The Biden Factor

The wondering has ceased and the political world cannot stop talking about Barack Obama’s choice to be his vice presidential running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

Many Hillary Clinton supporters are no doubt furious that the presumed Democratic nominee did not choose the New York senator, but it was a calculated maneuver that he had to take. As it has been mentioned before, having a double-minority ticket would be too much for some closed-minded Americans to accept.

In addition, many are already having a hard time swallowing the hypocrisy of having Clinton throwing support to the Illinois senator after hearing from her about how unqualified he is to be president during the long campaign trail.

But sadly, many of us have to deal with a double dose of that hypocrisy, because Biden too has said that Obama does not have what it takes to be president. And that’s not all he said.

“I am not running for vice president,” Biden said at the time, as a Democratic presidential candidate himself, in an August 2007 interview with FOX News. “I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I’d rather stay as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee than be vice president.”

Of course Biden would take it. Not too many politicians would refuse to have that job title. But that is something that Obama has to be concerned about: Biden’s infamous “running of the mouth.” Who can forget in a February 2007 interview that the Delaware senator said this to his possible future boss?

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man,” Biden said in a New York Observer article. That “openness” created a backlash and it just might cost Obama his chance at the White House.

However, Biden does have a lot to offer as vice president because of his long history of being in the Senate. And his liberal voting record may help Hillary supporters swallow the bitter pill that Obama picked someone else, but who does mirror Clinton’s views.

Biden’s experience will clearly help Obama’s inexperience and he can certainly guide him on important issues. But this grandfatherly portrayal just might magnify Obama’s inability to lead this nation.

Only time will tell if Obama made a wise choice in Biden.

Yet, Obama seems to be one step ahead of his Republican counterpart, John McCain. The Arizona senator is expected to announce his own vice presidential running mate soon, but Obama made sure he beat him to the punch by doing it first. It shows that Obama is more organized than McCain and the Democratic Duo has already politically attacked him.

McCain will have to make a quick recovery and wisely choose his partner if he hopes to overcome an Obama-Biden ticket in November.

Clinton’s Name On Nomination List

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s name has been placed on the nomination list for the Democratic Convention for symbolic reasons.

Now, it couldn’t be that symbolic if it took both her and presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama (or their people anyway) weeks to negotiate to have her name on the nomination list in the first place. If it really meant something, it would have taken less than an hour to place her John Hancock on the list if it was really that symbolic.

Sure, it’s a nice thing to do for a political loser. But the reality is it’s like giving a kid who came in second in a bowling contest a small, cheap plastic trophy cup, while the winner gets a solid-gold statue of himself. That’s what it really boils down to: They placed Clinton’s name on the list just to stroke her badly hurt ego.

Because what type of “emblematic” meaning is there behind getting Clinton’s name on the list? Sure, it’s to recognize “the former first lady’s groundbreaking presidential run.”

But it’s not like Clinton is the first woman to run for president. Sure, you can call it “groundbreaking,” but that’s only because Hillary Clinton is easily the most recognizable woman in politics. It’s her celebrity-like recognition and status that allowed her to go so far and not solely because she’s a woman. Don’t believe me? Go ask Caroline P. Killeen or Cynthia McKinney how their campaign for president is going.

However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that symbolism is the only reason why Clinton’s name is on the list. Her name is on there just to make her disgruntled backers happy and hopefully convince them that Obama isn’t such a bad sport and back him for now on. Because a lot of them are still extremely bitter that Obama basically won his party’s nomination.

When Hillary Clinton entered this race, I wrote that it would be a wild ride. She hasn’t let me down yet.

Can Edwards Recover
From Affair Scandal?

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ dreams of being Barack Obama’s vice president are shattered after he admitted to having an affair with 44-year-old novice filmmaker Rielle Hunter, reported ABC News today.

It has been speculated that meetings with Obama and then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a few months back after dropping out of the race that Edwards would be their choice for vice president. That speculation was further fueled when Edwards endorsed Obama this past May.

While Edwards’ experience in the Senate and in politics in general would have made him a very attractive candidate for the VP position, having an affair on his terminally ill wife would turn down even the most morally challenged politician. Granted, Edwards told ABC News that his wife’s cancer was in remission during his affair, but that isn’t how some people are going to see the 2006 fling.

And when the National Enquirer first reported on this recently, it was reported that Edwards fathered a child with Hunter, but Edwards’ former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has stated that he is the baby’s father.

Now, what does this really mean for Edwards’ political career? It will hurt him, but he can recover from it like Bill Clinton. Clinton had numerous alleged affairs, not including the Monica Lewinsky one, and he’s approval ratings were still quite good. America still loved him.

