Thursday, February 28, 2008


After a stolen election, ethnic cleansing and even the threat of civil war
THE decision to return Kenya's 76-year-old incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, to office was not made by the Kenyan people but by a small group of hardline leaders from Mr Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe. They made up their minds before the result was announced, perhaps even before the opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, had opened up a lead in early returns from the December 27th election. It was a civil coup.
The planning was meticulous. All that was needed were the extra votes to squeak past Mr Odinga in what had been among the most closely contested elections Africa had ever seen. That was why returns from Central Province, Mr Kibaki's fiercely loyal Kikuyu heartland, were inexplicably held back. It was why, in some constituencies, a large number of voters seemed mysteriously to vote only in the presidential race and ignore the parliamentary ballot—despite waiting hours in the blazing sun. But the real damage was done in Nairobi, by simply crossing out the number of votes as announced in the constituency and scribbling in a higher number. Election monitors were turned away while the tallying went on. Monitors from the European Union saw tens of thousands of votes pinched in this way.
The reason I bring you news from Kenya, a country in a terrible state, is the complete silence heard from one Barack Hussein Obama, a candidate whose own father resides there!!! Although completely unable to corroborate this fact, an African immigrant who works for me (and a person you would be very proud to call your friend) tells me unabashedly that
Raila Odinga is actually a distant cousin of Obama!!!
Yes, the same Odinga who ran against,
and lost the election in Kenya "Floridian style."
And yet, Obama says nothing.
Is he representing, or turning white?
Mass chaos in Africa, complete bigotry in a dismal effort by FEMA to help the overwhelmingly black population effected by Hurrican Katrina, Jena 6, inner city schools eroding, mass poverty in black neighborhoods, and on and on...
yet this black leader doesn't say squat.
Troubling (OR AT LEAST CURIOUS) to say the least...

Tuesday, February 26, 2008


Lifted from an excellent blog.
CHECK IT OUT : True Blue Liberal
Obama skeleton du jour:
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses. The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15. Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.
Mc Cain skeleton du jour:
The right has been going nuts over the McCain lobbyist scandal and how evil the New York Times is, but thanks to the DemRapidResponse Channel on YouTube, who dug up some CNN clips from the 2000 presidential campaign, we are reminded that George W. Bush went after John McCain for the very same issue that he and the GOP are now attacking the Times for in 2008 — lobbyists.
Bush, using a 2000 Wall Street Journal article on McCain’s lobbyist ties, attacks him for being a D.C. insider, flying on corporate jets and taking big money from lobbyists in return for favors. And it bears repeating — Drudge ran with this story months before the New York Times. Maybe it’s time for the president and the right wing pundits and politicians to dial back the indignation?
BUSH: “It’s important on campaign funding reform that we have campaign funding reform. But it’s also important for people to know that my friend is raising money from people who have business in front of his committee. Nothing illegal about that, but I just want to make sure the facts are laid bare.”
BUSH: “What I need to do is make it clear and not let Senator McCain get away with this Washington double-talk.”

Sunday, February 24, 2008


At Texas Debate, Obama Claimed He Has Disclosed All His Earmark Records, Despite Refusing To Release Any Information Prior To 2007

At Last Night's Democrat Debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Claimed He Has "Been Consistently In Favor Of More Disclosure Around Earmarks" And Released All Of His Earmarks:

Obama: "We've actually disclosed ... all our earmarks, and so, you know, we'll be happy to provide you with that information, because I believe very strongly in transparency." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

Obama: "[I] have been consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks. ... [I] want to make sure that they're not done in the dark of night ... And I have consistently supported those efforts." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

