walking lock step," with the Democratic National Committee), and the elites will pick for the people. Maybe they will vote, or choose Obama/Clinton, based on: who they feel is worthy of the nomination, choose based on politically forced reasons, or choose based on who their congressional and other voters think should be the candidate. Once again, only God knows what will happen. One thing is for sure, the next "Super Tuesday" will not choose the candidate, but the five days leading up to the Tuesday, could be exciting. Seeing what people say, what the candidates will do, and what lengths people will go to get a nominee into position. Politics is a contact sport, and there will be plenty of contact (ask the New York Times, and there hit piece on McCain, over the last two days), over the next five days.

HILLARY/OBAMA DUKING IT OUT, WHAT ABOUT VOTERS?

Both sides of the democratic elite, pleading their cases to the news outlets, media, and anyone else that will listen, about where the "Super Delegates" will go and will the Democratic National Committee allow Michigan and Florida votes (and "Super Delegates") to count. The storm troopers, in formation and lock step for their meal tickets, are going head to head to make sure that things go "their way."In an election, where more people have voted in the primaries than ever before, the democrats (both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) are already squaring up for a fight. Obama and his surrogates are making the scenario sound like Hillary is crying over spilt milk, because he is the "front runner" (even though, there is plenty of room for him to lose, with Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and others left to vote) and there should be no change in the process. Obama stating, "This is the 'politics as usual' that we are trying to overcome, and some want to change the rules to suit them." While the Sunday talk shows had Hillary's bandwagoners out, speaking about how "the people should get their due" and "if the votes are not counted in Michigan and Florida, than the people will not have been represented." Statements that are actually true, but when Ms. Clinton was the only one on the ticket in Florida, one can hardly count that "the people spoke."An election, or primary of a lifetime, for the United States and things are boiling down to a "Florida mistake," or whomever has the most juice, come the democratic convention, will have the most pull. The American people are supposed pick both candidates and then a president. However, the democratic nomination is setting up to be whomever has the best smear ads (whether it is Barack Obama "claming" he is being disenfranchised, thru his people, because he is black, or Hillary Clinton using her pull and "machine" to get the rules changed overall, to fit her) and a set of campaigns that is far beyond most people. When most people are working (trying to pay for gas, milk and health insurance), are not able to focus on the twenty-four hour cycle of news, and what candidate tricks are being pulled over their eyes, one person will emerge as the democratic candidate. However, will it really be the "people's choice," or will it be the same old attorneys, schills, and elites that are going to put whom they wish, into the spot?The next two weeks will speak volumes, as the words and back biting, over "Super Delegates," attorneys being rolled out (Al Gore style) in rows, and the media is salivating over what they already know to be (not to mention are partially causing, thru there lackluster coverage) a dog versus dog fight. Instead of rejoicing, voting our minds, and having either the first woman, or the first black man (minority) candidate on the democratic side, the American people will end up weeping at the process, the things they never knew, and what went on behind the scenes. Is this what JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., or anyone else that the pundits and media elites have compared these philanderers to, would do? I hardly think so.

AMAROSA, OR MICHELLE OBAMA?

It is no secret, the ever suave, Barack Obama had a bad week with his double speak, in his stump speeches. His "good friend," Deval Patrick, supposedly gave the authorization to give a word for word speech, given two years prior. Hillary Clinton and minions have been hammering Obama, before the Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio primaries on how he is "all words, with no policies." In an attempt to silence those and other comments like them, Obama gave a stump speech on how words do matter. He boomed at the microphone, in his most elegant voice, "Words don't matter? You have nothing to fear, but fear itself........ just words. I have a dream.....just words. All men are created equal.....just words." It just happens, that Patrick Deval did give, "word for word" (no pun intended), that exact speech when working on the stump for governor.

