The Dems say it places a hardship on disabled or poor voters. How can that be?

I’m disabled, yet I still have a picture ID (one on my driver’s license and one on my concealed weapons permit). How can anyone function ANYWHERE without some type of photo ID? How can you cash checks, including disability or welfare checks without ID?

Voting irregularities have gone on for years and years, and the only way to determine that someone is a LEGITIMATE REGISTERED VOTER is to check their ID against the voter registration polls. I don’t understand why getting a government photo ID should be a problem. If you ACTUALLY register to vote at the Department of Motor Vehicles, you can get your photo ID at the same time.

Years ago, shortly after I moved to South Carolina from California, I was a poll worker. When I saw, and protested, voting irregularities (including several “Reverends” accompanying three or four of their congregation into the booth at a time - to show them where to make their mark on the ballot), I was told to ignore the issue. “That’s just the way it’s done here!”

Now, with an influx of illegal aliens dispersed throughout the state of Georgia, and elsewhere, it seems even more important to verify that anyone who marks a ballot BE a registered voter. Not only a legitimate registered voter, they need to be able to PROVE that they are who they say they are.

Many years ago, when I was still living in California, I discovered the hard way that someone else was using my Social Security number for an ID and employment. It was a mess to straighten out, and yes, it involved illegal immigration issues. So don’t think it doesn’t happen.

My only question is, “Why is the Georgia Democratic Party OPPOSED to picture IDs?” Why wouldn’t every honest, legitimately-registered voter be happy to prove their identity?

Can you say, “Hola, Amigo” ?

If you look at his voting record, you’ll see that BO has opposed every legislative attempt to make English the national official language. Instead, he wants all our children to learn to speak Spanish.

Now I have no argument with the benefits to our children of being bilingual, or even trilingual. Anyone with a brain understands that being able to communicate in Spanish with Mexican or Latin-American business people is an advantage. Likewise, being fluent in Japanese or Chinese is a bonus.  But what does that have to do with making English the official language?

Senor Obama revealed that he is as embarrassed with America (as his lovely wife is only now proud of America) when he told the crowd,

“It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is ‘Merci beaucoup.’”

As BO becomes more of a world traveler (perhaps during his touted visits to Iraq and, yes, Iran), maybe he can find time to take a little car trip through Europe, before he comes back to the good ole USA. If he sees Europe first hand, perhaps he’ll understand how closely those countries are situated to each other, geographically.

It is entirely possible to drive through several countries during the same car trip, and not even break a sweat. French, German and Italian tourists routinely take little vacation day jaunts to neighboring ski resorts, or other attractions. Learning each other’s languages is as normal as breathing (and a matter of practical necessity) when the next country is no farther away than Vermont is from Maine.

Perhaps Monsieur Obama could also note how rigorously each of those individual countries insist on their own language, sovereignity, and traditions being preserved. Why else would those individual languages have continued so completely when each country is in such close proximity? Wouldn’t a single language, like “Frengermitalospanport”, or “Spanitalofrengerm”, be more convenient? Guess not!

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why Europeans utilize English as a handy-dandy universal communication tool.

This objection to English as our official language is just one indicator of the direction Senor Obama wants to take this country. I’ve been wondering what his motivation is in being so opposed to immigration legislation and reform.

Can you say “amero”, anyone? (And if you don’t know what an ‘amero” is, for the sake of the future of the USA, please look it up! Learn about the prospect of the North American Union that’s staring us in the face!)

Maybe I’m just too provincial. However, since I have no intention of visiting France, especially with their disdain of everything “Americaine”, the only French I need to know, to live happily in the good ole USA, is “pie ala mode”.

As the countdown to the Democratic National convention ticks on, Hillary Clinton has joined Barack Obama on his fundraising tour. My understanding is that, in return for her help, his backers will help to pay-off Hillary’s campaign debts.

Doesn’t appear as if she’s getting her money’s worth yet, as her staffers complain that BO’s backers have ponied up a “piddling amount” of approximately $100 thousand dollars so far.

Meanwhile, the ‘Barack & Hillary Show’ has been raking in donations in the millions. Hmmmm!

On the GOP front, John McCain is still leaving a terrible taste in the mouths of conservative voters, many of whom are adamant that they will vote for Libertarian, Bob Barr, in November. After all, Barr really is more in line with conservative thinking.

Looks like Barr just might be the ’spoiler’ for McCain. Or maybe not, depending on who McCain chooses for Veep. Only time will tell.

And, finally, my fellow Americans, we need to wake up to the impact that Supreme Court pronouncements, and caving-in to international pressure, is having on our world.

Three years ago, Adbullah Saleh al-Ajmi was safely locked away at Guantanamo Bay. Yet, four weeks ago, he blew himself up in Iraq, brutally murdering seven people. How did it happen?

Based on a review of classified and unclassified documents, al-Ajmi was declared a threat to the U.S. and its allies and confined at Gitmo. But after Al-Ajmi’s lawyers denied all the charges, the U.S. government folded and sent him back home to Kuwait.

Now the international community wants us to close Guantanemo, and send more prisoners home to become “MARTYRS”!

If you do just a little research, you’ll find that BOTH Obama and McCain are in favor of abolishing Gitmo. Are you interested in knowing whether they have an alternative in mind, other than just releasing everybody to go about their merry way?

We gotta WAKE UP! 

I try to present a fair picture to you about our U.S. political scene.

I am subscribed to, and read daily, magazines, newspapers and blogs presenting viewpoints and news all across the spectrum from the Far Left to the Middle-of-the-Road to the Far Right.

In Scragged today, the headline article was about John McCain and his alleged “death wish”. The article proposed that McCain is choosing to lose his bid for the Presidency by not attacking Barack Obama on three main fronts (terror, oil & associates) and is thus exhibiting a desire for his campaign to die.

On a much more serious front, the Washington Post published an article that should scare everyone on the left, the right and everywhere in-between.

Due to the seriousness of this news, I have included a link directly to the entire story.  All you have to do is click on the words “Washington Post” and you will go directly to the complete story.

This is something that every American needs to be aware of.

But first let me just give you a little excerpt about what is happening to the USA radio station in Eygpt:

Even those folks who do nothing but watch soap operas or games shows on TV need to know about this. You and I must make them aware of what is at stake before we go to the polls to vote in November.

I personally don’t like ANY of the four-so-far candidates, but November will not only decide who will become POTUS and live in the White House, but also who will be the next Commander in Chief.

The future of the USA is at stake!

Please pass this information along!

I am so excited about this news that I could just spit! Let me explain why!

