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."