With Edwards background of helping the lower class and the poor, he is basically a media darling in that regard. Whatever political faults he may have, Edwards’ heart is in the right place when it comes to people in need. Many might easily forgive Edwards for his affair and say he was under stress of losing his wife Elizabeth before hand. Some might see that as a “noble” and understanding cause of running into another woman’s arms.

By no means is this an excuse for Edwards to cheat on his wife, but merely how some will see it. Besides, Edwards is no Eliot Spitzer, the former New York Democratic governor who was caught with a call girl earlier this year.

However, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. Hunter, who was hired in 2006 to film campaign videos for Edwards, had been living under false names while she was pregnant and lived in expensive homes in North Carolina and California, according to ABC News. Her baby girl was born on Feb. 27 of this year.

And Edwards claimed that he has not paid any money to keep Hunter silent about their affair, “but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him,” ABC News reported Edwards as saying, a former North Carolina senator.

(Editor's note: It an updated story, ABC News has reported that Edwards' 2008 national finance chairman Fred Baron stated that he gave "assistance" to Hunter without the former senator's knowledge, according to an e-mail sent by him to the news network late on Friday.)

And Edwards also told ABC News that he did not tell his wife of the famous Beverly Hills Hilton meeting with Hunter last month.

It is only a matter of time before the whole truth comes out. Edwards just has to take his medicine that the media onslaught and his wife will give him before he even considers entering politics again.

NY Times Attacks McCain
For Defending Himself

I want to say this burns my bacon, but to be honest, it explodes it.

The New York Times’ editorial board wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama accusing John McCain and President Bush of using or planning on using racial scare tactics. But while many would think that they would go after Obama, they instead attack John McCain for firing back at Obama’s false accusations.

First, they claim that McCain’s attack ad of comparing Obama with drunken celebrity Britney Spears was a “racially tinged attack” on the Illinois senator. How they make this great leap of illogic, The New York Times makes a weak case for it.

While there has been no real evidence that McCain has or will use race against Obama, The New York Times decides to paint him guilty of racial attacks anyway by associating the Arizona senator with a few dirty Republicans who allegedly used a racial attack on black Senator candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. The ads against Ford “juxtaposed” him with white women, according to The New York Times.

However, the only ad that I could find that’s against Ford isn’t a racial attack at all and it’s still a weak comparison with McCain’s ad, because if you’re going to sleazily compare a presidential candidate with an airhead celebrity, who better than Britney Spears? It seems like a good case of The New York Times seeing things that aren’t there.

Is John McCain's political ad a racial attack against Obama? The New York Times seems to think so.

And instead of attacking Obama for his obvious and false racial assault on not only McCain but President Bush, The New York Times goes after McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis when he defensively said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.”

Now, it’s interesting that The New York Times doesn’t have a problem with, “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” but they’re having kittens over what Davis said.

Because according to The New York Times, Davis’ statement conjures up a “loaded racial image” of Robert Shapiro during the famous O.J. Simpson murder case when he said, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

But isn’t that what Obama did? He blatantly played that card and it was from the bottom of the deck because it was a low thing to do to accuse our nation’s president and another politician of using racial scare tactics and don’t offer any solid proof.

The New York Times not only kicked John McCain when he was down after being falsely accused of being a racist by his political opponent, but they stomped on him for trying to defend himself from Obama’s baseless attacks.

It’s bad enough that they turn a blind eye against Obama’s despicable statements, but they also made a feeble argument that McCain will use racial attacks simply because he is guilty by association because of what fellow Republicans allegedly did in Tennessee.

This sadly certainly gives credence to what many McCain supporters have been saying about Obama: He’s a Teflon candidate that the media simply loves too much to be objective with.

But more importantly, The New York Times just destroyed its own credibility when they attacked the victim and not the attacker.

Obama’s Other ‘Change’

While saying that he is not the typical politician, Barack Obama sure does act like one.

On the presumed Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign Web site, any mention of the troop surge in Iraq has been removed from it, according to CBS News.

Obama was a strong opponent of the troop surge in Iraq when President Bush mentioned it in January 2007.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” Obama said at the time. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

However, since then, the troop surge has been credited for curtailing the violence from the insurgents. Yet Obama still feels that the troop increase was not worth it, which is contradictory, considering the new added sentence to his Web site.

It states that as president, Obama “would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress genocidal violence within Iraq.”

So according to Obama, any military action is OK if he does it, but not by a Republican president.

For months Obama has been telling Americans how he’s not the average D.C. politician who says anything for a vote and will clean up Washington.

But he is doing just that by erasing key things that he has said himself just because it conflicts with the reality of what’s going on in Iraq.

Apparently, Obama’s “change” isn’t that much different from the typical politician when faced with things that make him look bad and inexperienced.