About 100 years ago, when I first visited South Carolina and Georgia, I was enthralled with all the greenness. I was particularly captivated with all the beautiful foliage draping over the trees, banks and hillsides. Having come from the dusty greyness of pre-irrigation Southern California, the green everywhere was a delight to my eyes.

I quickly learned that the greenery I thought was so exquisite was roundly cussed at by the locals.

When I moved to South Carolina in 1987, I began my yearly battle with this insidious and invasive blight upon mankind.

What do I mean? Why kudzu, of course! Kudzu, the weed that ate the South!

Each Spring, Fall, Summer and Winter my husband and I fight a losing battle with our little three acre kudzu patch. The stuff grows so fast that it is virtually impossible for us two old-timers to keep ahead of it, even with help from our kids and neighbors. 

Every year, as we re-joined the ranks of those who cussed at the stuff, I would do more research to find productive uses (like bread, flour, jellies and decorative wreaths) that kudzu admirers claim it can be used for. All I ever got was a backache and heat stroke.

But now, scientists have discovered that kudzu is a perfect ingredient for ethanols. In fact, because it is so hardy and invasive and doesn’t have to be replanted every year, it’s actually MORE EFFICIENT than corn or sugar cane as a fuel source. And, the use of kudzu for biofuels doesn’t contribute to sky-rocketing food prices or deplete the world food supply like using corn or sugar cane does.

I hereby volunteer my three-acre patch, in the interest of science and fuel economy. No really, come on scientists. You can have every bit of it.

“Sen. Barack Obama has switched course on general-election funding, announcing this morning that he would reject public financing and raise every dime for the fall campaign on his own.”

“The announcement was widely expected. For months, Obama has eased back from an earlier pledge to “pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” warning that it could impose unfair constraints.”

“The decision means Obama will give up $85 million in public money. But it frees him to raise $300 million or more from the 1.5 million-plus donors in his database, giving him an enormous — almost breathtaking — advantage over Sen. John McCain.”

Obama went on to say that he wants a publicly financed general election but that it’s not possible under the current “broken system”.

In the comments of the Washington Post Trailblazer story, a commenter (obviously an Obamamaniac - someone who feels BO can do no wrong) typed in the following statement:

“Oh so what if he broke his word to McCain, McCain is not going to play nice so why should Obama?”

So much for change! Sounds like politics as usual to me.

Things are not firmly set for either party yet. GOP Conservatives are praying that the “presumptive Republican nominee”, John McCain will somehow go away, or at least make an acceptable choice of a running mate.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton is praying too! She’s waiting for another Obama-gate scandal, so she can step in and accept the nomination by convincing the Dems that BO can’t get elected.

Or is someone else waiting in the wings for either party? Nothing would surprise me this election year.

There were Dems and Republicans involved in this fiasco, which even gives amnesty to additional shepherds and goat-herders. There is lots more about this farce that is infuriating, but rather than rewrite all the excellent information for you, I’d like to give you a link to a site with, not only the facts, but info on how to fight this garbage bill.

If you go to Frontpage: American Daughter, you can get all the dirty details PLUS names & numbers to contact your local politicians and voice your objection.

If you call Feinstein’s Washington, DC or California office, you’ll get an answer machine cause they’ve gotten so many calls.

Before you go, I’d like to remind you that Kentucky and Oregon are having their primaries tomorrow. Clinton is expected to run away with the votes in Kentucky, while Obama is supposed to win by a narrower margin in Oregon. We shall see.

No matter who wins what tomorrow, word has come down from the mount. Barack Obama has informed everyone that his wife Michelle is off-limits. Opponents can attack him, but not her. DARN! I guess that means the “never being proud of America before now” stuff better be forgotten, or else.

Those same comments brought a broadside of attacks from Democrats here in the USA.

Expressing empathy for the Israelis, Bush warned that the United States must not negotiate with Iran or radical groups such as Hamas.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.  As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Bush said the incendiary language of Hamas and the armed Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah must be taken seriously. He spoke of the legacy of the Holocaust, citing Hamas’s call for the “elimination” of Israel, Hezbollah followers’ chants of “Death to Israel, death to America” and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president’s vow to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

“There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It is natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred.”

Immediately, the Democrats (especially Barack Obama) decided that Bush’s comments were a personal attack on Obama, who has advocated sitting down and talking with Iran and Syria, but not the Palestinian group Hamas. Why not say Bush was attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who DOES want us to negotiate with Hamas? Probably because they couldn’t get as much bad press and negative publicity for Bush if they did that.

House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi said,

“We have a protocol . . . around here that we don’t criticize the president when he is on foreign soil.”

She then promptly did just that.

“One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.”

Geez! Get a life, woman! Stop trying to make everything so partisan! And that goes for you too, Joe Biden!

I’m not the biggest fan of Bush, and I think he is generally a stumbling orator, but this time he was completely correct.

Bush wasn’t just warning AMERICANS about sitting down with snakes, he was cautioning EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD who thinks that you can treat vipers with kid gloves and expect anything other than a poisonous strike. The war on terror is real and it won’t be ended by ‘talking nice’ with people who have stated that they will destroy us.

I’m not an Obama fan, for many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin. While I know that many of his policies are the exact opposite of what I believe to be morally-correct (e.g. protecting partial-birth abortion), it is his foreign policy proposals that make me believe he is so dangerous for this country.

I know that Obama is not stupid, so I can only believe he is naive, to think that we can have a meaningful dialogue with Ahmedinejad, Iran’s President, and continue as allies of Israel. Columbia University embarrassed themselves and the entire United States last year, when they invited Ahmedinejad to speak at Columbia. Columbia University (and the USA) wound up looking like villains and Ahmedinejad was praised around the world for his graciousness in the face of American rudeness. But Obama thinks he has the magic touch, I guess.

Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas & the whole gang must be anxiously hoping that Obama is elected as our next president. In fact, news stories have been circulating about Palestinian groups working to advance Obama’s campaign.

I know that there are people in the USA who blaim Bush for everything from rising gas and food prices to every hangnail suffered in the country, but this time he was CORRECT!

I’m not a big John McCain supporter, however, this time I was proud of his actions. When he was called upon by the Democratic leaders to repudiate Bush’s comments, he refused. Instead he asked the question,

“Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with Ahmadinejad?”

Everyone remarks about McCain’s age, but maybe you have to have lived through, or at least studied, history if you want to learn from it. Pelosi, Biden, et al, are so busy looking for a way to attack Republicans and support their boy wonder, that they are choosing to ignore the painful lessons of the past.

This time, President Bush, you were right on!

“The election is three years from now. After the USA primaries, then they go to Canada for the Canadian primaries, and then to Europe, for the European primaries.”

While that may be a slight exaggeration, this year’s Democratic primary has been going on for a long, long time.