Obama Has Refused To Disclose His Earmark Requests For 2005 And 2006. "Since last year, he has publicly released the letters he submits to the Appropriations Committee seeking support for the spending items, but has not released those submitted to the committee in 2005 and 2006." (Paul Kane, "Candidates' Earmarks Worth Millions," The Washington Post, 2/14/08)
In 2007, Obama Secured Over $91 Million In Earmarked Funds. "He secured $3.3 million in earmarks through his own sponsorship, and collected $88 million in concert with other Illinois lawmakers." (Paul Kane, "Candidates' Earmarks Worth Millions," The Washington Post, 2/14/08)
And He Requested More Than $300 Million In Earmarks. "Obama's more than $300 million in earmark requests range from $33 million made along with other senators for a nationwide project to promote civics among students to $125,000 to add turn lanes and traffic lights at an intersection in rural Oregon, Ill." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Details His Requests For Pet Projects, Says Other Candidates Should Do So," The Associated Press, 6/21/07)
The Club For Growth Gave Obama A Score Of 33 Percent For His Votes Against Anti-Pork Amendments. "The Club for Growth released its 2007 Senate RePORK Card, compiling a scorecard of all senators' votes on fifteen anti-pork amendments throughout 2007. ... Obama (D-IL) Score: 33% Ratio: 2/6." (Club For Growth, "The Club's 2007 Senate RePORK Card,", 11/5/07)
Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, "CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks," Press Release, 12/27/07)


Would Al Gore have won in 2000 if he had carried his home state of Arkansas?
Would Al Gore have won in 2000 if he had carried the so called
"Clinton Country" state of Arkansas?
But, the indisputable fact remains that Al Gore lost Florida by 5,000 votes, and Nader somehow got 97,000 votes, sealing the deal for eight years of George Bush; massive spending and deficits (despite inheriting a balanced budget and a surplus from the Clintons), an unparallelled abuse of power culminating in a horrendous war and casualties, not to mention spending a trillion dollars.....diverting revenue from the desperate needs of our country.
The campaign season that started with buffoons like Tommy Thompson, Tancredi and Gravel, and culminating with an electorate so desperately seeking leadership, they will consider someone with one years federal experience to be the messiah, and second coming, placed on this planet to save them and bring them together.
And now, Ralph throws his hat into the ring...and why not? He has only one year less governmental experience on the national level, then the odds on favorite.
and once again, we look like idiots to the rest of the world.


Quotes and pictures gratefully lifted from "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
"the atmosphere at these events is such that one wonders If Obama is about to walk out with a basket with some loaves of bread and fishes to feed the thousands..."
"It's not so much by what he says but it's the way the crowds respond to his words. When 16,000 people, without prompting, start shouting some of his keynote phrases as he delivers them, you know something special is going on."
Washington correspondent Geoff Elliott The Australian February 9, 2008.
How does a cult figure, in the eyes of some something akin to a messiah, make the transition to a political frontrunner - president even - where disappointment will soon crush what seemed to be a journey to a promised land? He empowers us with words and the authentic emotion behind them and people are rushing into the tent to drink that magic water.
At an Omaha, Neb., rally the day before, supporters leaned perilously over railings, screaming and crying, trying to touch Obama as he passed. During both speeches, a supporter yelled out, "I love you." This happens fairly frequently and Obama is always ready with a smooth answer.
"I love you back," he says, with a quick, almost cocky smile.
The campaign works hard to cultivate the rock star image. After he's introduced, Obama routinely waits about 30 seconds to enter the arena. The excitement grows, until his entrance is perfectly timed with the soaring chords of U2's “City of Blinding Lights.” "I can't really verbalize exactly what it is about him," says Avila. "Part of it is just beyond explanation."
I did not know the tall guy in front of me; he is white, I am black. But at the moment we shook hands, I felt some solidarity with this stranger, consummated by a handshake and signifying some unspoken agreement presumably about Barack Obama and his core message of UNITY!
I call this hand-shake scenario the "BAM" because, descriptively, it takes a bit of Obama's name and it's the sound of a collision, of People Coming Together!
. . about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. "Gotta blow my nose here for a second," Obama said. Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose. The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in applause.

One can only imagine what THAT Kleenex would be worth on e-bay....

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan."
-Bill Rush
"Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."
-- Gerald Campbell
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves."
-- Ezra Klein
"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."
-- Chris Matthews
He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century."
-- Gary Hart
Obama is known for choosing his words very carefully. His admirers say that’s a sign of his conscientious nature, that he doesn’t want to inadvertently say the wrong thing, to speak irresponsibly. The truth is, Obama is determined to say next to nothing substantive at all, unless it is designed to position himself in some mellow region between opposing forces. Obama claims, "I didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago.” Amazing. I suppose that’s why he has been so careful to navigate to the right of his fellow Democratic senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin; why he spent 2005 and 2006 mouthing “mush” on the Iraq war, and still continues to do so; why he said three weeks before being sworn in as U.S. senator, that he would not push for universal health care – the very issue that had made him a darling of progressives as a state senator, but which had burned Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady. Obama runs from even the flicker of a flame.

