I realize this isn't exactly political news but it's related since the candidates are all talking about NAFTA.

I just watched the movie called Bordertown starring Jennifer Lopez, Martin Sheen and Antonio Banderas.

The film tells the true story of the numerous women murdered in Ciudad Juarez and the inquisitive American reporter sent in by her American newspaper.

The opening titles explain that American corporations are using the North American Free Trade Agreement by opening large maquiladoras right across the United States border. The maquiladora's hire mostly Mexican women to work long hours for little money in order to produce mass quantity products.

Lauren Adrian (Jennifer Lopez), an impassioned American news reporter for the "Chicago Sentinel" wants to be assigned to the Iraq front-lines to cover the war. Instead, her editor George Morgan (Martin Sheen) assigns her to investigate a series of slayings involving young maquiladora factory women in a Mexican bordertown.

Adrian runs into a young 16 year girl that had been raped and buried left for dead.  To try and find the guilty, Adrian volunteers to be a ginny pig at the factory to get her story.  She ends up getting partially attacked herself and almost killed.

She sends her story to her boss.  He refuses to print it because she accuses not only the Mexican government of covering it up, she accuses the American government of doing so too.  A new NAFTA agreement was also being put through and the 'bigwigs' didn't want any bad publicity.

Adrian ends up taking over the newspaper there in Juarez because the original, her friend, was murdered for his involvement of trying to get the story out there.

It was a violent, sad, and shocking story.  All true.

I recommend this movie to all.  NAFTA may be good for companies and governments, but it's creating slave labor and death down south.

Remember the GOP's flag pin issue against Barack Obama and his not putting his hand over his heart?  Well, perhaps some of you noticed that just now during the National Anthem at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, neither President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Mrs. Bush sang along with the song.  Reporters did, but they did not.

I think this video would be a perfect comeback whenever somebody pushes the flag pin issue.  Why didn't they sing America's song?

I’d like to get some opinions on whether ex-Senator Bill Bradley would be a good choice for Barack Obama to pick for his Vice President.  As you may or may not know, he currently supports Barack Obama for President and has gone on the political talk shows in support of Obama.  He continues to be a very good debater.

I went back and checked some of the Senator’s past.  I think from what I’ve read and if memory serves me right, he could bring a great deal to Obama’s campaign, but I want your opinion.

He’s an ex-senator from New Jersey but he was born and raised in Missouri.  He went to college at Princeton University, NJ.  He’s Rhodes Scholar, a member of the American Hall of Fame in Basket Ball.  He was the captain of the 1964 Olympics basketball team.  He played professionally in Italy and eventually with the New York Knicks. 

Bradley's basketball ability was enhanced by his unusually wide peripheral vision. While most people's horizontal field covers 180 degrees, his covered 192 degrees. Vertically most people can see 47 degrees upward; Bradley could see 72 degrees.  I mention his basketball career because that’s what made him famous early in his life and because basketball is Barack Obama’s first love.  Bradley is also left-handed, like Obama.

Bradley ran for President against Al Gore in 2000.  He was considered more liberal then Gore.  He got the blue color votes mostly.  As Senator he mainly worked hard for children’s health issues and relieving poverty.  He sometimes voted for with Reagan and the GOP.  He was best known for overhauling the tax code, campaign finance reform and reducing the deficit.  Bradley finished his presidential run coming in a distant second place during Super Tuesday.  A small tidbit for you, John McCain was running that year too.

Since that time he has worked as a corporate consultant and investment banker.  Oxford University awarded Bradley an honorary Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) in 2003, with the comment that he was "An outstandingly distinguished athlete, a weighty pillar of the Senate, and still a powerful advocate of the weak." Currently, Bradley serves on the Board of Directors of Superprotonic, a solid acid-based fuel cell technology development company. 

I read up on this company, here’s what they claim:  Superprotonic is dedicated to bringing this new technology to market and in so doing, benefiting our society by 1) decreasing overall fuel consumption, 2) decreasing overall pollution emissions, and 3) increasing the use of renewable fuels.

This claim alone should bring in voters that support the environment.

I know that New Jersey normally votes Democrat; but I believe its location is a good one.  His being from that area could reinforce Obama’s ability to win some red states like, Virginia, New Hampshire, West Virginia, North Carolina and even Ohio voters.  Hopefully with Obama being from Illinois, Indiana will go Democratic this year.  Obama might be able to sweep the whole mid-west and east coast with Bradley on his ticket.