Hillary Clinton refuses to quit until, or unless, her opponent, Barack Obama achieves the required number of delegates before the convention. She has been saying that she is the more electable candidate in November, and there are many signs that she may be correct.

Yesterday, Hillary’s victory in West Virginia was more than just double digits. She won by 61%, or two to one. To say that the victory was lop-sided is an understatement. Obama knew he didn’t stand a chance with those voters, so he just walked away. Guess he figured it was better to say that he didn’t try, than to admit that demographic won’t touch him with a ten-foot pole.

As Hillary said after yesterday’s primaries closed.

“”The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states.”

Next, it’s on to the results in Oregon and Kentucky next week. Five primaries remain: Oregon and Kentucky next Tuesday, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Together, those five contests will award a total of 189 delegates, not enough for either candidate to clinch the nomination.

And now that Barack Obama has shown that he can resoundingly lose a primary, John Edwards has come forth and declared for BO. This, after weeks of adamently refusing to back either candidate, even in his home state of North Carolina. Since Edwards campaigned on a platform of fighting for the “common man”, and Obama has alienated that group so completely with his elitist statements, I smell politics at work. Could there be a VP offering, or some other pledge, from Obama to Edwards somewhere in the works? Hmmm?

In the meantime, John McCain is busy helping whomever wins the brokered Democratic convention to have a better shot at the White House. During a time when the economy is doing a nose-dive, instead of taking advantage of the continuous slugfest between HC & BO to strengthen his chances, John McGore is busy making pronouncements about global warming, further alienating many Republicans.

This campaign almost seems to be a comedy of errors. Excuse me, a never-ending comedy of errors.

Have a wonderful Sunday!

Call your Mother!

Since I personally am not a rabid supporter of any of the three candidates, it’s a simple matter for me to observe what is, and has been, happening. In my opinion, the Democrats are in trouble!

Obama’s win in North Carolina was no surprise. Something like half of the registered voters are black, and blacks have been voting 90%-PLUS for Obama. What is surprising is that Clinton did as well as she did in this southern state.

After originally expecting a double-digit landslide in Indiana, Clinton squeaked through with the win and has vowed to continue her campaign. I’m not surprised. By continuing her campaign through the final six primaries, it’s pretty certain that she can keep Obama from securing the required number of pledged delegates to obtain the nomination before the convention. Thus, it will be a brokered convention for the Democrats and the final selection will be left to the super-delegates.

The animosity between the two campaigns is escalating, with greater than 30% of Clinton followers stating they will vote for McCain, rather than Obama. Roughly another 15-25% (depending on who you ask) state that they won’t vote, rather than voting for Obama. According to some polls, that computes to over half of Clinton’s followers stating they will NOT VOTE, or they will VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY. Not good for Obama.

So the super delegates will have the unenviable task of selecting a nominee. And there are so many things that need to be taken into consideration:

• If Obama comes close, and super-delegates DON’T choose him, will there be race riots?
• If Obama DOES clinch the nomination, can he beat the Republicans in November?
• Will the SDs decide that, since Hillary has taken all the BIG states, she’s a more viable candidate?
• Will the Jeremiah Wright and other unsavory connections to Obama play an important part in voter decisions in November?
• What will happen to the Michigan and Florida votes?
• Can a candidate from a brokered convention actually win?
• Would Global-warming, Nobel Peace Prize-winning, Al Gore be preferable?
• Will John Edwards ever endorse anyone?
• Who cares?

The ‘What if?’ scenarios must really be weighing heavily on the minds and hearts of Super Delegates. This run for the White House will make them either heroes, villains, or laughing-stocks, depending on the outcome in August, at the Democratic National Convention, and November, at the voting booths.

By the way, is Jimmy Carter still a Super Delegate?

The democrats are in trouble!

Today, while we wait for the results of the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, there is much to ponder about where this next Presidential election will take us. Whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton come out as the big winner today, or whether it continues to be a dead-heat race, the fact remains that we have some serious issues to face in the good ole’ USA.

Can we achieve an honorable solution in Iraq? Will we ever be able to remove our troops from Baghdad? Will we win against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Will the USA attack Iran over nuclear power? Will there EVER be stability in the Middle East?

And, here at home, are we in a Recession? Will the dollar continue to devalue globally? How much more will OPEC raise the price of a barrel of oil? How much will we have to pay for gasoline to drive ourselves to and from work? How much more expensive can food become? How much bigger will our National Deficit become? How much smaller can the GNP get? How much of our country’s land and other resources will we continue to sell to other nations? Will Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt? Will we ever be able to provide healthcare to poor and needy children?

What about illegal immigration? Will we continue to drain taxpayers to pay for benefits for illegal aliens? Do you know where Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain (remember, he’s the presumptive Republican nominee) stand on the issue of amnesty for illegals? What will their proposed policies mean to the USA and to our pocketbooks?

While there is nothing anyone living outside of Indiana or North Carolina can do to affect the outcome of today’s primaries, there is plenty of time to ponder the direction the USA is heading with these campaigns. And we all better become informed before November!

As part of my ongoing self-taught political education, I read and listen to viewpoints from both the right and the left and then I mull them over. Today, I’d like to share a viewpoint that I am pondering. The article, entitled, Random Events, was written by Thomas Sowell, a Harvard-educated economist.

Because the posting appeared on Townhall.com, it presents a conservative viewpoint. In fact, among other issues, it allegedly explains why Barack Obama, and further left-leaning policies, would be BAD for the USA.

Whether you are an Obama supporter or opponent, this article presents some valuable information about the differences between conservative and liberal economic policies, and is well-worth reading.

In referring to the policies of Obama and his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright (Yes, I know - Old News!), Sowell has this to say:

Both men, in their different ways, have for decades been promoting the far left vision of victimization and grievances– Wright from his pulpit and Obama as a community organizer for the radical group ACORN, as a collaborator with former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, and as the member of the U.S. Senate with the farthest left voting record.Later, when the ultimate political prize– the White House– loomed on the horizon, Obama did a complete makeover, now portraying himself as a healer of divisions.

The difference between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is that they are addressing different audiences, using different styles adapted to those audiences.

This article is obviously written from a conservative viewpoint, but it has some interesting lessons on victim vs. hero mentalities, and the widely-divergent paths open to our country for the future. There is much more included in this post, other than just Barack Obama, or Jeremiah Wright. What is the difference between a victim and a hero? Now you can find out.

I recommend reading and pondering this intelligent and common-sense article, Random Events as you prepare yourself to make an informed decision on which candidate to vote for in November as the next President of the United States.

As usual, both candidates have been saturating their markets with ads and TV appearances. Barack Obama was on “MEET THE PRESS” Sunday morning, while Hillary Clinton did the famous “TOP TEN” list on David Letterman’s late night show.