Friday, February 22, 2008


Obviously, I cannot say for sure if Obama has read this, but he has been known for duplication..

"The book "Positioning" describes a revolutionary approach to creating a "position" in a prospective customer's mind, one that reflects a company's (or a competitor's) own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of its competitors." Writing in their best selling book, advertising gurus Ries and Trout explain how to:

1. Make and position an (industry) leader so that its name and message wheedles its way into the collective subconscious of your market and stays there (see below)
2. Position a follower so that it can occupy a niche not claimed by the leader (charismatic, positive)
3. Avoid letting a second product ride on the coat tails of an established one
4. Use leading ad agency techniques to capture the biggest market share and become a household name
5. Build your strategy around your competition's weaknesses (public speaking, likability)
6. Reposition a strong competitor and create a weak spot (status quo, experience as a negative)
7. Use your present position to its best advantage (with perfection)

One thing they say is that you must refine the idea of your product down to a single word, and then own that word. You think copiers, you think Xerox, you think of gelatin, you think of Jello. It goes like that. So you're in an election year when the president's approval rating is at 30% and possibly even sinking. What does this show the people want? Change. So what's your word? Change! Make a sign with "change" in a large font and put it on the front of your podium every time you speak. Fill the audience with "Change" signs. Make TV viewers see those signs day in and day out until they are dreaming of them. After awhile even when people go to the grocery store and ask for change, your name and face will flash in their minds. Classic.

Then there's the "Yes we can!" chant. Can what? All they know is that for the first time in a long time, the Obamanites get a sense of power affirming their own potency as part of a large group. No doubt a good chant causes a hypnotic effect. Shaklee, Tupperware and Avon meet Obama.

And then there is the subliminal effect of his Southern Baptist sermon style of speaking, which is working to perfection, and really getting everybody whipped up into a frenzy.. Highs and lows in intonations, and a deep, low speaking voice that captivates in style; so much so you don't realize he isn't saying anything.

All I am saying is his campaign parallels classic modern day advertising and marketing methods to a tee. His machine has produced and packaged a new product, with little or no previous history to attack, and has amassed a true cult following beyond all expectations, or reason.

Thursday, February 21, 2008


Thanks for the video, Papa.

This guy Obama is absolutely scary. I am a 51 year old Political Science major (dropout, to be honest), a child of the 50's, a college student of the 70's, and I have seen them come and go. I have always been fascinated with the process, follow the news to an absolute compulsion, and have been obsessed with American politics since high school. And I am telling you, this guy is not what he seems to be, or professes to be. I don't know how he got so far so quickly I don't (yet) know his secret agenda, and I don't know who he has hiding in the shadows of his political machine. But this guy absolutely scares the shit out of me....

One of the great quotes of this campaign season came from Mike Huckabee when he asked why we want to speed through the primaries; sort of a fast microwave system, when politics are best when slow in point Mike. Did it really take a full year of endless debates and stump speeches to finally realize Obama is actually Dr. Playback? That a lot of what he has been peddling has been recycled "somebody else"?

Wednesday, February 20, 2008


New York Times report suggests John Mc Cain had an inproper relationship with a lobbyist, did favors for her quid pro quo....charges that attempt to take the Senator from Arizona back to those dirty, Charles Keating / Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal. Here is an is a link to the entire story.

"A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal.


Tuesday, February 19, 2008


Michelle Obama proclaimed yesterday that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s presidential bid. Really? The very first time she has been proud of her country in her entire adult life? For twenty-five years, this country, by her own admission, has yet to do ANYTHING to make her proud? What a sad comment for this woman to make. Here she is, educated at Harvard, had a great job before she resigned (at a tune of $350,000.00 per annum, no less), two great kids with a great future, basically living the American dream and she has never been proud of the country that gave her these blessings?

"Iowa will make the difference," Mrs. Obama said. "If Barack doesn't win Iowa, it is just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be."
"Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House." An obvious slam on Hillary Clinton by Obama, following in the footsteps of many people who blame the WOMAN for a philandering husband.