McCain’s Illegal Immigration
Legislation May Hurt
White House Bid

Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain is taking some hits recently for legislation that would basically give 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. amnesty.

The controversial piece of legislation stalled last year and in addition to giving people who broke the law citizenship, it proposes to also tighten the very loose Mexican border and a guest-worker program.

McCain, who cosponsored this legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy, has been heavily criticized by many and rightly so.

He is giving a free pass to people who broke international laws to come to this country. On top of it, many of these illegal aliens have robbed and murdered our own citizens. Why in the world would McCain want to give what amounts to amnesty to these types of criminals?

Furthermore, this will set a precedence to criminals who break laws. If we don’t punish illegal immigrants for their crimes, then what type of criminal won’t we punish next? Drug dealers who only push marijuana? Kidnappers who only hold their victims less than 24 hours? Murderers who only kill one person?

These examples may seem ridiculous, but let’s remember that 10 years ago many people and politicians would have laughed at the idea of giving illegal immigrants a reprieve for breaking the law.

And while the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic, there are many from different countries. While the U.S. is facing a global war on terror, one would think that McCain would be pushing for tougher legislation to combat these lawbreakers instead of giving them a free ride and hope that they’re not here to blow up some buildings.

Every day across this nation, thousands of people from different countries and cultures are working hard to actually become citizens of this great country of ours or to stay here legally. It would be a huge slap in the face to them and our forefathers who have worked so hard just to be here and carve a new life out for themselves.

McCain’s legislation is the tip of a very slippery slope for the American judicial system. It should make voters give a minute to pause and consider what type of man who wants to be president of the United States and to uphold her laws, but also wants to allow illegal aliens the right to break them.

Obama Tells Blacks
To Be More Responsible

Just like comedian Bill Cosby and Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington, presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is telling black Americans to be more responsible for themselves at the annual NAACP convention.

And this is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson said that he wanted to cut off Obama’s male anatomy. But these are some hard truths that need to be heard, especially coming from a black presidential candidate who is trying to bridge the racial divide in this country.

And Obama is one out of many shining examples of a minority working hard to get where he or she is at.

And working hard is a key thing, because if black Americans do not pull themselves by their bootstraps than no amount of government programs will help them.

“Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch — none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives,” Obama said, as reported by the Associated Press.

This is great advice for all Americans and things that needed to be heard. Because even the most well-intentioned white man who said these same things would unjustly be called a racist and quickly ignored. Obama is wisely using his presidential political status to good use. Maybe if Jackson took more initiative like this years ago, the black community would be in a better place than it is today.

It cannot be denied that white Americans for far too long have kept the black man down, but since the Civil Rights Act was created, many whites have worked hard to correct the evil that their kind have done against their fellow Americans. Sadly, many whites still do not see blacks as equal or deserving of basic rights that all Americans should have and enjoy.

Yet, Obama is at least trying hard to correct past mistakes made by some in the black community. He is certainly a new member of a growing choir conducted by Cosby.

If elected president, Obama would force many whites to look differently at blacks and it would force many black Americans to look differently at themselves.

Oversensitivity Over Race
Will Cause More Problems

It’s another case that our society is going to hell in a hand basket because of oversensitive people.

By now most of you have heard that in Dallas County, Texas, white Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield said, “It sounds like Central Collections has become a black hole.”

Right after Mayfield said this at the Monday county commissioners’ meeting black Commissioner John Wiley Price shot back “white hole” and a black county official wanted an apology.

“So if it’s ‘angel food cake,’ it’s white. If it’s ‘devil’s food cake,’ it’s black. If you’re the ‘black sheep of the family,’ then you gotta be bad, you know. ‘White sheep,’ you’re okay. You know?” Price said later in a FOX News interview.

As most rational people know, a black hole is an astronomy term to describe a hole that allegedly sucks in matter and nothing can escape from it, not even light.

But Price and others have become too oversensitive to racial terms like this. And Mayfield rightly shouted back at the black official who wanted an apology for using the term.

Too much sensitivity is going to blow up in our collective faces. It’s like the popular scenario where a jealous girlfriend will accuse her faithful boyfriend of cheating on her repeatedly. The boyfriend gets tired of the accusations and starts to think to himself, “Well, if she thinks I’m cheating on her, I might as well.”

The same thing will happen to non-racist white people. If a white man is going to be accused of being a racist and a member of the KKK because he honestly used a common term like “black hole,” than he’s going to start thinking negatively about black people. It’s doubtful that this example white man will join the KKK for being falsely accused of being a racist, but those negative seeds have been planted.

Granted, many black people have become a bit unhinged in a sense because of the horrible misdeeds of many white people. That’s certainly understandable. But that does not give them the right to wrongfully call a white man a racist for using a common term.