I watched part of the “MEET THE PRESS” interview with Tim Russert and then reread the transcript thoroughly. After all, Barack Obama may be the Democratic nominee, and possibly our next President (unless conservatives and anti-abortion advocates fully mobilize). Russert brought out all the bombshells and allowed Obama to diffuse them one-by-one, which he did beautifully.

First on the agenda was the featured speaking appearances and further bombastic/hateful/anti-USA remarks by Jeremiah Wright, in front of the NAACP and others. Obama started with the usual politically-correct “You’ll have to ask him” response, but he followed up with a clear and concise explanation of Wright’s possible motivations. While he says he will stay with Trinity United, he has clearly distanced himself from Wright.

He did side-step questions about Michelle Obama’s comments and acted as if the question had not been asked. So I don’t think he plans to distance himself from Michelle.

There has been a lot of theorizing about the role of the NAACP in the further adventures of Jeremiah Wright’s posturing. Seems that the NAACP and the ‘Black American Establishment’ is not that enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy. I hadn’t given that much credence, until I read several articles explaining the behind-the-scenes machinations.

Seems the NAACP has been losing power, and it’s constituency, as African-Americans achieve more success in different venues. Apparently the election of a black president is viewed, in some circles, as an indicator that the NAACP is no longer needed. 

One article boldly stated that the ‘Black American Establishment’ withheld support from Obama and tried to stop his candidacy. Obama would not be stopped, however, and went right around the hurdles. We’ve seen how successful his campaign has been.

Whether the articles are correct or not, it does give us food for thought. Who is the NAACP trying to promote? Have they become an anacronism? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? When was the last time you heard anyone refer to a black person as “colored”, anyway?

Well, Clinton used humor and Obama used reasoned discourse. And they BOTH used attack ads. 

Guess we’ll find out tomorrow what works best. 

Today I want to talk about another kind of dirty political tactics!

The New York Post and the New York Times both led with the story of  a Queens judge who acquitted three detectives Friday, after they were charged in the shooting of Sean Bell on his wedding day, in a hail of 50 police bullets.

The judge said he didn’t buy the stories of Bell’s friends who were called as witnesses. Seems they kept changing their stories to suit the questions. And the fact that Bell was drunk and tried to run over one of the detectives with a car, striking the officer in the leg as he attempted to flee the scene, was apparently viewed as mitigating circumstances.

There’s a whole lot of other background information, including the fact that the Feds will now investigate, but something was fishy with the “totally innocent bridegroom, slaughtered mercilessly on his wedding day” story presented by the prosecution.  He was driving his “fiancee’s” car at the time, the same “fiancee” who is the mother of his two children and uses Bell as her last name.

I’m not happy to see two children left without a father, but marriage rules and rituals sure have changed since I was young. It seems that the “fiancee” label no longer means what it used to.

There was shock and silence when the judge announced his verdict. But Al Sharpton is REAL unhappy. Yep! In fact, in spite of the fact that two of the three police officers were black, Sharpton (a spokesman for the Bell family, of course) called for street protests and said people should get themselves arrested, “whether it is on Wall Street, the judge’s house or at 1 Police Plaza.”  

Yeah, Al’s at it again, drumming up publicity for himself by creating discord anywhere there’s a news story. Sound familiar?

A young man is dead. That is tragic. Two children are left fatherless. That is also tragic! But the real victims here are two helpless children, the police officers who responded to deadly attack with deadly force and are now being prosecuted for it, and the people who are being duped by Al Sharpton’s self-promoting publicity gimmicks.

Guess the rules for being a “Reverend” have changed since I was young also.

Hillary won in almost every category of voter, except African Americans, 92% of whom voted for Obama.

So the former front-runner, now “come-from-behind” candidate has done it again, winning four of the last five primaries, even though the media and Democratic honchos keep telling her to quit.

In studying voter and media response across the internet this morning, I came across the following comment, by someone with the username of jamie. I thought I’d share it with you.

“I’d like to vote for Obama, but the job that I have and hate, has made me so “bitter”, that I might have to start “clinging to guns and religion” now, as a result. I agree with Hillary, enough with the talk and the grandiose speechs, now’s the time for “Action”. Not to get off the beaten track, but Obama wasn’t even a Senator at the time of the vote for the Iraq war and he most certainly didn’t vote for it or against it…he wasn’t even there…although he sure makes it sound like he was there though, doesn’t he? Is this the “New Politics” that he’s been talking about? This is the same guy who while in Chicago had more “Undecided” votes as a local politician, than any other politician in Illinois at that time. Not “Yes” or “No”, but…”Undecided”…189 “Undecided” votes on a variety of issues, I might add. That coupled with the fact that he never even voted against the Iraq war in the Senate, while leading the rest of America to believe as though he had, well, that’s not “New Politics” that’s just what we call the “oldest form of politics” lying that you were there, when you weren’t. Kind of puts Hillary’s 15 year old Bosnia flap in it’s proper light now, doesn’t it? By the way, can anyone here remember the car that they took to their high school prom or does anyone else here remember what color the bridesmaids dresses were at their wedding, or how many kids were in your childs graduating class? If you say you “don’t remember” than I think everyone should cut Hillary some slack for forgetting about parts of an event that took place 15 years ago in one of the 400 countries she’s visited 1000’s of times, over a nearly ten year period. But don’t forget this, Hillary has actaully been to Iraq herself to see the land and our troops in it, Obama…to his discredit…has yet to even be there once.”

WOW! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

It would be interesting to see how the previous primary voters would have voted if the primaries had occurred after the Rev. Wright revelations, the “bitter” gun and religion comments by Barack Obama, his association with William Ayers coming to light and his negative voting record on fighting gang warfare, and on and on and on. . . Would Obama have had the lead he now has? And why can he not get enough voters (except African-American) to accept him in large enough numbers to clinch the nomination? Hmmm!

With massive ad expenditures, Barack Obama has tried to bring this primary season to a close by preventing Hillary Clinton from a runaway, double-digit victory that was forecast sometime in the past. We will see if the money spent on ads paid off for Obama by tomorrow evening.

If Clinton wins big (say by double-digits) and racks up many more delegates, then her campaign is still viable and the Dems are headed for a brokered convention. If Obama pulls neck-and-neck with her in what was supposed a be a sure victory for the Clinton campaign, then Hillary will be limping away, even if she does continue her campaign.

 There have been so many newsworthy quotes from BOTH candidates that, in spite of Zogby polls and others, no one really knows what the turnout or the results will be. With all the negative campaigning that has been going on on BOTH sides (Yes, BOTH sides), it will all probably boil down to who the voters decide to believe.