"I come to this with a lot of interesting talents, but I think it would be unfair of me to say today what I would do in a couple of years. I need to be prepared to do what the country needs me to do at the time. Whether that’s baking cookies or serving as a wonderful hostess, that’s my job. I have to be prepared to do what’s necessary. And we won’t know what that’s going to be until we get there. I will be staunchly invested. It is a joint project.” What a minute, is this a TWO-FER? She will be staunchly invested...making fricken cookies? At least she admits she doesn't have a clue what her role will be until the very second she gets there. I might add, the same logic applies to her husband, who similary has no clue on his role, either.
"...we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
What if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination over your husband...could you support her? "I'd have to think about that..." Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.
"We had a miraculous victory in Iowa," Michelle Obama said. "Ain't no black people in Iowa!
"You don't measure character when everybody is looking, you measure it by what people do in the shadows when no one is watching. It's much easier to focus on a few "present" (which her husband did in Chicago with wild abandon, not wanting to get pinned down on damn near anything) votes rather than focusing on all the hard work that Barack has done for regular people. Work than no other front-runner in this race can claim,"
Obama and his wife seem to think they are entitled to the presidency. According to Newsweek she has been introducing him to African American audiences by saying it is "our turn". I'm afraid that they will be very angry if Barack is not the nominee and will probably not want to support Hillary, let alone run with her. After all, when the party leaders wanted him to sit with her at the SOTU address as a show of party unity she agreed but he refused. He used the lame excuse that she had not asked him.
Then there was the "snub"...turning of his back on Hillary, while she magnamously shook hands with Ted Kennedy, just after Kennedy endorsed him, and just before the State of the Union address.
I am not voting for someone who is not what he says he is and all the evidence I find, shows me he is not what he says he is. And further more, someone who is willing to risk my party's agenda and win. I have no delusions about Hillary, but I also respect her and trust her. Yet, I do not respect or trust either of the Obama's.

Monday, February 18, 2008


"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama told the Wisconsin audience, attempting to rebut Clinton's oft-repeated charge that he is long on rhetoric and short on policy specifics. "'I have a dream' - just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' - just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' - just words? Just speeches?"

Originality, honesty, character, plagerism, dishonesty, faking it, incapable of an original thought, JUST WORDS

Sunday, February 17, 2008

HERE WE GO (settling) AGAIN


As the map clearly shows, the states that really matter to Democrats in the actual election contest against the Republicans are California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan. Clinton has prevailed in every single one of these states to have been contested so far except for Illinois -- and that's Obama's home turf. The only one left is Pennsylvania, which doesn't hold its primary until April 22.
In other words, if Obama does somehow manage to become the nominee, the Democrats may well turn out to have pulled a Dukakis (Mondale, McGovern) once again. They'll be sending the candidate who lost in their primaries all the states they must win in the general election, and the one utterly without a resume, to do battle against the party that has dominated presidential election contests since World War II and a candidate who is a legitimate national hero.
Can Obama pull enough independants and moderate republicans to pull off a victory?
Will Obama be able to convince Clinton states that experience is over-rated?
Do you really want to put all of your eggs in this basket?
For all of the talk of the "Obama youth movement," the young are incredibly fickle, and every politician who has counted on their energy and support has inevitably been disappointed. When it comes to the voting booth, they just don't show.
What you can count on, is the 50+ voters, who do show up, time and time again. In states with heavy populations of senior voting blocks on Super Tuesday, and almost all of the other major contests on the board, seniors over 60 cast a larger percentage of the vote than young people did. And those voters almost invariably preferred Clinton: She won seniors everywhere except Illinois, Georgia, and Connecticut. In hotly contested states such as Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, Clinton won about three-fifths or more of the vote among seniors.


Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities.
If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president's second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so. Indeed, something like that has already happened in his campaign. The post-racial candidate has ended up relying heavily on black votes (and in some places even highlighting the divide between Latinos and blacks).
With the brief exception of those four heady days after the Iowa caucuses, he has never been a front-runner; now he will be more fully scrutinised. The immediate focus will be on the horse race: can he win? But the bigger issue, which has so far occupied too little attention, is this: what would a President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama, really mean for America and the world?
But what policies exactly?


