From The Blog Site: "The Thought Spigot" http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/Home_Page.html
Scott McClellan's new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, has united both people in the White House and also press corp. people and major print, television, and radio figures. It is not a usual day, when people, from vastly different vantage points, in the political spectrum have the same view on a book and the person who wrote it. However, David Gregory (MSNBC Contributer/White House correspondent), Ari Fleischer (Fox Contributer/Former Bush Press Secretary), Dana Perino, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett (All White House Staffers), and broadcast anchors Brian Williams and Katy Couric have all spoken out on the book, with basically the same vitriol. Diametrically opposed political people, hardened news people, and Washington insiders are all saying the same thing, in slightly different sentiment.
In this soon to be released book, in early June, he hammers President Bush, Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, and other White House officials. In fact stating, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later." This quote involving the Valerie Plame story, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq. He continued saying that "he and President Bush" were victims of deception, in the Plame fiasco (ruled over by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and others). Yet, he hammered President Bush on his handling of Iraq and the Katrina disaster, and the whole press corps for not doing their jobs, in asking and probing for the correct questions, in the lead up and during the Iraq War.
If Scott McClellan is correct, stating the press didn't do their job, McClellan himself was completely deceived, and the White House is working against the American people. Why do all of the different figures (again, with VERY different political ideologies and views) say the following:
David Gregory, "I think the questions were asked (about the Iraq war before, and during). I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. I think, not only those in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the landscape of the media did that.
Dana Perino (W. H. Press Secretary), "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad-this is not the Scott we knew."
Frances Fragos Townsend (Former Homeland Security Adv.) "Often times, the press secretary will be briefed, after, some of these more sensitive meetings. The press secretary does not participate in the briefings for the Secretary of Defense.
Ari Fleischer (Former W. H. Press Secretary) "If Scott had such deep misgivings, he should not have accepted the press secretary position as a matter of principle."
Pat Buchanon (MSNBC contributor, historian, former Presidential Candidate, etc..etc...), "Well, you have got to ask why did Scott McClellan did not resign, for Heaven sakes. He said, basically, that the Bush White House was propagandizing for war, cherry picking for information, making the case, as a prosecutor would for a war in which he (McClellan), did not believe in. I wonder why a man would participate in something like that (the job he held, did not speak up in), if he disbelieved, in the cause, or in the war. I can't explain that, (I haven't read his book), but I have read what he said (the direct quotes from the book).
Dan Bartlett (Scott McClellan's boss, at the W. H. ), "Scott McClellan did defend this war and these things from the podium, in fact, in the most private of moments, within the West Wing of the White House. With his closest friends and colleagues, he did not raise these concerns, that he is now raising in this book? I have known him for more than a decade, and there is no one more shocked, than I, with these things he has leveled."
Then the two sides of McClellan, himself. The side, when he was the White House Press Secretary and the McClellan in "book form": Scott McClellan, in his own words, on his last day of office (in front of the press corps and White House he has blatantly hammered), "Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary honor to have served you and the White House for seven years now." However, now McClellan in his book, states, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."
It is really hard to believe, that a man in the political arena for his whole life (going back with the Bush family, to Texas Governor), could have such a change of heart, recollection, and candor in a little under a year. After all, he did appear on the "Bill Maher Show" and defended President Bush's White House and his position, just eleven short months ago. A man does not work in the White House for seven years, previed to the knowledge he had, stand up in front of the press corps and millions of Americans lying (day in and day out), is asked to step down from his post, then have a change of heart, or conscious. It sounds more like a man, who was disgruntled for being shown the door, a little earlier, than he may have wanted, and now it is sour grapes. If you do not believe that, then why do so many people of different political stripes, have basically the same things (above) to say?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
SCOTT McCLELLAN, OBAMA, & STONE: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS
Three major stories surfaced, over the flat and guarded media holiday, Barack Obama's Memorial Day Story (on one of his uncle's being the first to save a concentration camp, of Jewish people, in W.W.II) and Sharon Stone (in Cannes, France) at the Cannes Film Festival's Red Carpet, where she made a comment about China's Earthquake, being "Karma" for their treatment of the Dalai Lama and Tibet. Finally, Scott MCClellan has come out with a brand new book, which levels huge dispersions, against the Bush White House, cabinet members, and other things which may, or may not have been 100% accurate. All three of these stories, which have just broken over the last 24 hours (in the US), have legs, but are the actually being reported and discussed accurately?