In the Obama camp, that was not the worst thing in this week's press cycle. Michelle Obama, out on her own for her husband's bid at president, was doing some of her own booming away at the podium. A very charismatic and articulate orator, with the best speech writers, and an attitude to back it up, Mrs. Obama came across poised and the first part of the speech was a picture of perfection (like most of her husband's speeches). However, there was one group of words, maybe two sentences, caused a ripple across all media outlets. "In all of my adult life, this if the first time I have really been proud of my country," she said. A statement that may have been over looked (due to this being her first time out, context, or a various set of reasons), except for maybe what the "right/conservatives" may have said. There was a slight buzz about the comment, which was made live, on CSPAN, in Wisconsin (while Barack is in Texas). A full twelve hours went by, with no explanation, and maybe none was needed. Although, Michelle came back to the podium, in yet another Wisconsin stump speech, she came across the microphone with almost the exact same comment. She said without any citation, explanation, or remorse, "For the first time in my adult life, I feel as though hope is attainable in America."

Now there is an excuse for anyone, speaking live and/or from a speech card, if they make a mistake. If there is a mistake made, then there is always a chance to give a small press conference, a statement thru a public relations person, and/or a letter to the press. Evidently, Michelle Obama (coming across, more like Amarosa Obama) did not feel the need to give any kind of explanation. Now there is not a ripple, across the media world, but a tsunami of waves across the media world. Obviously reading a prepared speech, not giving those two stump speeches off the cuff, the Harvard graduate new that the remarks could be taken in a sour light. When the actual sentence is broken down, it sounds like she is a disenfranchised woman, who has never seen anything in America qualifying as "real hope," and now that her husband is running for president there is? Maybe she meant, in my adult life (she is forty-five years old), that she has not ever felt anything to be proud of in America, or in anything that America has done? There is not any way of knowing, what she meant by those two statements, than maybe she has never seen/felt hope in America and she has never felt/been proud of America?

The bad thing about this, is the media is in love with Barack Obama. Proverbially, he walks on water, brings both looks and is a spectacular orator, and he has a shiny coat of armor on at all times (repelling all comers, including the media, who could attack him with any kind of the "usual" political rhetoric). There is not really any way most media outlets have been able to criticize him on not having one piece of legislation in his name from the senate (or even a cosponsored bill in the senate), the fact that he does not have but three and a half years experience (now he wants to lead the free world, or lead the biggest "super power country" in the world), and he has not laid out very many actual policy ideas (in detail) on how he will lead the country into the "hope and change," in which he so freely speaks on. There is only two really good reasons for this, either the media is just caught up in the "Hope and Change" vibe and "Barack-O-Mania" (where they are in the eye of he hurricane, and can't see out), or else they are afraid of being blasted on the "race card" (being as most of the correspondence, pundits, and media friendly are white).

Now there is a legitimate way to actually attack Obama, it is before Texas, Ohio, and the debate on Thursday, so Hillary should be on the war path and the media is all over him, for his wife's statements. However this pans out, Michelle Obama is a strong black woman. Oprah and Amarosa are also strong black women, as well. In the "60 Minutes" interview and in the "Holiday Commercial" for the Obama family, Michelle Obama came off as both rigid and outright "in your face" (in the "60 Minutes") and then came off soft and sweet (in the "Holiday Commercial"). Therefore, now is when she will define herself, in the campaign, as a running mate, possible first lady, and a plus, or a minus for Barack the next eight months (assuming he wins the democratic nomination). Will Michelle Obama be perceived as an Oprah like person, or will she come off as the "new Amarosa Obama," only time will tell? However, that watch is ticking faster, each day that the Obama campaign does not come out and give some kind of explanation to her remarks.

CLINTON & OBAMA NIT PICK OVER DETAILS, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE VOTERS?

Both sides of the democratic elite, pleading their cases to the news outlets, media, and anyone else that will listen, about where the "Super Delegates" will go and will the Democratic National Committee allow Michigan and Florida votes (and "Super Delegates") to count. The storm troopers, in formation and lock step for their meal tickets, are going head to head to make sure that things go "their way."