As he gets closer to the Republican nomination, John McCain has been trying to balance his unqualified support for the Iraq war by reminding audiences that he was also a tough critic of the way it was managed until President Bush finally changed strategies a year ago. In recent weeks, McCain has gone so far as to tell audiences that he was "the only one" who called for then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation.
The only trick is he never did, at least not publicly.
But even as he was criticizing Rumsfeld, McCain typically stopped short of calling for the defense secretary to step down on the grounds that it was up to the president to decide who served in his cabinet.
McCain has rewritten that history a couple times lately. While campaigning in Fort Myers, Fla., on Jan. 26, he told a crowd: "In the conflict that we're in, I'm the only one that said we have to abandon the Rumsfeld strategy -- and Rumsfeld -- and adopt a new strategy." Then four days later during a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., aired on CNN, McCain said, "I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go."

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Clinton ad #1

Clinton ad #2

This video should not be missed, circa 1974.

There he goes again....whispering sweet nothings....
One man, one vote? Not in Florida...


Excalating violence in Kenya
No response to hurricane Katrina
Racist tensions throughout nation
Rebuilding New Orleans
Prison populations overwhelmingly Black
Genocide in Darfur
Quality of inter-city schools
Inequities in wages for Black men vs. White men

For all the talk about the chance of Obama becoming our first Black President, when you look at the subjects he avoids, it is easy to see he has no interest in representing the Black community at all. He evokes the names of King and Kennedy, but offers nothing in the way of leadership except empty rhetoric. Only plagerised plans offered previously from some else.
Someone else offered the question: Is he black enough? And we laughed it off as ignorance. But maybe we should ask the question again. What has he done for the black community in his career? Certainly LESS than the very Clinton family the black community has completely turned its back on, and labeled bigots?
Does he have any desire to champion the causes of his people? Or does he only use his heritage when it suits him for political gain? He has championed getting the vote, but has he earned the vote? He speaks nothing of the issues. He offers nothing but the platitudes of "hope and change."
What the others can't say on the campaign trail, I can. He very well could be the first Malomar President. Black on the outside, and white on the inside. If he gets elected, Bill Clinton will still be our only black President. For all Obama's talk of others playing the race card, he has mastered the play. Because at the end of the day, all the black voters can pin their "hopes" on, IS the color of his skin. And the unspoken hope that he is keeping his willingness to help a community so critically in need so far on the "down low" that he appears positively albino.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008


"We are the change we have been waiting for"
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Obviously, he has revolutionized political campaigning; appeal to the basest emotional instincts of the foolish American electorate, say nothing substanitive, speak in meaningless sound bites, and fill your audiences with your college groupies. Forget having any track record of success.
Forget experience, it is MEANINGLESS to the American voters.
All they want is someone to like.
They liked George Bush II, and they liked Jimmy Carter.
Look how that turned out.
Now that is CHANGE.
Can a one time Senator who has been rated the absolute most liberal voter in Congress actually BS his way into the top position in our government? The guy with some of the most experienced political cronies around running his campaign, then has the fucking nerve to say he is the future, and the rest are the status quo? This guy is a stuffed shirt. He has nothing but a little charisma, good speaking skills, and the media comparing him to JFK....why?
Let me clue you into something...the Dems have superdelegates because they know the American voters are capable of electing the worst people around. They have to have a way to back room in the real deal onto the ticket. Thery can't rely on the savvy of the American electorate to determine who is the best candidate. And here we go...onto a brokered convention.
And another failed election against a Republican political machine who knows how to win.
And how to beat us time and again.
You see the right won't have to play patty cake with the race card. They won't have to listen to Obama brag about a vote he never even had to make. A vote even he admitted he wasn't sure how he would have voted on. I am a staunch Democratic supporter all my life. But I will not vote in an absolute beginner. Mc Cain is liberal enough for me. I want Hillary. But if need be, I will go pro-life, and pro military prescence in Iraq (military bases) for one hundred frickin years. I will not join the 375,000 mindless drones following, and giving their hard earned cash to the Pied Piper of Chicago. And I am not alone. I am not a twenty yeart old kid, or a romantic housewife looking for their latest pin-up doll in Tiger Beat magazine. These times call for serious people, and not a rank beginner. These times call for political insight, relationships, and strength. Obama has none of these. All he has is Ted Kennedy and Oprah.
And the Middle East doesn't watch daytime TV.
Hopefully Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania doesn't either.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

"If Barack Obama were white....
he'd be Dick Durbin without the experience"
Ann Coulter speaking Friday to the
Conservative Political Action Committee


This is the obvious question, and it extends far beyond husband Bill's philandering. It is so previlent, that it has reached, not only the mainstream media, but the debates as well (remember Obama stating "you are likable enough.....?").