It’s a shame that our society has become so sensitive to general terms that people have to start censoring themselves so they won’t offend anyone. The fact is, people will always be offended over something that is unintentional.

We should not bend over and edit ourselves for anyone who dissects every single word to see if there is some racial undertone to it. We are all adults and it’s time to stop acting like children or the racial divide in this country will just get wider.

Obama’s Other Reverend Problem

It’s not the first time that some in the black community thought that presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama was not white enough and the Rev. Jesse Jackson just added some fuel to that quiet fire.

Jackson thought his microphone was off while he was on a FOX News program when he answered UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson’s question about the Democratic senator’s speeches on faith-based programs.

“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off,” he whispered to Tuckson and ultimately to the nation as well.

Of course Jackson quickly apologized to Obama once he learned that his comments were recorded and were going to be aired. And of course Obama accepted Jackson’s apology. After all, whatever hard feelings the two may have for each other, Obama is still a politician and he realizes that Jackson will help him carry the black vote.

But this is not the first time that Jackson attacked Obama. Jackson said in an interview last September that Obama was “acting like he’s white” for not bringing more attention to the Jena 6 case.

Will these recent racial attacks from Jackson hurt Obama’s run for the Oval Office? Since he weathered the Rev. Wright controversy basically unscathed, this should not damage his chances for the White House.

But quiet rumblings about how black Obama is and where his loyalties should be have plagued him for a long time. In November 2006, black columnist Stanley Crouch wrote a piece called “What Obama Isn’t: Black Like Me.” He said that because Obama’s black father was from Kenya and his mother was white, the senator does not understand the struggles the typical black American has faced since the days of slavery.

What many do not understand, especially Jackson, is that Obama’s parental background will help bridge the differences between the two races. If one thought that being black in America was hard than imagine how tough it is for a biracial man trying to find his identity and not wholeheartedly accepted by either community. Jackson’s attacks are evidence of that.

And while it’s typical for a candidate to cater to one particular group to gain votes that does not mean that candidate has to exclude other groups, which is something that Jackson does not understand. This country is a rainbow of people that needs to be addressed and recognized by anyone running for president.

Obama has his many faults but he cannot help his background anymore than we can. The question shouldn’t be: “Is Obama black enough?” The question needs to be: “Is he right enough for this country as a whole?”

Because if the former question is given more importance than the latter, than that is a racist question that will further divide this country no matter who says it.

Supreme Court Takes
Second Amendment
Out Of D.C.’s Crosshairs

Many Second Amendment supporters are cheering as the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the nation’s capital had no right to restrict honest citizens from owning hand guns.

The controversial 32-year-old ban was held by gun control advocates as the ultimate, yet delusional, weapon to preventing crime and something that the rest of the nation should be doing.

However, the advocates always became silent when people mentioned how dangerous Washington, D.C. was because of the ban. This is because the ban did not stop criminals from obtaining guns from different areas and bringing them into the nation’s capital.

But this bit of common sense was lost to leading gun control advocate Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said this about the ruling:

“I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

And this is despite the fact that Washington, D.C., was once this nation’s murder capital. Apparently, Feinstein had her fingers in her ears on her way into the Senate during this time.

Many people are pleased with the ruling, because now honest citizens can start defending themselves against lawbreakers who do not follow the rules, hence their name, lawbreakers.

People like Feinstein do not have a clue as to what is really happening in places that have gun control. England has a strict gun ban and all it resulted are criminals still using guns or knifes to rob and murder their defenseless victims.

A dose of reality is needed for those who honestly believe that restricting decent Americans of their Second Amendment rights is a way to handle crime. And another dose is needed for those who believe that adding another law on top of similar ones will help matters.

Let’s enforce the laws that we have now and make sure that the criminals are punished and not honest folks.

Maybe if politicians like Feinstein did something about the crime in Washington, D.C., then law-abiding citizens would not have the need to purchase firearms to protect themselves.

And Then There Was Truly One …

Presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain can breathe a little easier now that fellow GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has finally quit the race.

It is a sign of relief for McCain, because the U.S. representative from Texas could have pulled a Ralph Nader and ran as an independent, stealing precious votes away from the Arizona senator.

And he would have given McCain a run for his money. Granted, Paul was failing to achieve the same level of supporters, delegates or donations that McCain has, but according to the Associated Press, Paul “raised large amounts of money online and developed a huge grass-roots following.”

In addition, in an open letter to supporters, Paul stated he gained “1.1 million votes in the primaries.” He didn’t win a state, but that’s a number that’s hard to ignore.

While Paul should have stepped out of the race a long time ago, we should not write him off. He struck a cord with a great many Americans, especially Libertarians, Democrats, and independents, who became disenfranchised with the Iraq war, big government spending and what they feel is the desecration of the Constitution. And let’s not forget Republicans who joined Paul's flock.

