Affirmative action. Saying it is enough to send a self-respecting conservative into a frothing frenzy. Blood boils. Necks turn red (if they’re not already). Steams shoots from the ears (and sometimes from the eyes). And I’ve even witnessed a few synaptic implosions, which tends to cure mild brain damage.

But just what the hell is an “affirmative action president”?

According to Conservapedia, an affirmative action president is one that is elected primarily because of his race.

The phrase was coined, evidently, by right wingnut Michael Savage, who reportedly said that America’s not ready for an affirmative action president. Maybe there’s a point there, somewhere, but would any of these conservapricks like to explain how we were ready for a hostile takeover by the knuckle dragging segment now known as Bush’s Cabal (OK, I made that up; I justed wanted to coin a phrase too)?

Conservapedia’s definition aside, I’m not sure that Barack Obama, if he is elected, would be elected on race alone. A goodly number of voters cast votes against someone rather than for someone, which means what? They’d be voting against McCain because he’s white? Not likely. I won’t vote for McCain, even if I don’t vote for Obama. I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t represent my values and because I think he’s given up on his own values. He’s become a Neo-con shill, which is what I think he believes will get him elected. If it does then it will only prove that Liberty has lost and Alexander Hamilton got the last laugh.

Honestly, Conservapedia’s rhetoric is just a blow-hard’s gust of tonsil snot. If Obama wins, it will likely be because the Republican Party isn’t worth the effort it will take to drain the dirty bath water.

(Source) Opposition Chief Whip Kassiano Wadri said he woke up at midnight to listen to BBC, and was overjoyed when the news of Obama’s victory broke.

“For the first time a black person has taken the US Democratic Party’s primary.” He said although American democracy was over 300 years old, none of the 43 presidents was black. “Africa should be proud that one of our own has moved nearer to the presidency.” He said Americans should also be happy that their nation was no longer ethnic but able to recognise quality leadership. “I wish Ugandans could emulate this.”

Republicans will undoubtedly use this African news story against Barack Obama this election season. It will only serve as proof that their suspicions of him being a black man are actually true.

In other words, Republicans would rather have a dead or near dead white guy serving as their chief executive than a man whose roots go back to Kenya, which is in Africa - even if American democracy isn’t quite 300 years old as the African chief so boldly proclaimed. He at least got it right that none of the previous presidents have been black (if you don’t count Bill Clinton).

When it comes to racial politics, there is a clear dividing line in the U.S. There is no gray area. It’s all black and white. And while there may be a few black Republicans in the mix, there are a lot of more white Democrats. And they will likely vote for Obama. But add up all the Republican prejudices against Obama - he’s black, he’s potentially Muslim, he’s black, he’s been educated in another country, he’s black, he’s “unpatriotic” (meaning he isn’t white), and he’s black - and it spells out so clearly that John McCain would make a better president. Even if he dies while in office. We’ll just prop his old dead body up against the Lincoln Monument and play speeches of Ronald Reagan to inspire us. And pray that his term of office doesn’t expire before rigor mortis sets in and turns his skin - aaaaaaack! - black.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton would like to be the vice president. Given her thirst for power, it’s not surprising. It has evidently sunk in that she won’t be the Democratic nominee for the party’s presidential run, after having been beaten by a black man. Being listed as the veep on the ticket might be a dream team for some Democrat Party faithfuls. But would Hillary be a good vice president?

She might actually make a better veep than president. The president is usually a director. A veep is the doer. If Clinton doesn’t mind playing second fiddle then she might actually make a good veep. She would likely follow in the footsteps of Dick Cheney and attempt to influence policy from the safety and comfort of the right-hand chair. Cheney set an unfortunate precedent in making himself the most powerful vice president in history. He effectively ran the office from his chair.

That doesn’t mean that Hillary has a chance at all of that accomplishment. First off, Barack Obama is a much more abler leader than George W. Bush ever was. So that won’t happen. But it could happen that her intelligence, drive, and savvy political skills could be assets to an Obama-run White House if she can convince Obama that she’ll be a team player and not try to run things. She will have to prove herself through assignments and my bet is Obama won’t be afraid to give her some and the better she is at accomplishing them, the more he’ll give her. She has a chance of becoming one of the most productive vice presidents in history if Obama can convince American voters to vote for him. Hillary on the ticket would only help him. There is no other person in the country who Obama can pick as a running mate that would give him automatic voter equity.

Obama will clinch the nomination yet I bet Hillary Clinton will still try and steal the election somehow. She learned everything she wants to know about being president from George Bush, not Bill Clinton. Either way, she will blame the media for her not winning the nomination.

Clinton’s Message, and Moment, Won the Day
By PATRICK HEALY of the NYTimes

According to a survey of voters leaving the polls Tuesday, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 83 percent of Democrats, while 49 percent had a very favorable opinion of him. Of the latter group, Mrs. Clinton got a majority of their votes.