Are Pennsylvanians so bitter, that they must cling to their guns or religion? Are they bitter period? Do they resent the implications of those words? Will they overcome their bitterness enough to vote for “change”?

I guess we’ll know the answers to those questions at the close of polls tomorrow.

The way I see it, Americans seem to want to focus on the human rights, health, etc. etc. etc. issues in other countries, rather than looking at what we need to straighten-out here at home, because no real action is required on our part. We’re really a naive bunch, when you think about it.

Human rights violations in China, Tibet, Darfur are unpleasant to think about, so let’s claim to be offended and then continue on our merry way, gathering-up quarters from the sofa pillows to buy gasoline to go to the store to buy the cheapest products we can find. Survival first!

I think most Americans are unaware of the real risks this country faces. At a time when we should be solidarizing and strengthening internally, we are being torn apart by bipartisan politics and finger-pointing from within.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my observations of the political decisions made by ANY administration, it’s that we are schitzophrenic. We want every country around the world to do things our way but we can’t agree among ourselves what OUR WAY should be.

Furthermore, our dependence on foreign oil will keep us from confronting evils, unless pushed into a corner, or turning a blind eye towards how much the USA is hated among certain populations.

But even more frightening is that our dependence on foreign money will shackle us to those very countries we claim are such abusers. The average American has NO concept of the amount of Chinese money invested in the USA. They could easily pull the rug out from underneath us, with one hand tied behind their back.

This sword they have hanging over our head is possibly one reason that Bush will be the first U.S. president to attend the Olympics when it is being held anyplace other than on USA soil (in spite of the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are asking him to boycott the opening ceremonies, to protest the China-Tibet ‘thingy’).

With Chindia (China/India) poised to take over the economic reins of the world, most Americans have no concept of how powerful China is. We will never invade China. Let’s hope they don’t decide to invade us.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters felt that she made the most points, while Barack Obama’s supporters were irritated that the anchors kept bringing up trivial issues from the past. Those “trivial issues”, like Jeremiah Wright’s ravings and small town America’s bitter clinging to guns and religion, were explained-away by Obama as simple misunderstandings, taken out of context. But NOT so trivial to some voters.

When his relationship with William Ayers of the Weather Underground was mentioned, Obama quickly scoffed at the question, stating that he was eight years old when he knew him. Clinton just happened to mention that Obama had served on a committee with Ayers. So, who’s “misspeaking” here?

This is the longest presidential campaign within my very long memory. I think people want the Democrats to decide one way or another and get on with it to November. But that is unlikely in this never-ending quest for delegates.

This extremely long campaign season is bringing new items to our attention on a daily, or at least weekly, basis. But will anyone remember, or even care, by the time the election rolls around?

With so much speaking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth going on, how are we to know what the candidates believe or what they stand for? Are Clinton or Obama for-or-against gun control of the weapons we are so bitterly clinging to? Where do they stand on illegal immigration? On God? On Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? The War in Iraq? And the myriad other ‘little issues’ that the middle class is so desperately and bitterly focusing on?

Will Obama meet with Ahmadinejad? How does he feel about Carter’s visit to Palestine? Will Hillary ever get enough sleep to speak truthfully? And when am I going to get my prescriptions and my doctor’s visits for FREE?

Next Tuesday will be the Pennsylvania primaries, so we should get a little excitement seeing who does what! Then it’s only two weeks more until Indiana and North Carolina. By then we should have some idea of whether the Dems will be hosting a brokered convention, or whether Al Gore will be the nominee.

Now before you get all huffy, let me explain.

I am very happily married, so I wouldn’t give the money to a live-in boyfriend. No sir! All of my credit card charges would go to benefit my husband, who would NEVER use the money for gambling.

Since we live pretty frugally, I would spend the money wisely. Yes, it would be important to purchase an iPod, and perhaps a Mac Air laptop, and a couple of cell phones, but then everybody needs those, right? And, of course, if the government trusted me with my very own credit card (that they paid the bills for) I would purchase things that would boost the economy. None of that fancy lingerie stuff, after all, I’m a great-grandmother. But a few days at a spa might be good for me and it would be the least I can do to help circulate the wealth.

I also promise not to “charge $1,100 over a 15-month period for “various online dating services” while . . . under investigation for viewing pornography on a government computer.” I don’t even like pornography, so why would I waste the government’s money on it? And, as I mentioned earlier, my husband is the only dating service I need.

Since I like to cook, and I enjoy family and friend get-togethers, I wouldn’t have to spend “$13,500 in 2006 on a dinner at a steak house, including over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol”. Heavens! With that kind of money, I could feed my entire little town several times over AND have enough money left over to buy all my Christmas presents early. Although, the idea of going to Sam’s or Costco and buying all those ready-made “ore durvs” would certainly make entertaining festive and easier.

Well, there’s probably no point in applying for a government job now. The ‘cat is out of the bag’ and the Government Accountability Office has already discovered the widespread abuse of those credit cards, with over half of the expenditures being suspicious.

Guess I have to pay for my own credit cards. Sigh!

Wait a minute! This scandal means that we the taxpayers are stuck paying for those misused cards. GRRR!

Yesterday, Mark Penn, former chief strategist for Hillary Clinton, stepped aside from his role. He will remain as an “advisor”.

Hillary’s campaign manager Maggie Williams issued a statement Sunday saying the action comes after what she referred to as “the events of the last few days” and added that Penn will continue to provide polling and advice for the campaign.

So what did Penn do to embarrass his candidate? Well, first you have to understand that Penn has other jobs besides Hillary. Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burson-Marsteller. He is also president of his own political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates.

In his capacity as CEO of Burston-Marsteller, Penn acknowledged Friday that he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week to discuss the pending U.S. and Colombia trade pact, that President Bush is trying to finalize.

There’s a bit of an uproar over this, because as part of her campaign, Clinton has stated that she’s opposed to the trade agreement. OOPS!

Seems that Penn further screwed himself by announcing that the meeting was “an error in judgment that will not be repeated,” and apologized. That prompted Columbia’s government to fire Burson-Marsteller on Saturday, stating that the remarks demonstrated ”a lack of respect to Colombians.”

Poor Mark Penn! I thought people in public relations were supposed to be tactful. Guess not! Think this might hurt his image in the PR field?

Well, Penn may continue as an advisor, but Clinton’s campaign is trying to distance from the entire fiasco, as quickly as possible. This is especially important, as Clinton has criticized Barack Obama for supposed leaks to the Canadians by his campaign that he is not as opposed to NAFTA as he has stated during the campaign.

Campaign backers agreed Sunday that Penn had to go. Maggie Williams immediately informed the media of the decision and stated that Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson “will coordinate the campaign’s strategic message team going forward.”