First, Barack Obama stood in front of a captivated audience, in New Mexico. He was speaking about the United States troops, both past and present, when he broke into a story from his past.
He said, "I had an uncle, who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go in Auschwitz. And liberate the concentration camps. The story of our family, was when he came home, he just went up to the attic and did not come outside the house for six months."
A truly compelling story, on a day that is meant for reflection and remembering those who are serving, or who have served. However, upon the media's digging, "The Red Army" was the group that liberated Auschwitz, not Obama's uncle, Obama's uncle's unit, not even an American force. However, upon further evaluation, Obama's uncle (Charles Payne) was a member of a unit, in W.W.II, that did liberate a concentration camp, in Buchenwald. Mistakes are made in speeches and/or taken out of context, but Alex Conant (of the RNC, Republican National Convention, spokesman) issued a press release on the mistake.
He said (on behalf of the RNC), "Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead, as commander-in-chief."
Obama's campaign, then had to take care of damage control and issued the actual story and clear up the misconception (mistake, if you will). Bill Burton, of the Obama campaign said, "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."
The next snafu of words, was not from a politician, but a Hollywood elite and friend of the Dalai Lama, Sharon Stone. Stone was asked a question, from an Asian reporter (on the red carpet of a film festival), about the situation in China and the earthquake that has killed over 80,000 people, with thousands still in hospitals and missing. Ms. Stone had a staggered approach to her answer, to the question, Staggering it in a linear and time line, in her own head, as she answered.
She openly said, "Well you know it is very interesting, because at first I was not happy about the Chinese and the way they were treating the Tibetans, because I do not believe that anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so, I have been very concerned and have had to think, about how and what to do about that, because I don't like that. Then I was, like, how to we (the US) deal with the Olympics? Because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine. And then this earthquake happened and I began to think. Is that Karma, when you are not nice and then the bad things happen to you? And then I got a letter, from the Tibetan Foundation, and they wanted to go and be helpful, and that made me cry. And they asked me if I would write a quote about that? And I said that I would, because it was a big lesson to me, that sometimes you have to learn and put your head down, be of service, even when people are not nice to you."
When the Sharon Stone quote is read, it is an obvious reflection of how she felt like she was wrong, in thinking that the earthquake was "Karma" and the Chinese deserved whatever they got. In turn, she was actually saying, no matter who a person, group, country, or ideological society is and what they are doing (right, or wrong), a person is still to "put their head down" and do the right thing. However, on Greta Van Susteren's show, "On the Record" on Fox News Channel, Greta and Dawn Yaneck, of Life & Style Weekly, put Sharon Stone thru the ringer. Stating only the facts, of the "Karma comment" and leaving out the totality of her comments. They insinuated (even using the frozen graphic, under the interviewer and Susteren) and blatantly stated, "Actress Sharon Stone suggests earthquake in China was Karma." When this could not be any further from the truth, as shown, by the complete remarks, above.
Finally, former official White House Spokesman/Press Secretary, Scott MCClellan, has written a book, What Happened. In this soon to be released book, in early June, he hammers President Bush, Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, and other White House officials. In fact stating, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later." This quote involving the Valerie Plame story, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq. He continued saying that "he and President Bush" were victims of deception, in the Plame fiasco (ruled over by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and others). Yet, he hammered President Bush on his handling of Iraq and the Katrina disaster.