In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”
Among Hillary haters, this is what you will hear..."Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath." These accusations are “supported” by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don’t.
Respected political commentators devote precious network time to deep analyses of her laugh. Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn’t do. (This is what the compound “Billary” is all about.) If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she’s just play-acting. If she cries, she’s faking. If she doesn’t, she’s too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she’s dowdy. If she doesn’t, she’s inappropriately provocative.
Robert Bluey of Bluey Blog and director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank whose mission is “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” Speaking for himself and not necessarily for The Heritage Foundation, Rob wrote the following: "Americans began to dislike Hillary during the 1992 campaign and only grew more hostile throughout her husband's eight years in the White House. I think part of the problem stems from the fact she had no intention of following the typical role of first lady, preferring instead to be a political bulldog. This partisanship alienated a large number of Americans who won't soon forget the Hillary of old no matter how hard she tries to remake herself. "
Why the right doesn't like Hillary:
1. She is nakedly and unabashedly ambitious. She seems willing to do virtually anything to get ahead. For ex. sticking with Bill because it enhanced her chances for higher office even though she appeared to have little affection for him. Moving to NY to become a Senator.
2. She does not appear to have a world view grounded in a particular philosophy or moral system other than expediency.
3. She is bright and capable which is particularly dangerous when combined with 1 and 2 above.
4. She isn't loathed because she is a woman or a Clinton. She is loathed because she is perceived as amoral, Machiavellian, and dangerous for America.
Why the "World According to Kimba" does:
1. She is very competant, well schooled, prepared with actual facts and answers, and is almost always the smartest person in the room
2. She isn't always going around giving fluff, esoteric speeches like Obama. She offers smart, nuanced answers to difficult questions.
3. She knows how to win. Politics is like sausage. You love to eat it, but in no way want to know what goes into it.
4. She is a bulldogged Bitch. Capital B. She is tougher than Obama on his worst day. And really, isn't that what we need?
5. She HAS made a career fighting for the disadvantaged and people without voices. She defended and supported minority groups back when you didn't need them to get elected.
6. I don't vote for people based on their looks, or charisma. If I did, I'd vote for Campbell Brown. We are in a video-idiot world, and she doesn't fit the current "game show host" looks requirement by the majority of the American sheep electorate.
7. She comes with a political machine to succeed on day one.
If anyone reading this can give me some substantiated reasons to hate Hillary,
click on "comment" below and lets hear it.
Sure, I didn't like Bill's affairs...well actually I could care less about his affairs, just don't lie about it under oath, and I wasn't real happy with some of his last day pardons, like the one for Marc Rich (although it was much preferred to the Bush pardon of Scooter). All the Clinton's did was take a nation in crumbling disarray, and transform it into the eight best fucking years of my life. And yet, the Clinton's are hated more than any American family, except the Kennedy's.
I just don't get it. Dislike, OK. But the foaming at the mouth, rabid dog hatred of this woman completely escapes me. In the world today, anyone (especially the mainstream media) can throw a fistful of shit against the wall o' Clinton, however untrue, and get it to stick.
And that is a damnable shame. That is not the country I want to about you?
And that is "The World According to Kimba" Thanks for reading.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

MSNBC: The Anybody But Clinton Network

MSNBC personality, Chris Matthews, apologized for saying the reason Clinton was elected senator was because the nation felt sorry for her after Bill Clinton had sexual liaisons with Monica Lewinsky. "She didn't win there on her merits," Matthews said.

Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened yesterday to pull out of an upcoming debate hosted by MSNBC after one of its correspondents said on air that daughter Chelsea was being "pimped out" by the campaign to win votes. Correspondent David Shuster made the remark Thursday night as he and others were discussing on air how Chelsea Clinton, 27, is taking an increasingly active role in the campaign. "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Shuster said.
Shuster at first claimed he was justified because Clinton's staff had been rude to him when he asked to interview her daughter. "It's absurdly offensive," Reines wrote. "And what the hell does that even mean?" Chelsea was fair game because she was contacting "superdelegates" - Democratic big shots who go to the party convention without being selected in primaries - and asking them to vote for her mom, Shuster responded.
"I think at some point you really have to question whether or not there is a pattern here at this particular network where you have comments being made and then apologies given," he said.

Friday, February 8, 2008


How can you not love this guy? Mike Huckabee. How can you not like a guy who looks at this Xmas portrait (taken while he was a sitting Governor of Arkansas) and says, yes, let's distribute this one?
Mike Huckabee is the real thing. A real person, a real man of God, and yes, a real pain in the ass. Especially for Mitt Romney, who couldn't get Mike to quit his campaign and stop splitting the conservative voters. Mike had no chance, yet he still goes on. He really does owe Mitt an apology, who might have made a dent in the U.S.S. McCain had Huck quit running. In fact, Huckabee owes Romney $50 million dollars worth of apologies, which is what Mitt squandered in his failed attempt to gain the Republican nod.
He is as real as he is genuine in his convictions. And once he sinks his teeth in you, no force imaginable will help make him stop biting.

Talk about genuine and a true southerner? Watch the one minute video where Mike admits to cooking squirrel in a popcorn popper in his college days. Bill Bennett certainly was right when he said they are going to have to cut down three forests just so they can have enough paper to report on this election. What a cast of characters. I love it!!

Thursday, February 7, 2008


Pictured left: Bill Clinton discusses the restraining order wife Hillary slapped on him on the behalf of her campaign.....
I miss him. I miss the off the cuff remarks, the occasional hole he digs for himself (usually not deliberate), and his wife's campaign (probably deliberate and pre-planned, at least in spirit...nobody scripts William J.).
I miss the oratory. His speaking style still blows Obama's away, and he actually says something in his speeches, in marked contrast to Barack. You didn't hurt the campaign...we never were going to get South Carolina. Come back. You can only spice things up, as well as act as a diversion to get Barack out of his very small comfort zone.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008


In case you're interested: in the 19 states where both Democrats and Republicans had elections yesterday, there were 73% more Democratic voters than Republican voters – 14 plus million for Clinton and Obama to 8 plus million for John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

With the democratic hopefuls drawing so heavily from all populations and classes; black, white, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, young, old, poor, male, female, middle class... seemingly every racial and socio-economic class, it bares the question....
Hillary and Obama wave good bye to any hopes of electing a Republican President.

Just how unbeatable would a Clinton / Obama ticket be in November?
In order to unite the Democratic Party in November, will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to be on the same ticket?
If Clinton wins the nomination for the Democratic top spot, she would be a fool to place anybody but Barack on her ticket, and she would have absolutely no qualms in doing so. If Obama wins the nomination, he would rather have a rectal exam by the Incredible Hulk before he puts the Clintons (yes, plural) into his ticket, but he may have to. For one thing, they pull a huge amount of voters wherever they run, especially among young, first time and formerly apathetic voting groups. Another factor, this race between the two has been spectacularly divisive in nature. And with Mc Cain being a RINO (Republican in name only), it wouldn't take a U-Haul for some centralist Dems to make the short trip over to the extremely liberal Mc Cain. That is of course, if the voters could stomach the distinct possibility of the permanent installation of American military bases, and a modicum of permanent forces in Iraq, which are already being built at great expense as we speak.
Let me put it into raw numbers...Here is how Super Tuesday really turned out for each party...
Clinton 6,967,305 + Obama 6,835,447 = 13,802,752 votes
Mc Cain 4,800,000 + Huckabee 2,400,000 + Romney 4,100,000 = 11,300,000 votes
There is no getting around the numbers, the Dems are onto a really good thing. As long as they do not let the Clinton skeletons in the closet scare them. And they are there, folks. Bill made an awful lot of money in an awfully short period of time. And that doesn't even take into account his post-Pres philandering. That being said, there is no doubt that the Clinton / Obama ticket is still a sure long as neither of them fail to put their petty differences behind them and do what is best for the party, and the country.
Makes sense?
Here is another viewpoint, by CNN's Roland Martin
1. "Clinton will not be overshadowed by an underling. Clinton is hugely popular in Democratic circles, but truth be told, that pales in comparison to the love and affection showered on Obama.
2. Obama would not want to carry Clinton baggage.
3. Way too much bad blood between these two during this campaign.
4. Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Clinton.
5. With Bill Clinton serving as consigliere to a President Hillary Clinton, Obama would be on the outside looking in.
Now, as a way out, I would expect to see these two on a ticket only if Clinton is the nominee and they run the numbers and determine that the best chance of winning would be with him. She wants to be president that bad and would discount the bad blood. Then they would hope he accepted or accepts it. I just don't see any of it happening.
This might be seen as a dream ticket, but it is not a match made in heaven."
One thing is for sure, this is a very difficult time, and it is critical that the Dems get in, but....let's not underestimate the Democrats ability to screw up an election.
And that is the world... "According to Kimba"
thanks for reading....and voting