Bradley being known for working for the ‘working’ men/women and his previous sports background  – might also reinforces Obama’s votes elsewhere.

What’s YOUR opinion?  You have any other good or bad Points?

 

Go answer Greta's poll -- it's currently saying NO.  I happen to disagree, hope you do too.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/04/25/on-the-record-vote-vote-now-3/#comments

Do yourself a favor and go watch the WHOLE interview between Bill Moyers of PBS and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama's Pastor).

http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

I predict the economy that most of us are seeing now will be back to near normal by September 2008 and with respects to the war in Iraq, we’ll be hearing about a ‘surge troop’ withdraw.  I sure hope Democrats have a strategy on what their main attacks will be against Senator John McCain by then.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the economy, far from it, but I have lived through recessions before, they last about two quarters and in my humble opinion we’ve lived those two quarters already.  Starting late this May, things will begin to improve with the help of those ‘cashed in’ rebate checks.

One big issue that’s caused Americans to worry is the price of gasoline.  While it may seem unbearable now, things will improve by October, if only psychologically. 

We’ve been forewarned that the price of gas will peak at around $4.00 on average over the summer; I predict that we will see, what some call, a dramatic drop in gas and food prices by September – just in time for those Presidential debates and Election Day in November.

The price of gas will drop to around $3.50 per gallon – leaving Americans to believe, “Wow, I’m saving hundreds of dollars now.”  Because of that drop in gas prices, the cost of food will also drop.

‘THAT’ was the oil companies (and the oil men in the White House) plan to begin with.  Get those prices so high that by the time they have to drop them to get re-elected into office, they only have to drop them by 15% and Americans will think they are getting a huge ‘discount’.  Meanwhile, the oil companies have gotten an increase of about $2.30 per gallon of gas (In 2000 gas was averaging $1.25 – price has almost tripled) since George W. Bush took office.

As for the war in Iraq, earlier this month we heard that General Petraeus will be reporting to Congress once again on the status of the war this September.   I’m betting the General (or the next guy in charge) will be reporting an upcoming ‘surge troop’ withdraw from Iraq.  President Bush will then hold a press conference announcing that some 15 - 20,000 troops will be home for Thanksgiving and Christmas (ignoring of course that this withdraw will just put us back to the amount of troops we had over there at the beginning of 2007).

So Democrats – what will be your plan of attack against Senator McCain then?   Will it be his misstatements or his age?

I just found this and think you all should see it NOW!

WASHINGTON - “Scurrilous” and “disingenuous” were among the words a top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives used on Thursday to describe Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics in her bid to defeat Barack Obama for their party’s presidential nomination.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

I think Reverend Wright’s interview with Bill Moyers will help Barack Obama.  It shows the Reverend in a different light.  He’s showing American’s that he isn’t the “unpatriotic, wackadoodle” the right wing and Hillary supporters are making him out to be.

The Reverend says in so many words that according to those attacking him, 'America is free from sin'.  I’m sure many American’s would agree with him – none of us are without sin.  America has sinned. 

Our soldiers sinned by torturing prisoners (they represent the U.S. remember), our government has finally admitted to water boarding prisoners (this is a war crime), the President failed New Orleans during Katrina, we made blacks our slaves.  We became friends with Saddam Hussien years ago even though we knew he gassed his own people.  That's just a few of our sins. 

The Reverend said,

It's to paint me as something: "Something's wrong with me.  There's
nothing wrong with this country...for its policies.  We're perfect.  Our
hands are free.  Our hands have no blood on them."  That's not a failure
to communicate.  The message that is being communicated by the sound
bites is exactly what those pushing those sound bites want to
communicate.
BILL MOYERS:
What do you think they wanted to communicate?
WRIGHT:
I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ.  And by the way, guess who goes to his church, hint, hint, hint?  That's what they wanted to communicate.

They know nothing about the church.  They know nothing about our prison ministry.  They know nothing about our food ministry.  They know nothing about our senior citizens home.  They know nothing about all we try to do as a church and have tried to do, and still continue to do as a church that believes what Martin Marty said, that the two worlds have to be together.  And that the gospel of Jesus Christ has to speak to those worlds, not only in terms of the preached message on a Sunday morning but in terms of the lived-out ministry throughout the week.