One of these quotes is especially appealing, to look at, he states in the book, "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know without absolute certainty, how the war will be viewed decades from now, when we can fully understand its impact. What I do know is war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war, was not necessary." He continued on stating, "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the country."
What is amazing about the MCClellan story and soon to be released book, is every person in the White House Corps, has come out stating that Scott never broke rank, raised any objections to policy, and stayed in lock step (rather than speaking out, until now, in book form). However, his job description, as all White House officials, is to speak up and take a stand in things they could sway, not agree with, and most of all speak out against things, they believe to not be in the nation's interest, but also with their own interests. MCClellan has leaked these several quotes out, just days before his book hits shelves, using Politico.com to speak at his behest, just giving the interviewer, enough of a carrot to take to the major media, news media, and talk radio media outlets, to create a buzz for his book sales. When working for the White House and President Bush, Scott MCClellan was a "yes man" (with no shadow of a doubt), now he looks more like a Huffington Press blogger/hit man.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The amazing thing about the three of these stories: Barack Obama made a simple mistake, in a setting that was non-scripted and in front of a live crowd of people (on a National Holiday). Everyone is entitled to a mistake, which Obama obviously made, then corrected. Sharon Stone made a linear statement, once again live and off the cuff, and she spoke from the heart, was eloquent in her point and ending. Although, was crucified by the television people, taken out of context, and was put as the antipathy of good taste. The media people going almost to the point, of saying she thought the Chinese people deserved to die, in the earthquake (which was not at all, what she said). Finally, Scott MCClellan, spills just enough venom and twists some words out of his book, to a web site reporter, to stir a buzz, just to sell books. He has thrown everyone under the bus, and looks transparent and weak, in his statements.
Where the truth begins and the distortion begins, is sometimes hard to find. However, when dealing with clear cut quotes, actual scenarios, and a book in print, there should not be any real disputing whole details. Should there? Three different scenarios, above, on the same day in the news, but three different outlooks, smearing campaigns, and an overall self serving outlook. Whether it is the Clintons (or republicans) hammering Obama for political gain, Greta Van Susteren and some mediocre tabloid beauty for rating, or a former White House official distorting his experience in the White House (when he was not in classified oval office meetings, things he alluded to and did not give full answers, and he never spoke up when being employed by the White House) to sell books. It all boils down to some kind of narcissism and sadly anyone is a target, to the whims of people serving themselves.
First, Barack Obama stood in front of a captivated audience, in New Mexico. He was speaking about the United States troops, both past and present, when he broke into a story from his past.
He said, "I had an uncle, who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go in Auschwitz. And liberate the concentration camps. The story of our family, was when he came home, he just went up to the attic and did not come outside the house for six months."
A truly compelling story, on a day that is meant for reflection and remembering those who are serving, or who have served. However, upon the media's digging, "The Red Army" was the group that liberated Auschwitz, not Obama's uncle, Obama's uncle's unit, not even an American force. However, upon further evaluation, Obama's uncle (Charles Payne) was a member of a unit, in W.W.II, that did liberate a concentration camp, in Buchenwald. Mistakes are made in speeches and/or taken out of context, but Alex Conant (of the RNC, Republican National Convention, spokesman) issued a press release on the mistake.
He said (on behalf of the RNC), "Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead, as commander-in-chief."
Obama's campaign, then had to take care of damage control and issued the actual story and clear up the misconception (mistake, if you will). Bill Burton, of the Obama campaign said, "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."
The next snafu of words, was not from a politician, but a Hollywood elite and friend of the Dalai Lama, Sharon Stone. Stone was asked a question, from an Asian reporter (on the red carpet of a film festival), about the situation in China and the earthquake that has killed over 80,000 people, with thousands still in hospitals and missing. Ms. Stone had a staggered approach to her answer, to the question, Staggering it in a linear and time line, in her own head, as she answered.