In an election, where more people have voted in the primaries than ever before, the democrats (both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) are already squaring up for a fight. Obama and his surrogates are making the scenario sound like Hillary is crying over spilt milk, because he is the "front runner" (even though, there is plenty of room for him to lose, with Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and others left to vote) and there should be no change in the process. Obama stating, "This is the 'politics as usual' that we are trying to overcome, and some want to change the rules to suit them." While the Sunday talk shows had Hillary's bandwagoners out, speaking about how "the people should get their due" and "if the votes are not counted in Michigan and Florida, than the people will not have been represented." Statements that are actually true, but when Ms. Clinton was the only one on the ticket in Florida, one can hardly count that "the people spoke."

An election, or primary of a lifetime, for the United States and things are boiling down to a "Florida mistake," or whomever has the most juice, come the democratic convention, will have the most pull. The American people are supposed pick both candidates and then a president. However, the democratic nomination is setting up to be whomever has the best smear ads (whether it is Barack Obama "claming" he is being disenfranchised, thru his people, because he is black, or Hillary Clinton using her pull and "machine" to get the rules changed overall, to fit her) and a set of campaigns that is far beyond most people. When most people are working (trying to pay for gas, milk and health insurance), are not able to focus on the twenty-four hour cycle of news, and what candidate tricks are being pulled over their eyes, one person will emerge as the democratic candidate. However, will it really be the "people's choice," or will it be the same old attorneys, schills, and elites that are going to put whom they wish, into the spot?

The next two weeks will speak volumes, as the words and back biting, over "Super Delegates," attorneys being rolled out (Al Gore style) in rows, and the media is salivating over what they already know to be (not to mention are partially causing, thru there lackluster coverage) a dog versus dog fight. Instead of rejoicing, voting our minds, and having either the first woman, or the first black man (minority) candidate on the democratic side, the American people will end up weeping at the process, the things they never knew, and what went on behind the scenes. Is this what JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., or anyone else that the pundits and media elites have compared these philanderers to, would do? I hardly think so.

AN ACTUAL OBAMA/BLOOMBERG TICKET"

On 1-7-08 I wrote a blog on this topic, but as of this minute not one pundit, media elite, or magazine has commented on this option (when I have actually been ahead of the "media curve," on 76% of my blog ideas/political prognostications). As the election, on the Democratic side tightens, opens up in Florida and Michigan, and looks to start tilting towards courts and the legal system, Barack Obama could fullfill another "Audacity"/never before done option. He could announce his running mate, if he "were" to win the Presidential nomination. Since the "Hillary Blitz," over the four days, before the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama has lost some of the "positive angle," change talking points, and looks a little "deer in the headlights," at times.

An announcement, that I called for on 1-7-08, for Obama to name (or at least be seen several times out with, eating lunch with, or in fund raisers with Mike Bloomberg, even if Mike won't run on his ticket) Mike Bloomberg to his VP slot, now. If Bloomberg is not up for the task, then Obama needs to cash in a favor (under the table) and be seen out with Bloomberg, partially to diffuse the "Clinton/Obama ticket" rumors, and it would give Obama more media traction (just on media and pundit speculation).

A country yearning for "actual change and needs real hope," and both democratic candidates are standing on thier "soap boxes," giving the talking points. If Barack Obama wins the democratic nomination, he must not only come thru with a "policy of remarkable change and hope," but he will also need a running mate that will fill the voids in his resume, packs an "Audacity of Hope" punch, and finally will shock the country into voting for him far and away (despite being the most liberal senator on the hill, despite having only three and a half years of experience, and the other possible holes in his candidacy).
=====================================================================================
However, here is the prognostication from 1-7-08 (below):
=====================================================================================
Barack Obama is the marble in the slingshot, of America speak and voting power. The platform of change, the philosophy of American people dispensing of status quo Washington politics, and the overall timing of an American Nation at it's breaking point on issues of health care, immigration, the economy, and foreign policy are the fork in the slingshot. Obama's win in Iowa, against the "Clintonian Machine," gave him the viability of a winner and is the rubber being pulled back to launch him into the possible democratic nomination.

