"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.