She openly said, "Well you know it is very interesting, because at first I was not happy about the Chinese and the way they were treating the Tibetans, because I do not believe that anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so, I have been very concerned and have had to think, about how and what to do about that, because I don't like that. Then I was, like, how to we (the US) deal with the Olympics? Because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine. And then this earthquake happened and I began to think. Is that Karma, when you are not nice and then the bad things happen to you? And then I got a letter, from the Tibetan Foundation, and they wanted to go and be helpful, and that made me cry. And they asked me if I would write a quote about that? And I said that I would, because it was a big lesson to me, that sometimes you have to learn and put your head down, be of service, even when people are not nice to you."
When the Sharon Stone quote is read, it is an obvious reflection of how she felt like she was wrong, in thinking that the earthquake was "Karma" and the Chinese deserved whatever they got. In turn, she was actually saying, no matter who a person, group, country, or ideological society is and what they are doing (right, or wrong), a person is still to "put their head down" and do the right thing. However, on Greta Van Susteren's show, "On the Record" on Fox News Channel, Greta and Dawn Yaneck, of Life & Style Weekly, put Sharon Stone thru the ringer. Stating only the facts, of the "Karma comment" and leaving out the totality of her comments. They insinuated (even using the frozen graphic, under the interviewer and Susteren) and blatantly stated, "Actress Sharon Stone suggests earthquake in China was Karma." When this could not be any further from the truth, as shown, by the complete remarks, above.
Finally, former official White House Spokesman/Press Secretary, Scott MCClellan, has written a book, What Happened. In this soon to be released book, in early June, he hammers President Bush, Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, and other White House officials. In fact stating, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later." This quote involving the Valerie Plame story, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq. He continued saying that "he and President Bush" were victims of deception, in the Plame fiasco (ruled over by Rove, Libby, Cheney, and others). Yet, he hammered President Bush on his handling of Iraq and the Katrina disaster.
One of these quotes is especially appealing, to look at, he states in the book, "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know without absolute certainty, how the war will be viewed decades from now, when we can fully understand its impact. What I do know is war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war, was not necessary." He continued on stating, "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the country."
What is amazing about the MCClellan story and soon to be released book, is every person in the White House Corps, has come out stating that Scott never broke rank, raised any objections to policy, and stayed in lock step (rather than speaking out, until now, in book form). However, his job description, as all White House officials, is to speak up and take a stand in things they could sway, not agree with, and most of all speak out against things, they believe to not be in the nation's interest, but also with their own interests. MCClellan has leaked these several quotes out, just days before his book hits shelves, using Politico.com to speak at his behest, just giving the interviewer, enough of a carrot to take to the major media, news media, and talk radio media outlets, to create a buzz for his book sales. When working for the White House and President Bush, Scott MCClellan was a "yes man" (with no shadow of a doubt), now he looks more like a Huffington Press blogger/hit man.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The amazing thing about the three of these stories: Barack Obama made a simple mistake, in a setting that was non-scripted and in front of a live crowd of people (on a National Holiday). Everyone is entitled to a mistake, which Obama obviously made, then corrected. Sharon Stone made a linear statement, once again live and off the cuff, and she spoke from the heart, was eloquent in her point and ending. Although, was crucified by the television people, taken out of context, and was put as the antipathy of good taste. The media people going almost to the point, of saying she thought the Chinese people deserved to die, in the earthquake (which was not at all, what she said). Finally, Scott MCClellan, spills just enough venom and twists some words out of his book, to a web site reporter, to stir a buzz, just to sell books. He has thrown everyone under the bus, and looks transparent and weak, in his statements.