However, Barack Obama the biracial, always up for any topic, and gifted charismatic speaker is on his way to breaking the "political sound barrier" (some say, a cross between John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.). The phenom from Illinois has made a splash by pounding out a combination of passionate speeches, a promise of American change and hope, and all the while bringing out groups of independents, democrats, and the always cagey (hard to get out) group of young voters. This is a classic campaign of improbability of change, against an almost inevitable comer to the thrown (Ms. Clinton), over what was called "inexperience," and all the while with a clean and respectful campaign. Even the clean cut family man's "holiday commercial," was a beautiful insight into his whole campaign, while showcasing his family. There was an attractive well spoken man, with his strong and equal wife, two adorable kids with speaking parts, a traditional Christmas Tree, and the last all inclusive statement (made by the youngest of the girls) "Happy Holidays." If there was one commercial, television spot that was an insight into the Obama campaign, this was the one. It showed that the country was in for change, with a possible first black president, a traditional side with a full family, an all encompassing message, but behind it all is the most liberal senator in Washington.

However, once the Democratic Nominee is chosen, how will Barack continue to pound the "changing of America" dichotomy home? There is no better way, then to have a vice president candidate that is an independent billionaire (who could run as President himself). He also does not want to take the chance of losing, needs to shore up some more overall foreign policy experience, and could follow in the footsteps of Obama after his term is over. In steps Mike Bloomberg, the now Mayor of New York (the 17th overall biggest economy in the world), would be a perfect fit for the Democratic Nominee, who has only been a one term senator and does have experience flaws. Bloomberg would bring not only an "independent" credibility to Obama's ticket, but he also has the billionaire funds and overall swagger of a vice president now. A Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or even a solid Richard Luger would be qualified, as solid running mates for Obama. However, for the "Audacity of Hope" candidate, nothing would be more of a shocker, could shore up more independent voters in the "red states" (on name recognition alone), and once again would bring endless funds to a candidate that is already white hot with a good portion of the American people?

With the emergence of Dick Cheney, being the most powerful VP in history and actually making the office a credible source of power and influence, Bloomberg would not have to be a lame duck (i.e., Al Gore, VP Bush, or a lot of the other vice presidents before Cheney). For the first time in America's history, there would basically, be two Presidents in the Oval Office, both of whom would compliment each other and possibly could bring back the balance to the country. Whether or not Obama has the foresight to see this and make a bold decision in this direction, or whether Bloomberg would even take a second seat to anyone, is yet to be seen. However, Obama with any other Democrat in the mix of politics would have the possibility of having his "change message" tarnished. If Obama were to pick another "independent" like Joe Lieberman (which could actually be a running mate of Huckabee, but more of Rudi candidate), then he would be subjected to more of the "same old Washington" baggage and overflow. For all Americans who long for "American Change and hope" in Washington and through the fabric of America, there is a possibility with Barack Obama, but a Barack Obama/Mike Bloomberg ticket looms with not only change, but that is a true "change in politics."

WHY McCAIN AND HUCKABEE SHOULD UNITE, WITHOUT HUCKABEE LEAVING THE TICKET

Mitt Romney, at the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) meeting, dropped out of the presidential race. John McCain has wrapped up the GOP Nomination. Good for John McCain, a man that had endured more pain and anguish than most people ever do in a lifetime, for sealing up the republican presidential nod. He is a good man, regardless of any policy differences and choices he has with the far right, and has an 84% republican rating and voting record.

The democrats are far from picking their nominee. The coronation of the next democrat nominee for president, may go thru march and even to the Democratic National Convention, depending on who is behind. Where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will have to squabble for delegates, keep on the campaign trail, and maybe, just maybe distinguish policy discrepancies. John McCain will not, and has a rare opportunity.

McCain should announce, in the next week, that Mike Huckabee will be his vice presidential nominee, even if he "doesn't win the presidential nomination." Huckabee could stay on the ticket, primaries and debates would continue, and then after four to six weeks Mike Huckabee can "officially drop off of the ticket and become the vice presidential candidate." John McCain and Mike Huckabee could explain differences to the republican party, getting the Christian and Evangelical right focused, and make some history. All the while, creating a huge media buzz for the GOP.

Why John McCain wants Huckabee to on the GOP ticket and announce his plans for making him VP?