When discussing what Barack Obama said about the Reverend’s video comments, the reverend said,

 He's a politician, I'm a pastor.  We speak to
two different audiences.  And he says what he has to say as a politician.  I say what I have to say as a pastor.  But they're two different worlds. I do what I do.  He does what politicians do.  So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician.

The reverend is correct.  Barack Obama ‘is’ indeed a politician.  He was doing his job – campaigning to be the next president of these United States.  All Mayors, Governors, Congressmen, Senators and Presidents are politicians.  What matters is what ‘kind’ of politician are they?  Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama has proven to be a different kind of politician, not perfect, but much better than the likes we've seen in many years.

The media of course is jumping all over these comments, claiming once again that he’s downgrading America and he’s pointing out that Obama is ‘just’ another politician.  Some are saying that Barack should immediately disown his pastor for these comments alone. 

Bullwicky!   Enough already, there’s nothing here.  This story is getting old.  Leave the Reverend alone.  He’s done more for America then most of us could even ‘think’ of doing.

I sincerely hope that American’s will finally see through these media pundit's ultimate goals and toss their attacks aside. 

If they continue to attack Obama for his pastor’s words, then the same should be done toward John McCain’s association with a pastor that says God punished New Orleans for their sins.  He also has two other pastors that have said awful things – why aren’t the media attacking McCain on a daily basis for his associations?  Why aren’t we seeing ‘hours’ of debates about McCain’s or Hillary’s associations?

I am one American that plans on standing with Barack Obama.  He has strong convictions and beliefs.  He’s a person that actually stands by those beliefs and refuses to bend to the polls and political pundit’s will. 
He has also not been caught in a bold face lies like Senator Hillary Clinton has (Bosnia, NAFTA, popular vote) and Senator McCain has.

Check it out: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/nchome

Now that Hillary, as she puts it, has won all the States that ‘matter’, perhaps she’d play it smart by dropping out, or at the very least step to the side lines and just let voters finish voting.  Why you might ask; because now she can make a strong argument for ‘change’ of the DNC rules.  She can become the Democratic National Committee Chairman and get the ball rolling.

Her campaign has done nothing but complain about the ‘rules’ since she lost Iowa.  If the State had a caucus instead of a primary, we were told those are “caucuses are undemocratic”, if she lost a State it was because the States should be, “winner take all” instead of the way the DNC districts out the State.  Or we’d hear that the State had a high black population.
 
When the DNC and the candidates signed an agreement that Michigan and Florida delegates would not be seated, Hillary was one of the first to sign on.  Hillary kept her name on the Michigan ballot but Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrat candidates did not.  They were both on the Florida ballot; but neither campaigned there.

Obama wasn’t very well known at that time Florida voted.  Floridians voted in favor of the candidate they were familiar with, Hillary Clinton.  As soon as it became clear that Hillary was losing the nomination, her campaign immediately argued that those States should be seated and the votes counted.

After winning Pennsylvania Hillary’s camp is now claiming they’ve won the popular vote (including Michigan and Florida of course).  They will go to any length to convince super delegates that it is ‘they’ that are in the lead, not Barack Obama.

By becoming the DNC chairman, Hillary can really stand for ‘change’ and change the way the Party votes for their nominee.  She claims to like the way the GOP vote for their candidate, so why not push for that change?

Come on Hillary – do something that really means something to you – fix the system that ‘you say’ broke your back.

The media sure are swallowing the Hillary Clinton talking points today.
 
Not too long ago some of Hillary’s leading supporters like Governor Rendell and New Jersey Governor John Corzine along with many of the political pundits said that Hillary ‘HAD’ to win in Pennsylvania by double digits to stay in this race.  Some were even saying it had to be in the high double digits.

Today after a 9.6 margin win in PA, political pundits are calling it a huge win for Hillary and asking “what is wrong with Barack Obama?  Why can’t he close the deal?”

Excuse me? 

The questions ‘should be’, “why can’t Hillary close the deal?  Why can’t she get in the lead of ‘anything’?”

Why did Hillary win by only 9.6 pts?  Just a couple of weeks ago she was ahead by anywhere between 26-33 pts.  What happened?  Why did she lose those voters?  Was it the Bosnia story?  Was it the debate where she attacked Obama unfairly?

Pennsylvania was 'her' summer home as a child.  Her grandfather and father both played ball for Penn State.  She's a Senator from a neighboring State.  She had the support of the Governor and most of the State's mayors.  Her husband the previous President is very well liked in this state.  Why didn't she win by more points?