Where the truth begins and the distortion begins, is sometimes hard to find. However, when dealing with clear cut quotes, actual scenarios, and a book in print, there should not be any real disputing whole details. Should there? Three different scenarios, above, on the same day in the news, but three different outlooks, smearing campaigns, and an overall self serving outlook. Whether it is the Clintons (or republicans) hammering Obama for political gain, Greta Van Susteren and some mediocre tabloid beauty for rating, or a former White House official distorting his experience in the White House (when he was not in classified oval office meetings, things he alluded to and did not give full answers, and he never spoke up when being employed by the White House) to sell books. It all boils down to some kind of narcissism and sadly anyone is a target, to the whims of people serving themselves.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON WINNING NOMINATION, USING 3 STEPS
FROM: "The Thought Spigot" http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/Home_Page.html
Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination for the democratic party. Just as she cried her way, into the winning of the New Hampshire Primary, by showing a more "human and feminine side," she is putting herself into a position to win, by instituting a brilliant three step plan. Clinton is going to use Obama's past, his indecision and character judgment, and all of the character's in his past against him (or third party people/organizations, will do it for her, over the weeks to come). Second, she is going to move more to the middle, use a "populist view" (speaking in stump speeches and to the voters), and use the DNC chair (Dr. Howard Dean) and the other thirty voters to seed Michigan and Florida. By seeding Florida and Michigan, Hillary will have the popular vote, may have a delegate lead (or will be so close it will not matter), and she will have won all of the states a democrat, or republican, has to win, to become the President of the United States. Lastly, after the smashing of Obama's character and exposing the seedy people around him, getting the reseeding of Michigan and Florida, forcing the DNC and Howard Dean to tip his hand (like he did on "Meet the Press"), Hillary Clinton will then use her massive inner circle and under the table people, to lobby all of the Super Delegates, showing she is the only candidate viable against McCain.
First, Senator Clinton is going to use Barack Obama's judgment and character issues. Characters and people in Obama's life, when he chose "expediency" (after losing his first run at state politics, in Chicago), over being around the right people and doing the correct things, to get elected, become the democratic rising star, and eventually the potential nominee, for the Democratic nominee. Tony Rezco ($8.5 million bail defendant and Obama supporter, friend, business partner, and possible 8-11 count federal felon), Bill Ayers (self proclaimed Anti-American Terrorist), Reverend Jeremiah Wright (enough said), and the countless other people Obama used ("I scratch your back, your scratch mine") to get to the top of the pile, in Chicago. Clinton and the surrogates are going to use all of this, plus any of the extra Rev. Wright comments (in the future), to ensure Obama's judgment and character is destroyed. She will show that he won the states, in the early parts of the candidacy, before he was adequately vetted and now that he has been, he cannot win against Senator John McCain.
Howard Dean, on the Sunday, April 27, 2008, on "Meet the Press" said, "I will let the 30 responsible and fully capable people, in the DNC, decide whether we seed Florida and Michigan." This statement, by Dean, is far from the original statements he made, all along. He has been saying, "rules are rules" and "There is no way that Florida and Michigan can have the infrastructure and overall time to get the job done (revoting and counting the votes) in time for Colorado." Dean's change in tune, is hitting a sour note with Obama, who has never wanted Michigan and Florida to be seeded, due to Hillary already winning Florida, and the fact that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the other big states have all gone to Hillary (with the exception of Wisconsin). Once Michigan and Florida are back in play, at whatever level, coupled with the momentum of Hillary Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, and doing the correct thing in going on Fox News "O'Reilly Factor, The No Spin Zone" (which has given her maximum exposure now, and she came off friendly, up to snuff, and in portions acted and answered brilliantly).
Lastly, if the public looks at the "Super Delegates" who have not cast a vote for Obama, or Hillary Clinton, they are major players in the party, have the most to lose (for casting a wrong vote), and are also the have the most to gain (by being with the winner). Senators, congressmen, and others like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Heath Shuler (North Carolina's blue blood, freshman congressman), and others like Robert Byrd. These "Super Delegates" are going to decide the nomination, in a back room, somewhere. Once Florida and Michigan are seeded, that will clear the way for the super delegates to vote for Hillary Clinton, due to the fact she will have the popular vote, close to the delegates needed, and will have the wind at her back. The only possible thing, the "Super Delegates" may not go with Hillary on, is because of the simple fact of race and the party. Either way, the democratic party is in a hard-line disarray and may be imploding. The "MoveOn.org's," "Daily Kos'," and all of the fringe democratic entities (the Ayers', Carl Davidson types, George Soros', and a large portion of elites in the media, academia, and Hollywood celebrities) are pushing the party one way. While the more moderate democratic people, in the middle of the country, the "Reagan Democrats" and the middle of the country democratic voting block, are going in an opposite direction.
