Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)