She was backed by 71 percent of Democratic voters in New Hampshire for whom experience was the most important quality; these voters made up 19 percent of those surveyed.

Mr. Obama, who narrowly lost to Mrs. Clinton, also showed strength among the 54 percent of Democratic primary voters who believed that the ability to bring about change was the most important quality. He drew support from 55 percent of them, compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

This is no surprise. The wealthy do not want change. Too much experience in Washington means we get more of the same. That benefits the wealthy of this country, not the middle class or the poor.

Wealthy people are going to always back “experience” which Hillary Clinton “claims” to have 35 years of. The reason they do so is in hopes that their tax cuts and other benefits that were passed for the wealthy will stay in place. Washington insiders like Hillary don’t rock the boat.

The rest of her votes were actually for Billary Clinton. A lot of people think by electing Hillary that it purs Bill back in office. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.

We already have enough nepotism and cronyism in the senate and the house. Many senator’s and representative’s sons and daughters have taken office as their father or mother left office. It’s like having the nobility of old Europe VS the peasants like the rest of us.

For 20 years now, 2 families have controlled the white house. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, that is a possible additional 8 years. The Bush family has young members of their family also ready to run for president soon. That could add another 8 years.

Do you really believe a legitimate democracy can keep two families running the country for 36 years or more? Almost half a century of nepotism?

Couple that with the trend of expanding presidential power as Bush has done and we are getting into very very dangerous territory here. Expanding presidential power while only 2 families run the country could lead to the destruction of democracy as we know it.

People will say that I’m being an alarmist here, but look at the number of times Bush has used executive priviledge. People accepted it because “our safety” was threatened by terrorists.

Give more power to the office of president and let two families have that power and this country is in big trouble. Hillary Clinton does not represent change no matter what she claims in her campaign speeches.

Hillary Clinton represents handing over our country to these two families and getting more of the same. I don’t care who you vote for, but please break the chain of these two power families running our country.

You know it’s really sad how things have changed over the years so much. This country was founded on great principles. It was founded by people who were passionate about freedom and equality. Whether people want to agree or not, it was also founded on religious principles.

In the early days of America, landowners took turns holding public office. They did it to serve the public. When their turn was over, someone else stepped up to serve. They did it for the right reasons.

There were no “career politicians”. That wasn’t a profession. It was real public service. Now we have senators who serve for 30+ years who aren’t qualified to do much of anything else. If not for the connections they make, they likely would be asking someone if they wanted fries with that.

Remember Strom Thurmond? During the confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, he actually said to Thomas, “I can’t hear you, please speak into the machine.” Machine? It was a microphone. This is a guy who was expected to vote on Star Wars and things that were Internet Related along with other highly technical issues.

These guys get into office and basically serve for life if possible. It isn’t about public service. It’s about money and power. Now their sons and daughters get into office as if we had a monarchy and they were entitled to it because of who their parents were.

Now it comes down to who has the most money to spend gets elected. It doesn’t matter if they are qualified or not. The public goes out and votes for the candidate they are most familiar with which means the one that ran the most commercials on tv.

It’s become a popularity contest. The media has made it a “race”. People vote for who the media says is winning because people inherently want to be on the winning side. If the media says a specific candidate has no chance of being elected, many people don’t vote for them because they don’t want to “waste” their vote.

It’s not about being on the winning side. Your duty is to vote for who you believe would make the best public servant in that office. If you pick someone and you are the only person in the US who voted for them, you did not waste your vote. You exercized your duty as an American citizen and voted for who you thought was the best candidate.

We have a twofold problem now thanks to the FCC. The media has huge influence over who people vote for. Opinion shows like Hannity’s America and Lou Dobbs influence who people vote for. There are even people that listen to Bill O’Reilly although I cannot for the life of me understand why.

The FCC has now relaxed the rules about how many tv stations, newspapers, and radio stations can be owned by one corporation. That means these corporations can weild even more influence on who gets elected and who runs this country.

You may not be one of these people but I bet you know one. Someone who believes everything they hear or read in the news. You probably know someone that believes Rush Limbaugh is a political genius and should run for president himself. You may know someone that thinks Bill O’Reilly speaks for the average American.

That is what should scare you. Media influence over who gets elected is a serious problem. The fact that corporations with their own agendas are buying all of these news sources up so they can be the ones you listen to should scare everyone.

Soon, these corporations will be deciding who gets elected. All they have to do is have the people on their tv shows, radio programs, and newspapers say what they want them to say. Then millions of drones will listen, watch, and read and go to the polls to do what these corporations told them to do.

Many people will never believe they are one of these drones. They are so brainwashed that they don’t believe that Hannity, O’Reilly, Coombs, Dobbs, Limbaugh, and others can be told what to say. They believe these guys are sincere and honest and would never sway people one way or the other just to get paid.