Not a good week for Mark Penn. Not too great for Hillary either during the countdown to the Pennsylvania primary, as this may reflect poorly on her ability to select teammates, something she has criticized both President Bush and Barack Obama about. DARN!

The Washington Post reports today that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is being outspent by Barack Obama’s by as much as six to one in some cases.

It seems that Obama’s campaign has been raking in the contributions at better than twice the rate that Clinton’s camp has. The amount of money spent and number of ads run in Pennsylvania alone don’t make the easy win that Hillary was anticipating look so easy, or even probable. We will see on April 22nd just how effective the Obama camp spending has been. What once looked like a runaway primary for Clinton will teach us all lessons on whether money talks or not. So far, reports show that Obama has outmatched Clinton campaign expenditures by a four-to-one ratio.

In North Carolina, with it’s May 6th primary, Obama’s camp has been using their surplus to open offices around the state, even in small towns. In addition to saturating the market with ads (almost always a smart move) they have been setting up voter registration centers across the state. Formerly unregistered voters will undoubtedly endorse which ever candidate activates them.

And, of course, even with the precision of planning done by the Clinton campaign before the contest actually opened, Obama’s campaign continues to almost effortlessly gather momentum. He has had a war chest that keeps growing by leaps and bounds, while Hillary’s group has been scrambling to keep fundraisers going and get the needed funds.

To prevent doomsayers from writing Hillary off completely, however, aides point to the fact that she won in Ohio and Texas even though she was unable to compete in spending with Obama.

Today, according to the media, Clinton’s fundraisers are exhausted with the unprecedented demands that this historic campaign is requiring.

But, since Hillary and John McCain are old friends (they said it, I didn’t) perhaps he can tell her some of his secrets for winning a nomination without spending the big bucks spent by his number #1 competitor. Even Mike Huckabee hung in there with no money much longer than anyone expected.

Well, if there’s anything we’ve learned in this most unusual presidential primary contest, it’s that only time will tell. Will there be a brokered convention? It’s still two and a half weeks until the Pennsylvania primaries and no one knows what will happen between now and then.

I know that pressure has been mounting for Hillary Clinton to abandon her campaign. Meet the Press and Face the Nation were all discussing the pros and cons. But, of course, she is adamant that she will continue to the convention. And to be honest, why shouldn’t she?

The animosity between the Clinton followers and those of Barack Obama has already occurred. Whether you are a Clinton fan or not, you have to admit Hillary has a good chance of winning Pennsylvania, Indiana and Puerto Rico, so why would she abandon her campaign? And there is still no agreement on the Florida and Michigan primary delegates. She doesn’t have a spoiler to take her votes away, as occurred on the GOP side, so with proportional delegate allotments, it doesn’t look like either Obama or Clinton can secure enough delegates to win before the convention in August. 

One of the proponents for Hillary continuing her campaign mentioned that the sniping back and forth is strengthening Obama as a candidate. He pointed to Obama’s continuing rise in the polls, in spite of his close association with Jeremiah Wright. The fact that Obama weathered this particular attack now is much better for him than if the association had been announced just before November elections. By the time the convention rolls around, Jeremiah Wright’s hate speeches and his new multi-million dollar home will be old news. 

Since it doesn’t seem there is any way that either Obama or Clinton can secure the required number of  pledged delegates before what appears will be a brokered convention, senior Democrats have behind-the-scenes plans for Al Gore to possibly take the Democratic presidential nomination as the “saviour of a bitterly divided party”. 

Senior party figures and aides to the former vice-president appear to believe that if “neither Obama nor Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr (John) McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the “super-delegates” - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party“. (emphasis by me)

If Gore comes away from the convention with the nomination, it will be a learning experience for all us old-time voters and all the new voters for whom this will be their first campaign. I could be wrong, but it appears that the Democratic Party wants anyone but Hillary Clinton! All this behind-the-scenes finagling may very well be in the works OR it just may be another maneuver to encourage Clinton to step aside and give the nomination to Obama. We shall see!

Hillary Clinton has been exposed for embellishing facts about her experiences during her time as First Lady. Seems she got wrapped up in some story telling about how exciting and/or dangerous some of her activities were, then got more and more carried away with the fabrications. Imagine, a politician telling an untruth! Or, as she puts it, “Misspeaking”.

But allegations of lying are not the biggest problem for the former First Lady/Democratic Presidential contender. Nope! Lots of the biggies among the Democrats are trying to pressure her into quitting the race. After many public proclamations of maintaining neutrality, Nancy Pelosi has now become outspoken about the continuing attacks between Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns. She claims Hillary Clinton continuing her campaign is creating division in the Democratic party. You can’t fool Nancy Pelosi, can ya?

Of course, Obama’s campaign has had it’s ups and downs. He got the endorsement of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, which stunned the Clinton campaign! Richardson, the only Hispanic Governor, was a part of the Clinton White House and claims to be a good Clinton friend. Yet he endorsed Obama, leading to speculation that he’s finagling for the VP slot. Look out, Obama! You already have friends who are treacherous to your campaign and it seems Bill Richardson understands political expediency better than loyalty or friendship. Gee, Hillary, you need better friends too!

And, of course, Reverend Jeremiah Wright continues to have his lunatic ravings exposed. This time it’s the “Eye-talians” he’s blasting. This man doesn’t seem to like too many people. Well, Wright should fit right into the Democratic Party at this point because the two sides don’t seem to like each other very much either. Polls are showing percentages of the members of each camp who swear they’ll vote for John McCain if their candidate doesn’t win the nomination.

There are still TEN primaries to be held, with millions of votes to be counted. Unless some reconciliation occurs among the Democrats, the final primaries on June 3rd, in Montana and South Dakota will not yield a definitive nominee. Then we get to witness a brokered Democratic National Convention in Denver in August, with the Super Delegates being forced to anger one side or the other.

Last week the furor was over Barack Obama’s twenty-year discipleship of Jeremiah Wright, his friend, pastor and mentor, after Wright was revealed as a virulent racist. Then on Tuesday, Obama gave a speech that, depending on your viewpoint, 1) explained the relationship satisfactorily or 2) gave further reason to distrust Obama as a candidate.

I am now firmly entrenched in the latter category. You may or may not agree with my reasons, but I don’t believe that I am alone in my thinking.

As a member of the female persuasion, I resented Obama comparing private comments by his grandmother to the very public hate-filled ravings, and pelvic thrusts, of Jeremiah Wright from the pulpit. I also resented his comparing the comments and questions posed by Geraldine Ferraro with the years of Wright’s fanatical diatribes that made his Tuesday speech necessary in the first place.