1. John McCain has the nomination wrapped up, with a bow, BUT he does not have the "far right" (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Brent Bozell, Dr. James Dobson, Laura Ingram, and other media figures, plus voters) in his corner now. However, when it comes to the actual election, republicans are going to vote for John McCain, rather than voting Hillary, or for Obama. Therefore, John McCain can use the "Huckabee to the White House" symbol, to go to debates [town hall meetings and the primaries], get the American public, the far right and republican base, to get to know more of both Huckabee and McCain. Proving to the base, that they are not only decisive and have a plan, but more than republican enough.

2. Huckabee and McCain have not got in the mud, smeared each other to date, and will not start anytime soon. Therefore, they should go into every primary and debate talking about how their previous records, future policies, and plans "in detail" for the country. All the while, hammering home differences between the GOP candidates and the democratic hopefuls. Huckabee was a hit and won states/delegates, the more people got to know him, his humble background, and he had a huge like ability factor. Every media and public situation will be free advertising and more air time, for them. Plus, the more people and "the right" get to know the intentions of the McCain/Huckabee ticket (thru pundits, talk shows and radio, debates and interviews), the faster the base will come back to them.

3. Announcing Huckabee as a VP candidate, while he is technically running on the ballot for president, shows that McCain is thinking of "change." Change, has been the catch phrase of Obama, Hillary, and Romney, though they have not actually put into exact words what and how they would be changing. If McCain (like I actually predicted, three weeks ago, in this blog) goes this route, while they are both running for president (technically), combining debates into actual stump speeches and primaries into polling data, there is nothing to lose. He is not going to find a huge conservative candidate, bring him into the public eye, and get momentum in time, so this could be a great decision. However, it has to be planned and timed correctly.

If John McCain makes Mike Huckabee, into "Huckaveep," while Mike is still "running for president," it would be a flashback to the days of "the "Maverick" John McCain. McCain and Huckabee would be utilizing every minute they have together, by forming fresh ideas and policies (while the democrats are still battling), to show both republicans and independents, their agenda. The "Straight Talk Express" (McCain) would have a VP candidate, that has only gained in popularity and won states that McCain hasn't. It would also allow the republican party to reunite, and maybe have a rebirth. Both candidates get their message across, through most of the primaries and media debates, and roll into the Republican National Convention together. They would be gathering steam, approval ratings, most of the dirt on them would be dug up, and democrats would still be duking it out, not laying a glove on them.

A "SUPER TUESDAY" STORY, NOT A PROGNOSTICATION, OR ANALYSIS

Like the wave to the beach, the highly touted and mainly biased, "SUPER TUESDAY" week and primaries have now come and gone. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are both claiming victory, for the delegates and states won. McCain won nine states, Mitt Romney six states, and Mike Huckabee won five states. Yet, their analysis of "Super Tuesday" was vastly different. Rather than going thru tortured details of "Super Tuesday" (like every media outlet in the world), the Oprah and California voting scandal(s), or anything that may be construed negative, ambiguous rhetoric, a witnessed story begs to be told, instead.

It is six o'clock in the morning, at a primary spot in a small elementary school (in a smaller suburb of Kansas City, Missouri), there are just four people working the site. After explaining that they were expecting a massive rush, people trying to vote before work, they were pleasantly surprised. There were only four people waiting to vote. The first three voters made it thru the process, without a hitch. The fourth person made it to get his ballot, when a silver haired woman spoke, "Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian?" There is a tone of sarcasm and disdain, in the woman's voice (who was obviously there for her $100, not to "volunteer"). The man asked to see the Libertarian ticket, rather than just picking one of the three, making her job just thirty seconds faster. After a brief exchange of words, the lady refused once again to let him check the ballot (to see who was on the Libertarian side). However, she did not bank on the man knowing his voting rights and things were resolvedthe was resolved, but only after he demanded to see the "Missouri Voting Process Book", the elderly woman thrusting a ballot into his hands, and sending him to the booth to vote.