This is a man who throughout his long political career has stuck to his guns on issues that even his fellow Republican leaders wished would go away. Paul brought up issues that many wanted buried and pointed an accusatory finger at anyone, including fellow GOP members, who were not standing right by Americans.

America has lost out on not having a man with Ron Paul’s integrity in the White House, but Ron Paul has not given up on America. Despite his huge defeat by McCain, Paul has decided to create the “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.” He plans to educate Americans about various topics, like free markets and non-interventionism, and will support candidates that share his political views.

And while he lost the political race, Paul is not giving up on who he is. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who gave her full endorsement to presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama, Paul refuses to endorse McCain because he does not think the senator is the best choice for America.

Like him or not, you have to admire this man for his gumption. America could use a good dose of reality from a politician like Paul.

Kucinich’s Impeachment Quest May Hurt Obama’s White House Bid

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But his quest to remove the President from office may hurt presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s own quest to win the 2008 election.

What was the reaction by his fellow Democrats? They pretty much opposed the former presidential candidate’s futile efforts. In fact, Democratic leaders are expected to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they hope it will be buried and forgotten.

The articles deals with such things as the Iraq war, global warming, allegedly holding American citizens and “foreign captives” (let’s call them terrorists) illegally, voting rights, and President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, just to name a few. But let’s focus on the Iraq war.

Now, let’s forget a few things about why the impeachment will fail, such as how the U.N. never enforced its own resolutions against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, so no one knew if he really had his weapons of mass destruction. Or that the U.N. voted in agreement to the resolution that Saddam still had WMD.

Or how former President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox to deal with Saddam’s weapons programs, after Iraq failed, again, to provide U.N. weapons inspectors with an honest account of them. Or how there were reports that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria before the 2003 war.

But let’s remember that a great number of Democrats who said many times during the buildup of the war that Saddam was a danger to America and the world with his deadly weapons. Did they lie too? They saw the same information that the President saw. So, does that mean there will be an impeachment for Bush and the Democrats?

And more importantly, this will not only shatter Obama’s chances for the White House, but the Democrat’s as well. Why?

Obama was strongly against going into Iraq from the very start. And here is a speech he gave in October 2002 at an anti-war rally that will probably come back to haunt him:

“(Saddam) has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him,” the possible future president said nearly six years ago.

Now, if Kucinich’s goal is to get rid of President Bush from the White House, it could also rid the Democrats’ goal from getting into it.

This is why House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and fellow Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that they would not pursue impeachment charges against the President. Because not only will it air the Democrat’s dirty laundry that a good number of them voted to give President Bush the power to go to war, but it will show how they are not unified if their presumed nominee was against going to war.

And more importantly, Obama’s speech is a huge weapon against him. He said that Saddam had WMD and knew that Saddam was a threat to the world and that U.N. resolutions were useless against the bloody dictator. But he didn’t think removing him was important enough for America’s safety.

Wow. What a thing to say. Because the Republicans can highlight this speech and point to Obama’s global inexperience and how he should not be the one to answer the phone about a national security threat at 3 a.m.

Granted, the President should have handled the war better. He should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors a lot more time before considering military use. His administration should not have allowed retired generals and other former military leaders to sell the war to TV networks. But it still boils down to one thing: At the time, we found ourselves in a global terror war and we needed to know once and for all whether or not Saddam had those weapons. And because Kucinich opened up this can of worms, the Democrats are going to have a hard time putting the lid back on.

Kucinich is the little engine that shouldn’t. He either does not realize or care that he is sabotaging his party’s chances for the White House. And Kucinich is showing how ineffective Obama will be as a Commander-In-Chief.

Kucinich’s impeachment crusade is like Don Quixote’s battle with the windmill: There is nothing there that warrants these charges.

Clinton Calls It Quits, No Big Surprise

Sen. Hillary Clinton, certainly one of the most powerful Democrats to seek her party’s nomination since her husband, Bill Clinton, quit her quest for the White House as first woman president.

But it was not that big of a story. The media was reporting since Wednesday that Clinton was expected to step out of the race and would endorse her one-time foe since Sen. Barack Obama seemingly won the nomination. And it did not come to a great surprise that she would urge her faithful supporters to switch sides and join Obama.

However, one had to hold their nose at the blatant hypocrisy when Clinton threw her endorsement and support to Obama. After all, she was the one who said that the Illinois senator was “irresponsible and frankly naïve.” Certainly not the words of encouragement she had for him then. But that’s the world of politics.

But it can be said that Hillary Clinton did the decent thing today by stepping out of the race and not prolonging it by taking it to the Democratic National Convention in August, as she vowed to do.

But just because there were no big surprises today in Clinton’s speech, it was still a historic moment in history.