Monday, February 4, 2008


Op-ed piece by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert Kennedy, Jr. in the LA Times, today. Click on the link for the entire piece.
"This is a wonderful year for Democrats. Our party is blessed with the most impressive array of primary candidates in modern history. All would make superb presidents.By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama.
We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country.
While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes.
The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues.
We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard
and restore our national virtues.
We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most democratic warrior.She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to protect the environment and to promote human rights around the world and juvenile justice in America.
Hillary is a problem-solver, listening to people
and then achieving solutions by changing attitudes.
Her transformational leadership was on display when she ran for the Senate seat in New York that had been held by our father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. She faced rabid, heavily funded attacks from the far right and the challenge of prevailing in traditionally Republican upstate New York. Traveling with her, we watched admiringly as she persuasively articulated an inspiring and unifying vision rooted in American values and history.
Seldom has history confronted America with such daunting challenges: a catastrophic foreign policy that has cost us our international leadership and aggravated the threat of terror; a misbegotten war that is squandering precious American lives and treasure; a healthcare system that leaves millions of Americans without coverage; irresponsible corporate power that is corroding our democracy and outsourcing our jobs, aggravating global warming and other environmental crises and reducing our economy to shambles.
We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy.
Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals."


Yesterday, my alma mater, the hallowed grounds of Westwood, the campus of U.C.L.A., hosted a political "get out to vote" rally for Barack Obama. Only he couldn't be there; he was campaigning in Delaware. His proxy speakers were Caroline Kennedy, Michelle Obama, Stevie Wonder, and a talk show host from Chicago. In case you missed it (it was also televised on C-Span), here is an example of the kind of insight the day had in store for my fellow Bruins...

"You can't learn wisdom,
You can't git' it from the workplace,
Wisdom is a gift from God...."
Oprah Winfrey
Needless to say, Barack Obama was so entrusted with wisdom, as a act of God of course. Which is good for us, since you can't git' it anywheres else. Flabbergasted, to say the least. With the language, the ignorance, and especially with the audience who treated each syllable from these four like it was the nectar of the Gods. Poor little sheep, being driven to the polling booth for slaughter like that.
One thing is definately for sure, Oprah didn't git', or learn any wisdom. But, what do you want for a billion dollars? Oprah Winfrey ladies and gentlemen, Chicago's answer to Jerry friggin' Springer.

Sunday, February 3, 2008



1) v. to solicit customers for a prostitute.
2) n. a pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution, all for his own profit.
3) v. catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions, or favors.

Saturday, February 2, 2008


Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Responding to Clinton's relatively moderate placement in NJ's rankings..... "Her voting record as a whole shows she takes a comprehensive, balanced approach toward policy. Senator Clinton looks at the broader picture. She tries to see the challenges from not only the blue-collar worker's face, but also the white-collar worker's, not only Wall Street but also Main Street, and from that tries to put together a policy that's best for America as a whole."

Friday, February 1, 2008


I wonder what Ron Paul would say?

I thought the old man put him in his place with a surprizingly strong hand.

That's the Bill Clinton I know.