Many will say they really make up their own minds, but they still follow the party line no matter what it is or if they truly believe it’s a good thing to do. They begin to believe in someone so much that even direct evidence that they committed a crime would not sway them into thinking of them as a bad person.

I just wish there was a way to get more people to think for themselves and quit following whatever one party or the other tells them to do. There are good democrats. There are good republicans. There are bad apples in each bunch.

But you have people who would never vote for a republican and people who would never vote for a democrat, even if the best person for the job is out there. Ignoring voting for the best person for the job in favor of voting for a party is pure ignorance and against the very duty you have as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you think would do the best job regardless of which party they affiliate themeselves with.

That brings up an issue for another post. The fact that we talk about these two parties instead of the many parties that should be involved in politics and elections.

Clinton campaign office hit by hostage drama
By Dan Gorenstein

ROCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - A man carrying fake explosives seized several hostages at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign office on Friday before surrendering peacefully to end a tense standoff.

“It appears he was someone in need of help who sought attention in absolutely the wrong way,” said Clinton, who flew from Washington after the standoff to meet with the hostages, their families and local police.

So are suicide bombers I guess. They are just seeking attention in the wrong way. I bet Hilary Clinton has a kinder gentler plan for dealing with terrorists.

Hilary is already having a wonderful affect on people. Just think this could have been at the white house. She will make such a good president that people are willing to strap fake explosives to their chest to see her.

Now will she gain or lose points in the poll due to her popularity among the nutcase constituency?

The Rest of The Story here

The highlight of the democratic debate on CNN for me was when Obama had to remind Hilary Clinton that only 6% of Americans make more than $94,000 per year and that those 6% are not the middle class as she had said they were.

That’s the problem with politicians and numbers. Hilary Clinton wants to expand health care coverage to go over that $94,000 income level and claims this will help the middle class.

People like hilary clinton and george bush have no idea what the middle class is and they sure don’t know anything about what being poor is. They have had money all of their life and they believe they know what is best for everyone else.

CNN’s Dem Debate Draws Record Audience

CNN’s Nov. 15 presentation of the ninth Democratic presidential candidate debate drew the largest audience for a primary showdown in cable history, as 4.04 million total viewers tuned in.

According to Nielsen Media Research live-plus-same-day data, the Dem debate out-delivered all 16 previous contests since the election cycle began April 26. The season’s previous high-water mark was established by Fox News Channel, which drew 3.21 million viewers with its coverage of the Sept. 5 Republican debate.

I just hope everyone saw that hilary clinton is out of touch with reality. She is a true politician in the worst sense of the word. She has voted for everything george buish has asked for. She is a DINO. Democrat In Name Only. She votes like a republican. Want 4-8 more years of the same we have had for the last 2 terms, then vote for hilary.

The Rest of The Story here

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — a party that claims government can’t work, can’t possibly run a government that does work.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

Leave it to a Democrat to point out that big government in the hands of a little government party is worse than a smaller government in the hands of a big government party. Much worse.

Kos isn’t always right, but when he’s right he’s dead right. The paradox of Republicanism is that through all of the talk about government is evil and we should make it smaller, no Republican administration has ever been able to do so. Even when unchecked by the Democratic Party, Republicans in office have shown themselves to make government bigger as was the case with Ronald Reagan and the Congressional Republicans in the 1980s. The Bush Administration has seized upon its power and once popular window of opportunity to make government bigger than any administration that has come before it. What gives? It just goes to show that, while you can’t trust the Democrats to keep it small, you can’t trust the Republicans to keep it real. At least we know where the Democrats are coming from. With Republicans, you can only tell them where to go.

News and Media Blog

It’s fun, and easy, to make fun of John McCain. But losing the Republican nomination is no laughing matter. Right now, with President Bush’s approval ratings at an all-time low, McCain gambled on being Shrub’s bosom buddy in hopes that might win him favor with party loyalists. It hasn’t. Now he’s losing the money game as well. Does this mean he’ll nix the election?

Not necessarily. As the above article points out, other presidential hopefuls have overcome a light purse in the past. But this is a different election year and there is more at stake.

For one thing, more than any other candidate, McCain has publicly positioned himself to be the most like Bush. He may not be, but he has wanted his party to think that he is. It is appears that Republicans are seeing through that sham. They may be more interested in being represented by Giuliani, Romney, or even Thompson.

Personally, I don’t see the conservative Christian base voting for Rudy and Romney’s Mormonism is certainly a stumbling block. None of the other candidates seem to have any credibility with other segments of the Republican base. So that leaves Thompson as a default. One might even say a wild card. But McCain? He seems to be old news and as long as he keeps sniffing George’s behind he’s going to get left behind, and the closer we get to September with no positive results from the Iraq War troop surge, the more McCain is going to look like silly puddy in a mud puddle.

News and Media Blog