During the uncomfortable and unnecessary display, several more people had filed into the education building. Waiting in line, a Caucasian, elderly lady was next to an Asian man. He volunteered his place in line, to her. [The gesture was in stark contrast, to the vulgar display of power, the elderly volunteer had shown to the man a minute before. Yet, that choice enabled the two strangers to start an unbelievable and telling exchange.] She declined, stating that she was not in any hurry, "at her age." Her name was Ruth. She was seventy-eight years old. His name was Carlos, and was fifty-seven years younger (thirty-one years old). Carlos asked her if she had always lived around the area and made small talk. Ruth's response was remarkable:

"It is very nice to meet you and be cordial, to one another. [she smiled, because of the semi-fight in front of them] I have lived in this area my whole life, for seventy-eight years. [Carlos said, "I bet things have really changed."] I remember everyone I voted for in the last fifty years, some winners and losers. However, times were different and people were different, back then. I was a registered republican, until 2000, but in my sixties it seemed to me like world and people changed, so much. I have been more concerned with how the city and people have become hardened, or like the world revolves around individuals. I registered as an Independent, for the elections between 2000 and 2006. I voted for George W. Bush both times. After over fifty years of being a voting republican, an independent voting for republicans, I am now a registered democrat and I will be voting for Barack Obama."

The man (Carlos), commented about being a registered democrat, himself. He also stated that he was going to vote for Barack Obama. Carlos and Ruth were then pushed thru to the registry process, while more people began to file in. However, they parted company with kind words and moved into the booths, to place their respective votes.

Every choice in life counts. In just a brief ten minutes, it looked like the people of the United States was in, a sixteen by sixteen, foot petry dish. Three people cast a vote for president, a man and an elderly woman had a heated discussion over looking at a piece of paper (because the lady was either lazy, or did not care enough to do her job), and two strangers (who were nearly three generations apart, from different ethnic backgrounds, and were also from very different economic backgrounds) having a conversation. Some people are fighting, others of all persuasions and backgrounds in positive dialogue (sharing their past, the present, future, and dreams), and still some just stand on life's sidelines doing nothing. Life in a nutshell.

This election season, when votes have been cast and the new President of the United States decided, the free world hangs in the balance. The world's biggest "Super Power" will have a new leader, brought on by individual's gathering together, believing in one human being. After the visit to the primary destination this morning and the end of "Super Tuesday," only one statement by any pundit, media outlet, or nominee had sustenance for the country.

From Obama's celebration speech, in Illinois:

"What started out as a whisper [on the steps of the courthouse, in Illinois], has now become a chorus of millions of people. However, this (election) is not about me, but it is about you (the individual voter)!"

Barack is a spectacular orator. However, speaking may not mean that he should be the "leader of the free world," has the vision and policies to lead, and this is not in any way an endorsement. However, one thing rings true, in his quote and thru the story above. Every single person in America and the world, must start thinking of the collective (rather than "individuality"), which breeds the right choice. When a person eliminates themselves out of the equation, it forces outward thinking, to the choices that effect the people around them. America will only become the great nation it was, when people start participating and demanding truth, thru individual choice for the betterment of society.

HUCKABEE SHOWS UP BIG, EARLY ON "SUPER TUESDAY"

HUCKABEE SHOWS UP BIG, IN THE EARLY PRIMARIES

At six o'clock AM, at small schools, VFW's, and small convention halls around the 24 states, on "Super Tuesday," were filled with potential voters. However, there was one thing that was certain at the beginning of the voting day, Mitt Romney was not happy. Mitt Romney had his machine using phone calls, the media and cable outlets, and was even screaming from the hills of Utah, "A VOTE FOR MIKE HUCKABEE IS A VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN! MIKE HUCKABEE SHOULD JUST DROP OUT OF THE RACE, FOR A TWO PERSON RUN DOWN!"