“Though we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it’s got about 18 million cracks in it,” Clinton told her audience from the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., as reported by CNN.

This is the first time in American history that a woman was very close to getting her party’s nomination. But the best person won, a biracial black man, who also made history by getting his party’s nomination.

The cracks of equality will not be easy to ignore when we all either look up or down at the glass ceiling.

Clinton-Obama Meeting Stirs VP Rumors

Rumors are spreading today as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are holding a not-so secret meeting.

So far, no one in the know has revealed what the two are discussing. However, we have New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Clinton supporter, saying she will accept the vice president’s position if it’s offered to her. No kidding and no big surprise there.

Then we have Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, “She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her.” Bull. Of course she’s trying to get the position. No one can seriously believe that she isn’t.

In fact, tomorrow Clinton is expected to make her official announcement that she’s stepping out of the race and will endorse Obama. That might be a good time for the two of them to announce together that they decided to put their differences aside, forget to mention the dirty attacks on each other, and tell America that there will indeed be an Obama-Clinton ticket.

It has already been discussed how an Obama-Clinton ticket could hurt the presumed Democratic presidential nominee. But it has been mentioned that one of the key things that could help the Illinois senator is the huge amount of die-hard supporters that Clinton can give him.

Whatever experiences Hillary Clinton has, it’s her supporter base that will be more beneficial to Obama. And it’s something that he is surely considering.

Granted, Clinton has also served on many committees while as senator of New York, such as Committee on Armed Services, Committee on Budget and Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, just to name a few. And she is also a commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

So those credentials might be useful as well for Obama. However, she seemingly does not have the great number of years behind her as an elected official and just as important, Clinton does not have any experience holding an international title that would help Obama’s lack of one. He simply does not have any global leadership experience.

Yes, Obama has gone overseas as a U.S. senator and has been involved in important meetings and speeches. But he lacks experience that comes with years of being in office. Now, as mentioned before, one of the people who would be better suited to help Obama in the international department is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Richardson can be a very attractive person to have by your side.

After all, educated voters do look at what the vice presidential nominee can bring to the table.

However, if Obama only cares about winning the race, then he might very well bring Clinton on as vice president and use her supporters only as a giant stepping stone to the White House. Once there, he can have his pick of the best political and international advisors. But it’s hard to imagine Clinton just silently sitting by the sidelines. There will be a lot of headbutting between the two until they can reach a resolve, hopefully.

And let’s pretend that they will make an announcement tomorrow about a joint union, then that gives them a big jump start in their campaign against GOP presumed nominee John McCain, who has not announced his own vice president as of yet.

With politics, you never know what’s going to happen next, but rumors do make things more interesting before anything is official.

Hillary Clinton’s Shattered Dreams?

Poor Hillary Clinton. When she unsurprisingly entered this race in January of 2007, the New York Senator probably thought that by tonight, she would be giving her victory speech to her enduring fans and supporters, after clinching the majority of the delegates. She was supposed to be the first female nominated presidential candidate in U.S. history.

But not all dreams come true, because out of nowhere, came Barack Obama, the young, charismatic junior senator from Illinois who stole Clinton’s dream. He wowed Democrats and the nation with his charms and offered a fresh new look to the tired, old faces that we were all too used to seeing.

But regardless of Obama’s entrance, why isn’t she preparing her victory speech tonight? Because for the large part, it’s been her undoing. Clinton played too much dirty politics, with trying to label Obama as a Muslim, to claiming she was under sniper fire but wasn’t, and when her aides were caught giving soft-ball questions to audience members to ask her during speeches. And let’s not forget about those teary-eyed incidents. Plus, getting into the two candidates’ policies would be very time consuming to get into.

These poor excuses used to run part of her campaign and combined with Obama’s dynamic entrance to this race made Democrats leave her side and join his ranks. Democrats in political boards right now hope that Hillary will lose the nomination to Obama, and that speaks volumes about the New York senator and her lack of unifying her party.

Many believed that because of her large female support, she would be a shoe-in for not only her party’s nomination but the White House. But even that wasn’t enough to lead her to a victory speech tonight.

It’s surprising that after years of being in law, as a governor’s wife and then a president’s wife, one would think that Hillary Clinton would have learned some critical lessons and mistakes made by politicians she has met. Many expected her to be in top form, a well-polished politician who knew what to say and what to do in a major election.

Surprisingly, this was not the case. She dropped the ball too many times and made an embarrassing spectacle of herself. Who knows what would have happened if she ran a cleaner, a more well-oiled campaign. But at the moment, it looks as if we’ll never know.

So, with one shattered dream down, another one like the legendary phoenix will arise: Clinton’s new goal is to become Obama’s vice president, if the media reports are true.