Some claim it's because Obama out spent her in tv ads 3 to 1.  Well, some of you might remember the Mitt Romney campaign.  He spent millions of his own money and still lost.  Money does buy you however the ability to tell people who you are and what you stand for.  But unless you have a 'message' that people like -- no amount of money will buy you their love.

Barack Obama has already ‘closed’ the deal.  All he needs is for about 25% of the remaining super delegates to come to his side to seal the deal.

He’s already in the lead for delegates (the DNC measurement to be their nominee).  He’s already leading in the popular vote by over 500,000 votes and he’s already won 30 states out of the 45 that has voted.
 
Among those states, he’s won Illinois (Hillary’s home state), Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana. 

Out of 14 caucuses he’s won 13.  One of those includes Texas.  When all is said and done in Texas, Barack Obama ended up winning more delegates in Texas then Hillary did.  Those are not small potato states.

Democrats always win California, New York and Pennsylvania.  To claim that because he didn’t win it (lacking 9pts) means he’ll lose it to John McCain, is just plain nonsense.

Most political experts say Hillary would have to win over 60-70% of the popular vote in the next remaining 9 States to beat Obama with the popular vote and that there is no way she can catch up on the elected delegate count now.

Hillary’s only hope is to brainwash the Super delegates into believing that ‘she’ is in the lead and Obama is losing.  In other words, steal the election.
 
It would be nice if the media would do their jobs and get the ‘facts’ out there instead of following along with the talking points from the Hillary Clinton campaign – just as they did with the George W. Bush – Karl Rove and their talking points.

Everybody talking about Obama using Whitewater and cattle futures to hurt Hillary.  I happen to think the Bosnia LIE, Bill Clinton's LIE yesterday about accusing Obama of using the race card, Hillary's NAFTA and Columbia missteps would do a greater damage.

I also think somebody needs to point out the Dynasty end of this.  The first Reagan/Bush(8), Bush the 1st(4), Clintons(8), Bush the 2nd(8).  That is a total of 28 years of two families running our nation.  Look where it's gotten us.

Is it true that something like 13% of the white voters in Pennsylvania did not for for Barack Obama simple BECAUSE he was black and they admitted it?

That vote alone would have put Obama over the top and he would have won in PA.

Goes to show you - race is still an issue in America - unfortunately.

It's also unfortunate that some Hillary supporters are voting for her simpley because she is a woman.  Hillary continues to use her gender for votes.  She did it tonight during her acceptance speech.

Barack Obama does not use his race during his campaigning.  Very telling. 

I just read a story on DailyKos about a voter in Pennsylvania taking a photograph of their ballot.  This is a great idea.

Not only do the voters get a copy of their own votes, the city/state gets a digital copy of all votes taken.  This would be perfect for recounts.

If the cameras could all be somehow tied to one computer or place to store all those pictures, date and times – then if a recount is needed the pictures would be available.

I’m no expert but couldn’t those pictures be scanned and then a total count added up of who voted for whom?  In fact, if this scan can be done, wouldn’t this provide quicker results for an election?

Anybody see any drawbacks to this idea?

During last Tuesday debate, Hillary Clinton mentioned having something like a 'nuclear umbrella' in the Middle East.  Meet the Press hasn't listed their Sunday show on their website yet, but someone on Daily Kos points out some of what was said today.  See below.

On "Meet The Press" this Sunday AM, with Tim Russert, David Brooks and others Russert brought up the issue of the "nuclear umbrella" idea that Hillary Clinton floated in her April 16th debate in Philadelphia with Barack Obama.

This is enormous.

Russert brought up the issue of Clinton's proposed "nuclear umbrella" and DAVID BROOKS of all people, replied with something like "I'm surprised the didn't become much bigger in the media - can you imagine 2 Arab nations fighting and the United States getting in the middle of it ?"

Someone else then chimed in, "massive retaliation, that's a very LOADED phrase."

Well, "massive retaliation" IS a very LOADED phrase and I've consulted with George E. Lowe, who wrote the 1964 book "The Age of Deterrence" ( Little, Brown) and has won awards for his writing on nuclear deterrence as well, about WHY "massive [nuclear] retaliation" is such a loaded term and WHY the "Meet The Press" folks may have been taken aback by Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea.

 

This story SHOULD be all over the airwaves and newspapers -- but it's not.  Why not?