The Bottom Line: Hillary Clinton has a huge shot at winning the democratic nomination, based on the above, but she is a stronger and more proven candidate, overall. However, there are going to be some people, who will be outraged. Those mentioned above, the elites, media, and all the others, but the main people the democrats should be worried about, are the Afro-American voters. Some are going to see this, as "disenfranchising the black man" (not to mention the first real Afro-American presidential nominee). If you were to ask me, three months ago, I would have said there was no way Hillary could overcome the media attention, the love of the country, and the huge push Barack Obama had. However, as of today, I would never bet against Hillary Clinton again, for anything, anytime.
First, Senator Clinton is going to use Barack Obama's judgment and character issues. Characters and people in Obama's life, when he chose "expediency" (after losing his first run at state politics, in Chicago), over being around the right people and doing the correct things, to get elected, become the democratic rising star, and eventually the potential nominee, for the Democratic nominee. Tony Rezco ($8.5 million bail defendant and Obama supporter, friend, business partner, and possible 8-11 count federal felon), Bill Ayers (self proclaimed Anti-American Terrorist), Reverend Jeremiah Wright (enough said), and the countless other people Obama used ("I scratch your back, your scratch mine") to get to the top of the pile, in Chicago. Clinton and the surrogates are going to use all of this, plus any of the extra Rev. Wright comments (in the future), to ensure Obama's judgment and character is destroyed. She will show that he won the states, in the early parts of the candidacy, before he was adequately vetted and now that he has been, he cannot win against Senator John McCain.
Howard Dean, on the Sunday, April 27, 2008, on "Meet the Press" said, "I will let the 30 responsible and fully capable people, in the DNC, decide whether we seed Florida and Michigan." This statement, by Dean, is far from the original statements he made, all along. He has been saying, "rules are rules" and "There is no way that Florida and Michigan can have the infrastructure and overall time to get the job done (revoting and counting the votes) in time for Colorado." Dean's change in tune, is hitting a sour note with Obama, who has never wanted Michigan and Florida to be seeded, due to Hillary already winning Florida, and the fact that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the other big states have all gone to Hillary (with the exception of Wisconsin). Once Michigan and Florida are back in play, at whatever level, coupled with the momentum of Hillary Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, and doing the correct thing in going on Fox News "O'Reilly Factor, The No Spin Zone" (which has given her maximum exposure now, and she came off friendly, up to snuff, and in portions acted and answered brilliantly).
Lastly, if the public looks at the "Super Delegates" who have not cast a vote for Obama, or Hillary Clinton, they are major players in the party, have the most to lose (for casting a wrong vote), and are also the have the most to gain (by being with the winner). Senators, congressmen, and others like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Heath Shuler (North Carolina's blue blood, freshman congressman), and others like Robert Byrd. These "Super Delegates" are going to decide the nomination, in a back room, somewhere. Once Florida and Michigan are seeded, that will clear the way for the super delegates to vote for Hillary Clinton, due to the fact she will have the popular vote, close to the delegates needed, and will have the wind at her back. The only possible thing, the "Super Delegates" may not go with Hillary on, is because of the simple fact of race and the party. Either way, the democratic party is in a hard-line disarray and may be imploding. The "MoveOn.org's," "Daily Kos'," and all of the fringe democratic entities (the Ayers', Carl Davidson types, George Soros', and a large portion of elites in the media, academia, and Hollywood celebrities) are pushing the party one way. While the more moderate democratic people, in the middle of the country, the "Reagan Democrats" and the middle of the country democratic voting block, are going in an opposite direction.