Mike Huckabee had other ideas, and so did the people voting for him. Early on "Super Tuesday's" polls closing, Mike Huckabee has not only won delegates, but he has won four full states (and not just Arkansas). Obviously, a vote for Governor Huckabee was not a vote for McCain, but it was a vote for Huckabee. There was no media people, papers, or really anyone that I personally read/watched, that wanted anything to do with Mike Huckabee over the weekend (except my humble self). However, Mike Huckabee now will have more power than anyone ever thought with his newly won delegates. Mitt Romney should have used his vast political knowledge, that he boasted so early and often about, to not make an enemy of other candidates. The liberal, flip flopping, Governor of Massachusetts must have never heard the quote, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is really to bad for Mitt, because he will not be getting a whiff of any of those delegates Huckabee worked hard to get.

COVERAGE OF "SUPER TUESDAY," ON SUNDAY, A DISGRACE

One might say, being just one day out from "Super Tuesday," that the pundits, media (both print and television), and all of the people in the "Blogosphere" would want to have as many candidates still alive. By having all four of the republican candidates and both democrats (Hillary and Obama), the whole coverage system wins. Due to ratings, actual advertising dollars, and the sense that some media outlets are "in the bag, biased, or just don't care," they should not be negating Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or where John Edwards' delegates are going to go.

After the Patriots got the shock of their lives, with their first loss of the season to the Giants, Fox News and CNN both had major time slots just for the "Super Tuesday" clash. However, both of the major cable news outlets took major looks at the "McCain vs. Romney" and "Hillary and Obama" showdowns, but they left out Mike Huckabee (who has almost as many delegates as McCain and Romney), Ron Paul (who has virtually no shot, but is still in the race), and did not even mention the "delegate factor" (for Huckabee, or Edwards). Both coasts and the majority of the elites in America, think that Fox News is a shill for the republican party. In the coverage on Sunday, Fox News has eliminated all of the "extras," (Huckabee, Paul, and Edwards, not to mention Alan Keyes and the possibility of Mike Bloomberg coming into the race), tossing all ideas and possibilities as yesterdays garbage.

What the country does, in voting, is the essence of our democratic process. By discounting any candidate prematurely, the outlet covering the elections (at whatever level) is doing the country and the candidates a complete disservice. On "Meet the Press," "Chris Wallace's Fox News Show," ABC's "News with George Stephonopolus," and the two CNN and Fox News shows (focused only on the election), had Obama, Clinton, Romney and McCain on them, with "FULL INTERVIEWS." However, there was little coverage, no interviews, or actual time on the networks with Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, or John Edwards (where he could discuss his electoral votes). When the media bets on the middle and lower class of people in America to not follow the politics of the media, the candidates, and the actual third parties who are making call after call to their homes, because they have to raise a family and work (not actually having time to research two to four hours a week, to get the truth), it is a sad day. Although, that is exactly what is happening, as of now. Not only are the candidates not getting the same coverage, but the "third parties shill" are blanketing America with inflammatory emails, lies, and calls smearing the majority of the candidates running.

After the "Super Bowl," both CNN and Fox News were brutal in their coverage on the upcoming "Super Tuesday," where twenty-two states will cast their votes. Watching Fox (especially), one would have to assume that there is only two candidates in each party, John McCain and Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth, when a person sits down and looks at the electoral map, which actually decides who will be the candidates for their respective parties. Only 12% of the electoral map is decided, and even after "Super Tuesday" there is not actually a certainty that there will be one candidate, for either party. When Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and John Edwards' (who is out of the campaign, but has gathered delegates, before his departure from campaigning) drop out of the campaign and are no longer a factor, then coverage should stop on the perspective candidates. Until then, the fact that ALL candidates are not getting the same amount of time in debates, in overall coverage in the print and Net media, and most of all in the cable and other news media outlets is a complete disgrace to our media and all that are behind the coverage.