Although I thought her comments were inappropriate, there is no comparison between Geraldine Ferraro calling Obama’s credentials into question, based on race, and Wright’s 20 years of stirring up hatred against whites and the USA. And what I found most galling was Obama continuing to sing Wright’s praises as a great man who had accomplished great good, while not extending the same courtesy to the two females he put on the chopping block.

Obama was very adamant about saying that his grandmother loved him. Why did he not bother to mention that he cared a little about his grandmother, rather than emphasizing that he couldn’t “disown her” and that some of her private stereotypical comments made him “cringe”.

When Michelle Obama made her comments about never being proud of this country until now, it struck a jarring note with me. I wondered why a woman who had made it so successfully in corporate America (and had the salary to prove it) was so unhappy with our country. After listening to just a few of the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-white rants that her pastor of twenty years made, it became much clearer to me.

Now the news for the Democratic Party continues to be even more unsettling. What had initially started as breakthrough potential for women and blacks, has deteriorated into a great divide between race and gender.

News today shows a real split among black and white feminists, with noted black feminists endorsing Obama. The rhetoric is becoming very unfriendly as black women are now saying that their loyalties toward a black candidate take precedence over supporting a woman candidate. And it’s just beginning to heat up because NOW just endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Post states today that super delegates are concerned over angering African-American voters (major voting block of the Democratic Party) if they don’t support Obama. And the voters in Michigan and Florida are not going to have any meaningful impact on the nominating process now that revotes have been ruled out.

Looks like the Democrats have more than just a “train wreck” coming up in August in Denver.

“W should be classified an enemy combatant, hung, drawn and quartered, while his family watches (including the new in-law). Without trial, that is.

I mean, after all, I wonder if the terrorists are winning. Think about it, they’ve succeeded in dragging us into a wild goose chase of a war that has resulted in nothing but a big, fat budget deficit from day one. Whose side is this guy on, anyway?”

I’m simply fed up with stupid people making stupid statements!

People continuously complain about the Iraq War and the costs associated with it. I imagine people would have had the same complaints if the USA had tried to remove Idi Amin from power, or Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, or Mussolini. Oh, wait, we did remove Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini, and lost almost 700,000 soldiers doing it.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people. Mass graves are still being discovered.

So the UN inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction. God forbid that they should have looked anywhere in the miles and miles of desert, or even in hiding places outside Iraq’s borders. We all know that Saddam Hussein would never have asked his allies to assist him with hiding anything.

Good thing we stayed out of Argentina and let thousands of “disappeared ones” just vanish without trial. Their families don’t miss their loved ones as much as we would. Same thing for Peru and Nicaragua. Oh wait, we did help in Peru and Nicaragua, without losing any soldiers.

Good thing we aren’t trying to stop the genocide anywhere else in the world, like Darfur or Armenia, because costs would be very expensive. But, oh yes, we ARE pouring big bucks into trying to help the poor starving refugees.

I think the USA needs to concentrate on straightening out things here in the USA, but that doesn’t mean we should ever ignore the suffering of helpless, innocent people.

Fortunately, no matter how much “without a trial” rhetoric we hear by the ‘anti-Bush, foaming at the mouth radicals’ that’s not the way we do things in the USA. If we did, we’d have to “hang, draw and quarter” almost every member of Congress, plus all the supporters of the Iraq war who are realistically worried about Iran, Libya, the rest of the Middle East and all the people and countries around the world who HATE the USA.

Obviously it’s going to take something bigger and more deadly than 9/11 before some people even begin to understand that not only are there are people who HATE the USA but they are plotting to destroy it. There truly is a ‘War of Terror’ being waged against this country and our few remaining allies.

I’m old enough to have seen some of this foaming at the mouth rhetoric and hatred run amok. JFK was assassinated for his efforts.

And even though I wasn’t alive at the time, SOME of the history books still bother to mention that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) for his efforts to free the slaves.

I’m NOT a fervent Bush supporter. I think he is a stumbling orator who often acts like a buffoon. He has people around him who have great influence over everything he says and does. But he is NOT a dictator who has ordered the genocide of an entire segment of his own people (no matter what Jeremiah Wright screams out from the pulpit).

People are going to have to STOP making these stupid “without a trial” statements if they ever expect to be taken seriously by anyone but Jeremiah Wright’s congregation and the rest of Louis Farrakhan’s supporters.

This week it’s Barack Obama who’s in the “hot seat”.

Lots of press coverage has been devoted to the sermons (rantings) of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., former spiritual advisor to the Obama campaign and the minister who married Barack and Michelle Obama twenty years ago. Wright has since resigned from the Obama campaign, after some of his virulent anti-USA, anti-white and anti-semitic sermons were made widely-public in several videos.

While Obama has stated in press conferences that he rejects these viewpoints, he also stated that he had never heard any such messages while he was in attendance. This can only mean that poor Barack Obama is deaf!

Since numerous reporters and eyewitnesses have testified as to his presence at other similar sermons, he is either deaf or he sleeps through the sermons. (Men have been noted to do so on more than one occasion.) However, sleeping through one of those sermons would be hard to believe, if only due to the volume with which Rev. Wright preaches.

But IF Obama did sleep through those sermons that’s even more troublesome. Modern science has proven that our subconscious mind works without a filter while we are asleep. That would mean that ANY poisonous message could be delivered to a person’s subconscious, without any filter to determine the right or wrong of a message.

Among the diatribes attributed to Reverend Wright are actual recordings of him blaming the USA for bringing the 9/11 attacks upon ourselves and numerous references to our society as “white supremacists”. It seems to stretch the imagination that Barack Obama, during his twenty years of friendship with the Reverend and attending the same church, would not have grasped that SOME of Reverend Wright’s sermons and viewpoints are anti-USA and racially-divisive.

What needs to be pointed-out in all this nastiness is that a person does not need to be causcasian to be a “racist”.

One thing is certain though, Obama has stated publicly that he rejects any support from Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. In his twenty years of close ties with Rev. Wright, he has to have known of Wright’s admiration for Farrakhan, his later awards to Farrakhan and Wright’s accompanying Louis Farrakhan to Libya in 1984, where they met with Moammar Khadafy. This has to be a very uncomfortable issue for the candidate.

While he says he doesn’t agree with Wright’s viewpoints on any of these issues, why did he continue to attend the same church? And, more recently, why did he have Reverend Wright on his campaign staff as a spiritual advisor?

Whether one is a Barack Obama supporter or not, these are questions that need to be asked, and answered, for voters to make their own judgement in November.

In light of the revelations of the last week, perhaps it’s now somewhat easier to understand Michelle Obama’s earlier comments that she had never been proud of this country until now.