The Bottom Line: Hillary Clinton has a huge shot at winning the democratic nomination, based on the above, but she is a stronger and more proven candidate, overall. However, there are going to be some people, who will be outraged. Those mentioned above, the elites, media, and all the others, but the main people the democrats should be worried about, are the Afro-American voters. Some are going to see this, as "disenfranchising the black man" (not to mention the first real Afro-American presidential nominee). If you were to ask me, three months ago, I would have said there was no way Hillary could overcome the media attention, the love of the country, and the huge push Barack Obama had. However, as of today, I would never bet against Hillary Clinton again, for anything, anytime.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, A Man of God
"The Thought Spigot"http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/Home_Page.html
Life is a sweater, clothing every individual in the world. The threads of the sweater are each choice, individual event, and outcome that has happened in our lives. Finally, the pattern off the sweater (on the sweater) is what our lives look like, and look like to others. Some sweaters are filled, with butterflies, vivid colors, and countless other beautiful, God filled things. Still others, are jet black, frayed, from choices and results, unfulfilled. Although, every sweater is unique and different, they are all made from our choices, reflect our true inner self, and always show the truth.
In every news spot, from the time Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave his NAACP presentation and the answers at the National Press Club, there has been mass speculation, parsing of words (by Wright, pundits, and news anchors), and mainly the words from Reverend Wright himself. When a man of the cloth (no matter what denomination, or religion), makes statements like these: "The US government made and put the AIDS virus into the black community [to cause genocide]," "The chickens have come home to roost [in referring to America, deserving to be hit on 9-11]," and his countless remarks over the last two major meetings and two sermons over the weekend, there is no excuse for them. There are very few professions in life, requiring absolute faith, decision making and character, and most importantly the truth and ethics, in both professional and personal life.
One of those professions is being a religious leader. Regardless, of the religion, the leader is bound by God, to teach and preach to followers, what is in God's message. In the Christian faith, there are countless priests, ministers, reverends, and other leaders who are men of God and lead a group in the congregation, in the truth of the Lord (Jesus Christ). However, there are a handful of those leaders, in the Christian faith, who may have once been pure of heart, but have strayed off of the path, for their own fortunes, ideologies, or narcissistic reasons. Reverend Wright is one of those people. A narcissistic man, who has now thrown Barack Obama under the bus, and is making a media road trip, to serve his own ego and ultimately to sell a best selling book (in the fall).
Jeremiah Wright is not only a self serving reverend, but he uses the Bible, God, and his pulpit to spew an Afro-American agenda, filled with hate and segregation to a portion of the black community. When he was confronted on the remarks, he made in the United Trinity pulpit, he hid from the media, leaving Barack Obama to field the questions, call him an "uncle that you cannot, just disown" and burying Obama in a mound of democratic Clinton rhetoric (not to mention the media, news stories, and constant pundit interviews). When Wright came back, for what was perceived as a low key home coming, instead he is grand standing, stating "this whole thing is not about me, but about the Black Church" and whenever possible fuels his own agenda, by pontificating his own credentials and bashing anyone who disagrees.