But when the dust settles tonight and Hillary Clinton walks into her bathroom to get ready for bed, what will she see when she looks in the mirror? What will her reflection reveal to her? Maybe she’ll think about the poor choices that she made that led to her failed campaign. Or maybe she’ll think of ways to blame her losing race on someone else and save those “excuses” some time later.

But will Hillary Clinton admit that the one candidate that made her lose her most precious goal was not Barack Obama but herself?

AP Tallys Obama As Nominee

By Anthony Leone

Barack Obama has sealed himself as the 2008 Democratic nominee, according to an Associated Press tally of superdelegates endorsements.

The nonpublic confirmation of these endorsements by the superdelegates themselves means that if Obama also wins Montana’s and South Dakota’s combined 31 delegates, the Democratic senator from Illinois will most likely lead his party in the White House race.

It is uncertain at this time whether Obama’s rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, will concede the race or will wait and see what the outcome of tonight’s races will be tomorrow, according to FOX News and the Associated Press. Her aides told FOX News that she is planning a victory-style speech in New York City tonight, saying that the senator from the Empire State will claim a popular vote victory.

An unnamed participant, who is not authorized to speak for the New York senator, said that Clinton is keeping herself open to be Obama’s running mate, according to the Associated Press.

(Editor’s Note: This is not an opinion-piece, but a news story based off media reports. Please come back later this evening for two editorial commentaries.)

What Does An Edwards’ Endorsement Mean?

The big breaking political news yesterday was that former presidential candidate John Edwards jumped on the Obama Bandwagon and offered his endorsement.

But what does this mean? Nothing really. It means that those who still support Edwards because they like what he stands for, even though he dropped out of the Democratic primary race at the end of January, will go to Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s main rival, Hillary Clinton, was hoping to have the former North Carolina senator’s support. Besides his issues, both Clinton and Obama would gain Edwards’ delegates and former donors. And ironically, North Carolina was the state that Obama won last week.



The need of Edwards has been so great that both of the political rivals courted Edwards in February with individual private meetings to talk about the issues, among other things.

And why did the New York senator want the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate’s support, besides the delegates? Edwards represents the old Democratic Party in a lot of ways. He’s one of the few candidates that talked about helping the lower class while others in both parties were falling over themselves to mention in every speech how they are going to help the middle class, just to gain their votes.

Certainly, a high-profile former candidate like Edwards, whose soft image has warmed a lot of Americans, is what Hillary needs to show the public how in touch with them she is by having a humble man support her.

But ultimately, because most of Edwards’ policies and beliefs closely resemble Obama’s, he gave his support to the candidate with the most delegates. And because of that, and because they are alike in other ways, there was an alternative reason why Edwards threw his support to the leading Democratic political candidate and it’s because of that title that eluded him in the 2004 presidential election: Vice President.

Yes, it’s very possible and extremely likely that Edwards is setting himself up to become Obama’s right-hand man. After sacrificing his role as senator for the role as president four years ago and the failed Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004, this may be the only chance he has left of getting into the White House with some dignity, unlike Independent Ralph Nader, who has not won the presidential election in the last 16 years, but keeps running anyway.

Is it hypocritical of Edwards endorsing Obama and seemingly setting himself up as a vice presidential candidate while just a few months ago he criticized the Illinois senator for his inexperience? Sure it is, but that’s the game of politics. But whatever their rivalry was, it is nothing compared to Obama and Clinton’s. They drew a lot of blood and attacked each other. Having an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a little hard to swallow for some Democratic voters after the months of mudslinging between the two.

And Edwards may be a better choice than Clinton. Having a biracial black man may not set too well for many older Democrats and Republicans, who are unhappy with the presumed GOP nominee John McCain. But having a woman like Hillary Clinton, who has been caught doing a few dirty tricks during this campaign and represents the far left of her party, will leave a bad taste in their mouths.

Granted, a ticket like that is what many middle-aged and young voters are hoping for. That would be a true symbol that the races and sexes are now equal. But still, it may be too much for some close-minded voters in both parties, who cannot look past a person’s skin color or reproductive organs.

So, besides sharing the same anatomy, Edwards and Obama do share the same philosophy, such as fighting special interests in Washington. They are very close on the issues and seem to be a far more believable match than Obama and Hillary. And with Hillary vowing to fight to the very end in this race, and may destroy the party in the process, Edwards might be a better choice of uniting the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.

Let’s not be too surprised that Obama shatters the predictions of many political analysts, who have been saying that Hillary maybe his VP, and chooses Edwards instead. After all, politics is a funny little game. You just never know what will happen sometimes.

The Difference Between Hillary, Ron Paul

Poor Hillary Clinton. It’s bad enough that she lost the South Carolina primary to her political opponent Barack Obama and her win of the Indiana primary only resulted in meek delegate votes, but her former supporter is calling for her to drop out of the race.