OBAMA, CLINTON DEBATE; MAKES HISTORY AND LEAVES TEASER

In the Thursday night CNN debate, between democratic candidates Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there was little new information to be had. However, CNN's moderator Wolfe Blitzer, at the Kodak Center in Los Angeles, was light years ahead of Anderson Cooper's lackluster performance (the previous evening, for the republican debate). Where "Mr. AC 360" failed to bring out the discrepancies between the republican candidates and almost begged them to duke it out on the stage (at the Reagan Library), Blitzer tactfully poked and prodded with a bevy of questions. Actually separating the two remaining candidates, on at least four issues. Where there have been 17 other democratic debates, the debate before "Super Tuesday" between the first real Afro-American and woman candidate (which one will be the democratic choice to become the President of the United States), was a treat to watch and analyze. From the first words out of the candidates mouths, a middle of the debate that did show a handful of discrepancies and policy differences, to the very last question (a teaser virtually every talk news show host took to endless task and no doubt every media outlet over the weekend will drive into the ground until Tuesday's end) the night was filled quality and possibly history, just as it was billed.

Remarkably, the first words out of Obama's mouth was, "John Edwards." Who he thanked for bringing up, along his trek to gain delegates, his main issues of America's war with poverty, the poor, and the overall war on the middle class. Then, he used the democratic catch phrases, stating, "there is not a choice between black and white, a man or a woman here for president, but the planet is in peril...." Hillary's two minute opening, was a little bit more subtle, "January 20, 2009, I hope that it is one of us, who is taking the oath for the Presidancy of the United States!" However, she also included the newly ousted candidate, Edwards. They both made a huge points, to strategically pander for Edwards electoral votes and a possible endorsement. Although, after the rhetorical openings were over, both were forced to dive straight into actual differences.

First in health care, Obama wanted to give 95% of the people health care, but the other people a choice (15 million people, an estimate by the Clinton campaign). He said would have a choice to pay for a program. Within this choice, "He would repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay for the people not covered, and it would provide an avenue to keep costs down." Where as Hillary's plan would demand a "mandate" on the people, not giving them any choice. However, Clinton quickly came back, stating that she had the experience on this topic and the scars to prove it. Having been a purveyor of health care options for better than a quarter of a century, also that she was "ready to lead on day one, giving the people what they wanted, and that was every single person covered with health insurance."

When prodded about the housing plunge, Mrs. Clinton stated that she would, "set a moratorium on housing rates for at least ninety days, and a five year freeze on interest rates." However, Obama did not really delve into a huge plan on the housing market, rather going into the economy in general. He did say that there would be no interest rate freeze, because it may cause interest rates to spike and crush the economy, making things worse than it is now.

Iraq and foreign policy was the biggest stickler of the night, for the two candidates. Obama pointed out, that he wanted to pull out a portion of the troops immediately and he would also make sure that Iran would be spoken to directly, to bring them into the fold. "Speaking to Iran directly would open up avenues, the Bush Administration has never opened," he said. Although Hillary has completely different views on both Iraq and Iran, she did say that she would try to move as many troops out of Iraq, "as soon as possible." She continued, "the main thing is protecting our troops and those who have helped in the fight, but the Malicki Government has to start making the tough choices, because time is up."

The main difference and biggest jab of the evening was Obama making the point, "he has always been against the war from the start." Which prompted Wolf Blitzer to say to senator Clinton, "Since you have stated that you are the best choice for president, to lead the country on day one if elected president, and because of your experience, isn't a little bit naive that you voted for the Iraq war?" The question alone garnered some boos and hisses from the crowd. However, Hillary handled the question in stride, going back to the talking points, "I voted to give President Bush the option to keep the inspectors in, not George Bush take us to war."

Aside from a few other jabs, or swipes that were far from overt, the night was an overall success and fairly cordial. Although, the last question Blitzer proposed to the candidates will be the most spoken about, thru "Super Tuesday." "Would either of you consider, becoming the other's running mate, for vice president?" The auditorium boomed with both buzz and laughter, as did the candidates. Obama spoke on it first stating, "Obviously there's a big difference between those two," Obama said. "I respect Senator Clinton, I think her service to this country is extraordinary." But he said, "We've got a lot more road to travel" before such a decision. Pressed for an answer, he ended with, "I'm sure Hillary would be on anybody's short list." Then Hillary replied, "Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said." It was too early to discuss running mates. However, I do not think that the media, pundits, and everyone else who follows politics (for that matter) will have any trouble discussing it at all.