Overall, Wright is the worst kind of "man of God." He has put himself, thrown some in his congregation under the bus (Obama), possibly derailed the first Afro-American president in the White House (for his own gain), he has also put everything in his own ideology (to segregate the black community, from anyone not black) in front of God, but maybe the worst thing about "The Reverend Jeremiah Wright" is he puts one of the seven deadly sins, in front of everything. Wright's vanity has manufactured him into this position, by putting himself, in front of God, God's word, and most importantly leading God's children down the wrong path. Hopefully, he will see the error of his narcissistic ways, before it is to late. I know I will be praying for him.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Jeremiah Wright, Obama, & The NAACP
FROM: "The Thought Spigot" http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/Home_Page.html
There are countless people, in the political and media eye, who have constant visions of the problems in the United States. There are a lot of things in America's economic, foreign, and the overall state of the union policy. Jeremiah Wright, at the Detroit NAACP meeting, had many great quotes at the biggest meeting of the year, for the Afro-American community. Starting out, as a speech on the "black community," Wright turned the thirty minute speech, into an "Afro-American Church Service." The Wright speech and/or service was not out of line, in the way it was presented, the way Wright boomed away, and even when he broke into dance. Wright's comments though, were not only unprecedented and not factual, they were completely out of line. Wright's whole speech was under the guise of, "America is a country who sees different, as being deficient." He also went on saying, "I am not divisive, I am descriptive. I am not running for President of the United States, I am running for Jesus."
The "sermon on the mount of the NAACP" was tame of Wright quotes. By comparison, to the other things, he has been quoted in the media, "America injected the AIDS virus, into the minority [black] community" and comparing "the United States to Al-Queada." However, the main flaw with the speech, was the ten minute rant, on the Afro-American community and unity. There was two major flaws in the overall part of the speech. The first part, Wright said the Afro-American and African people are completely different, from White Americans and others, from the womb. Wright used music, as an example of this, comparing the Michigan and Michigan State marching band (playing the school fight song, at football games), to the Grambling State marching band. Also saying, that blacks think and learn on different beats, genetically imprinted on their brains, from birth. The other major flaw in his speech, was the fact he did not mention Caucasian and other nations of people integrating (in any way) with the Afro-American community.
Barack Obama was also on the television, having his interview with Chris Wallace (after 722 days, of the promise to come on his show). Obama was all over the map, in the interview, blaming the media for being positive on his wins, but slamming him after Pennsylvania. Really, the overlying theme of the whole Obama interview, was summed up in the statements he made referring to wins in Wisconsin, Iowa, and previous other states when the democratic field was markedly wider and the press was giving him a direct pass. Ironically, this fits into the fact Obama was not properly vetted, early on, in the democratic election process, Michigan and Florida did not have primaries, and the fact that Obama and Wright are close. They are close in the sense of Wright being his pastor, his spiritual mentor and also the fact Obama and Wright used each other to climb their respective ladders. This is the major reason why the American people (especially the democrats voting for Hillary), have a vested interest in how far Obama espouses Wright's views, insight into the segregation versus integration (which happened to be Michelle Obama's thesis, at Princeton, when she was twenty-two years old), and the overall feeling Obama has with the mixing of races and where Afro-American people are to be, in Wright's view, in American society?
The Bottom Line: The fatal flaw for Barack Obama is he stayed in a church, who's reverend preached against Caucasian and Afro-American integration, who made complete anti-American statements (the government put AIDS into the Afro-American and minority communities, as a form of genocide), and people do not know exactly where he will stand on these kinds of issues. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has one fatal flaw in his speech, at the NAACP meeting (at Obama's expense). If Afro-American people have different learning patterns, ways to learn music and even different ways to practice their religion, "from out of the womb," where does that leave Barack Obama, who is both Caucasian and Afro-American (biracial)? Did Obama and all biracial people have a struggle from birth in learning, music, relationships, and all other parts of their lives? Is Obama bound by DNA, to become, either white, or black, by choice? A bigger question is Barack Obama, is just as Caucasian, as Afro-American, why is the African community voting for him, at a 90% rate (that is the question people should be asking, as well as, why can't he win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and California)
Wright's overall thesis, or premise, last night was a joke. People are all created equal, all created with the same blood in their veins, and though they may have a darker skin, lighter skin, or somewhere in between, it makes no difference what their skin color is, out of the womb. What matters is the values, ethics, morality, and overall choices they make, as adults. Changes occur and things are learned, thru environment, choice, parental and overall people's interactions, with other people. There are genetic traits, that are handed down, of course. However, to make huge blanket statements, like Wright did, is beyond absurd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)