“Hillary, of course, will make the decision as to if and when she ends her campaign. But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November,” former Sen. George McGovern said, as reported by the Associated Press.

A former 1972 presidential nominee himself, McGovern has decided to jump on the Democratic Illinois senator’s bandwagon. And it would appear that the Rev. Wright controversy did not slow the Obama Express too much.

So, should New York’s Democratic senator leave the race? During the campaign, a lot of people have echoed McGovern’s words. There are certainly a lot of reasons for her to leave and chiefly among them is to unify the Democratic Party. For years, there has been a great divide in the once great party.

However, Hillary Clinton may still have a chance of winning this race. Yes, this is very different from what was written here before in regards to deserter-of-the-Democrats Mike Gravel (who is now seeking to be a Libertarian candidate), independent Ralph Nader and certainly Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

But unlike Paul, who admitted in a recent FOX News interview that he believes that GOP juggernaut and presumptive nominee John McCain will get the nomination but he himself will keep campaigning, Clinton is literally at the heels of her rival, while Paul will need to borrow Speed Racer’s Mach 5 to catch up to the Arizona senator.

After all, Hillary Clinton is short 159 delegates of tying with Obama’s 1,845. And with 2,025 needed to get their party’s nomination, you really can’t write the former First Lady off just yet.

“I landed in New Hampshire on a Thursday night down 9 points, and I won on Tuesday,” Clinton said, as reported by FOX News and the Associated Press. “You can turn elections in a day. You can turn them in a week if you know what it takes to actually win. I believe I know with your help, that is exactly what we’re going to do.”

And while Paul’s new book “The Revolution: A Manifesto” is doing well, and still has a lot of supporters, he still has not won a single state, or even a close second place. Clinton, on the other hand, has been doing extremely well and is head and shoulders above the good Texas doctor.

Since the New York senator still has a chance to pull a rabbit out of her hat, and it’s always wise to expect the unexpected in politics, she just might win her party’s nomination. She might rip it to shreds in the process, who knows, but her odds of winning it are far better than Ron Paul’s chances of winning the White House in November.

But then again, expect the unexpected.

Sore Loser? Obama Gives Hillary Devil Horns?
Do you think this is Fox News' way of sending a message to Sen. Hillary Clinton or just someone who was working late and wanted to have some fun?

Well, it seems like someone, who would normally go home much earlier, had to stay late for the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina and wanted a laugh. Sophomoric? Sure it is and something I wouldn't have allowed if this was intentional (and I think it was).

But you know what? If you've ever been a journalist on an election night, the long hours and being extremely tired can do some strange things to you and you'll be surprised what seems funny at 1:35 in the morning.

Of course, the laughter quickly dies away when you go into the office early the next day and you have to face a screaming editor and angry viewers/readers.

NY Times Exposes Bush Administration, Networks’ Secret Shame

According to a New York Times investigative story, the Bush Administration had retired generals and other former military leaders try to sell the war as “analysts” to news networks during the buildup of the Iraq war and afterwards.

“Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war,” The New York Times wrote on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon said it was laughable that they could make retired military men into puppets and that they only provided these men with factual information to give to the American public.

But The New York Times’ article painted a very different picture by using 8,000 pages of e-mails and other documents it had obtain after suing the Department of Defense. These materials contained Pentagon talking points operations, private meetings and trips to Iraq, among other places. According to these documents, the Pentagon referred to these analysts, some of whom were being paid a nice sum of money per interview by the news networks, as “message force multipliers.” This certainly doesn’t sound like a friendly term to refer to messengers of “factual information.”

In fact, some of these military men weren’t comfortable with the messages they were delivering, but didn’t say anything for fear of losing access to important briefing information.

And what is worse is that some of these networks, according to The New York Times, knew about the relationship between these military men and the government and didn’t report it to the viewers.

“…other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations,” according to The New York Times.

It was reported that some of the other networks didn’t know about the dubious relationships between their analysts and the Bush Administration.

But since The New York Times has let the cat out of the bag, hardly any of the networks reported their shame, according to a recent Editor & Publisher article.

The networks who did not know they were being shammed should get a small pass from criticism and should work harder to prevent any conflicts from happening. To the other networks that went along with this disgusting display of a huge lack of media ethics, shame on them. They failed in their job of being objective and truthful, and more importantly, being the watch dogs of the government.

There was no need to sell the idea to the American public that we needed to go into Iraq to find out what was going on after years of broken resolutions by Saddam Hussein, as it has been written before in The Times Observer.

And the Bush Administration isn’t the first one to use propaganda to push a war effort to the American people. However, it shouldn’t be an accepted practice by the American public. We deserve truth and accountability from our leaders, especially from our elected president.