For another viewpoint, please see:

Yet another viewpoint:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

First things first, Barack Obama won in Mississippi, just like everyone, including Hillary Clinton expected. A few more delegates were decided but the Democrats look like they’re still on the way to a brokered convention. And with six weeks or so to go until the primaries in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, who knows what the heck is going to happen to heap more disaster on the Dems?

For instance, looks like the Democratic governor of New York, the “honorable” Eliot Spitzer, is reaping the results of his pricey habit. After much clamor by his political enemies, Spitzer resigned today. He will be replaced, effective Monday, by Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who becomes New York’s first black governor. He will be the state’s first legally blind governor and its first disabled governor since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Spitzer was elected after devoting his career to fighting corruption of all kinds, including prostitution. It is sad to see his downfall, and my heart really goes out to both the man and his family. It must be very difficult for the father of three beautiful teenaged daughters to have to face them with this kind of notoriety. And, of course, this has to be terribly painful for Silda, his lovely and accomplished wife of 20 years.

But this isn’t the only controversial issue in the ongoing saga of the Democrats. Now there is a furor over the remarks made by Geraldine Ferraro, former Vice-presidential candidate for the Dems and fervent Clinton supporter. Her allegations that Obama has gotten as far as he has because of his race really created a backlash, if only because she had the nerve to say it out loud and in public.

While Hillary Clinton stated publicly that she didn’t agree with Ferraro’s views, the fact is that African-American Super-Delegates have been quoted in recent weeks in the media saying that they were switching allegiance from Clinton to Obama because of his race and that this was a chance to get an African-American into the White House.

Seems it’s not considered “politically correct” for SOME people to say the same thing that it’s O.K. for OTHER people to say.

All in all, this has been an unsettling week for the Democrats. Wonder what’s next?

I don’t want to imply that I think Governor Spitzer’s admitted involvement with a prostitution ring is morally or ethically admirable. But I also know that many men in power have always felt that they were somehow ‘above the rules’ and entitled to extra privileges! For centuries, the practice of keeping a wife and a mistress have been S.O.P. for CEOs and other business moguls. (Don’t act so shocked!)

When you think about it, in a country with a greater than 50% divorce rate, single’s and/or topless bars, and internet pornography, why should Spitzer’s infidelities surprise us? I can understand his wife being surprised, but it seems hypocritical to think that politicians don’t face the same temptations that men in power ( and the rest of us humans) have always faced. The only difference is the sense of entitlement that so many big shots have.

Like a few of our former presidents and other fellow politicians, Spitzer’s big NO-NO was that he got caught! He has already apologized and said he won’t resign. Whether he is ever re-elected to anything only time will tell. But I think there is another issue here that deserves some recognition.

As Gov. Spitzer made his public apology at a press conference, in keeping with tradition, his poor wife stood at his side to ’stand by her man’. Looking shell-shocked and humiliated, Mrs. Spitzer followed the time-honored example of Jacquelyn Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and too many other political wives to name.

I realize there are emotional and financial obligations that make this show of support necessary but, just once, I’d like to see the cheated spouse stand at the press conference, then ‘deck’ the SOB in front of the world. It might not be the politically correct thing to do, but jilted wives across the nation would cheer her on.

The prognosticators are already going out on a limb and predicting a major win for Barack Obama. Because of the large African-American population in the state, it seems like a pretty safe guess. While Hillary Clinton would love a win here, she is putting most of her efforts into Pennsylvania (where she is leading at present) and North Carolina (where the large African-American community makes it look like another sure win for Obama).

With all the ups-and-downs of this long drawn-out campaign, just about the only sure thing voters can count on is that neither candidate will snare enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention.

As the attacks between Clinton and Obama become more heated, divisions in the party are becoming more pronounced. Media assaults on Clinton continue, while Obama continues to get handled with kid gloves. Why else would the media be releasing news stories stating that Clinton is not such a great leader because she can’t control infighting and negative comments from her staff?

On the other hand, a big story last week was the resignation of Stephanie Power from the Obama campaign, after she referred to Hillary Clinton as “a monster”. There was quite a bit of coverage of Ms. Power’s remarks, including her statements in an interview with the BBC that Obama may not be able to end the war in 2009, as he’s promised.

This insider info really could have put a strain on the Obama campaign. This is especially true since part of his platform has been his promise to end the war in Iraq, coupled with blaming Clinton for voting to start it. But interestingly enough, that part of the story kinda “disappeared”. Yes, Ms. Powers, a Pulitzer-Prize winning author, unpaid volunteer and personal friend of the candidate resigned. But why was there not ONE accusation about Obama’s ‘lack of leadership’ for not controlling negative comments from HIS staff? Could we be seeing a double-standard here? Hmmmm!

I like to think that I’m pretty objective about both candidates, so I can’t be the only one who’s noticed this ‘preferential treatment’. Yep! Smacks of a media double standard to me.

This year a big tempest is brewing over the barred delegates from Florida and Michigan. With the Democratic nomination race so close between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, those delegates could make a difference in who the nominee will be.

I’ve posted several times that I couldn’t understand how the Democratic Party could be allowed to disenfranchise the voters in both states, and it now appears that, thankfully, they can’t.

Negotiations are underway to decide how to seat the delegates but it will be tricky for several reasons. First, Clinton won BOTH primaries, but John Edwards and Barack Obama withdrew their names from the ballot. Their supporters voted “uncommitted”, but how many were for Barack Obama and how many for John Edwards? Should Barack Obama get all of those votes? Or should there be a re-vote in those two states?

Of course, a re-vote in both states now that there are only two candidates might be more fair, but estimates say it could cost a zillion dollars to do that (actually close to $28 million). Who is gonna pay for that?

Voters in Michigan and Florida have a right to have their voices heard but what is the MOST FAIR way to assure that? Clinton wants the results to stand; Obama wants the delegates admitted with a 50/50 split. Both states know it would be prohibitively expensive for their own taxpayers to foot the bill and want the DNC to pay for a re-vote.

No matter what the final decision is, this may be the beginning of needed changes in our election process. The Democratic Party is going to have to acknowledge that they can’t run roughshod over the voters. The idea of “punishing” entire states was ludicrous to start with. Now a solution must be found.

It will be interesting to see if “Big Daddy DNC” can find a solution that’s acceptable to all parties after their high-handed rejection of individual state autonomy. There is either going to be an expensive and fair solution, or it will be a huge ‘train wreck’.

The Dems are going to need to get things squared-away equitably before what will probably be a ‘brokered’ convention, if they hope to have a united front in time to build support for their candidate before November. This will be interesting to watch!

Oh, and one last note: Ron Paul, the Republican Internet Candidate, posted a video on his website basically telling his supporters that he will probably withdraw from the presidential race. Just thought you’d want to know.