Obama's VP Pick
My guess, or maybe a wish, is Wesley Clark. He would bolster foriegn policy and appeal to the base of the Democratic Party.
THE RISE OF THE RED CURTAIN
HAS ANYONE SEEN THE COVER OF PRAVDA TODAY?
Shivers run down my spine as the cold wind blows from inside of Russia's iron. My iReport from yesterday made the observation that we weren't paying attention. That we've been distracted by Iraq and Iran and oil and ignored the sleeping bear. We've heard candidates taunt Vladimir Putin, some calling him soul less. I doubt that these expressed sentiments from significant leaders has helped relations that seemed to go from cordial to down right hostile. That cover of Pravda, or rather it's internet counterpart, sounds like propaganda from the 1980's. What happened? How did we get back here? Reagan must be screaming from his grave.
What do you think of this conflict and how would you see it resolved? Leave your comments below.
Shivers run down my spine as the cold wind blows from inside of Russia's iron. My iReport from yesterday made the observation that we weren't paying attention. That we've been distracted by Iraq and Iran and oil and ignored the sleeping bear. We've heard candidates taunt Vladimir Putin, some calling him soul less. I doubt that these expressed sentiments from significant leaders has helped relations that seemed to go from cordial to down right hostile. That cover of Pravda, or rather it's internet counterpart, sounds like propaganda from the 1980's. What happened? How did we get back here? Reagan must be screaming from his grave.
What do you think of this conflict and how would you see it resolved? Leave your comments below.
Advertisement
An Infedility Pattern In Politics - Edwards joins McCain and Clinton
Why can't politicians stay faithful to their wives?
John Edwards admission today of an extramarital affair reminds me just how frequent this issue seems to come up. I am all together uncertain why infidelity is taken so lightly by the leadership of this country when it is often used as a touchstone for a politician's character. The parade of wives and husbands is always a political necessity in front of those adoring supporters, yet they seem to be cast aside all to easily.
So today, John Edwards admits to having a loveless affair with a filmmaker but denies that he is her newborn baby's father. Regardless of paternity the question is why the infidelity? And on an ailing wife.
Oddly this is a bi-partisan issue.
John McCain cheated on his wheel chair bound first wife Carol Shepp after returning from his time as a POW in the 1970's. It is during this time that he and Carol split ways, with marrying his current wife, Cindy Lou Hensley just one month after the divorce from Carol was final.
Of course having a wife that is ill is not a pre-requisite for political infidelity. We all remember the well publicized Monica Lewinsky affair with then sitting President Bill Clinton - apparently one of many affairs he had during his marriage to Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how many Bill Clinton's infedility comes with a double penalty. As a young man he was a member of DeMolay, a Masonic youth organization created in the early 1900's to keep kids off the streets and I suppose prep for future Masons. One of the basic tennets of DeMolay (of which I was also a member) is fidelity, with a great deal of focus on respecting women. I remember feeling a sense of sadness when I learned that one of the most successful members of DeMolay had cheated on his wife. After all, DeMolay was all too ready to mention Bill Clinton (and Walt Disney) when they were soliciting my membership.
And we all know the Kennedy story and there are others I'm sure. And we seem oddly okay with their cheating, as if it's part of the job description, but isn't their job entirely based on taking oaths? We have faith that their word is good, yet their word to their wives, that doesn't matter? And how they so vehemently deny it is, in this YouTube Age, laughable and usually a great mistake.
But it is not okay.
We seem to be convinced that it is just fine for a politician to lie, make false promises and cheat on their spouses. We never act all that surprised when we find out - and almost expect it of them. How is that a good thing? Why is it acceptable for our leadership to be untruthful? Shouldn't we hold them to a higher standard?
Now infedility does not mean they are bad at their day job, it just calls into question their honesty, which calls into question their qualifications for keeping their day job.
It is so utterly dissapointing.
John Edwards admission today of an extramarital affair reminds me just how frequent this issue seems to come up. I am all together uncertain why infidelity is taken so lightly by the leadership of this country when it is often used as a touchstone for a politician's character. The parade of wives and husbands is always a political necessity in front of those adoring supporters, yet they seem to be cast aside all to easily.
So today, John Edwards admits to having a loveless affair with a filmmaker but denies that he is her newborn baby's father. Regardless of paternity the question is why the infidelity? And on an ailing wife.
Oddly this is a bi-partisan issue.
John McCain cheated on his wheel chair bound first wife Carol Shepp after returning from his time as a POW in the 1970's. It is during this time that he and Carol split ways, with marrying his current wife, Cindy Lou Hensley just one month after the divorce from Carol was final.
Of course having a wife that is ill is not a pre-requisite for political infidelity. We all remember the well publicized Monica Lewinsky affair with then sitting President Bill Clinton - apparently one of many affairs he had during his marriage to Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how many Bill Clinton's infedility comes with a double penalty. As a young man he was a member of DeMolay, a Masonic youth organization created in the early 1900's to keep kids off the streets and I suppose prep for future Masons. One of the basic tennets of DeMolay (of which I was also a member) is fidelity, with a great deal of focus on respecting women. I remember feeling a sense of sadness when I learned that one of the most successful members of DeMolay had cheated on his wife. After all, DeMolay was all too ready to mention Bill Clinton (and Walt Disney) when they were soliciting my membership.
And we all know the Kennedy story and there are others I'm sure. And we seem oddly okay with their cheating, as if it's part of the job description, but isn't their job entirely based on taking oaths? We have faith that their word is good, yet their word to their wives, that doesn't matter? And how they so vehemently deny it is, in this YouTube Age, laughable and usually a great mistake.
But it is not okay.
We seem to be convinced that it is just fine for a politician to lie, make false promises and cheat on their spouses. We never act all that surprised when we find out - and almost expect it of them. How is that a good thing? Why is it acceptable for our leadership to be untruthful? Shouldn't we hold them to a higher standard?
Now infedility does not mean they are bad at their day job, it just calls into question their honesty, which calls into question their qualifications for keeping their day job.
It is so utterly dissapointing.
Doomsday for Democrats? (ignore previous posts)
Can we ever move on from the past or is this nation doomed to tread water and let the future sail away beyond the horizon?
This week Hillary Clinton stepped out of the shadows to reclaim the media spot light when some of her supporters began to push for Hillary’s nomination. Hillary, for her part, has played all sides of the issue, one day saying all options are still viable and a catharsis was needed and the next day saying she’s 100% behind Barack. A few weeks ago her campaign swore off any notion of her being nominated, bu t doubts have been raised this week, mainly thanks to the media salivating over a possible Round 2 in the Barack vs Hillary poli-match.
I’m sure her supporters are also quite excited to have even the vaguest chance of an upset…but…
… I'm also not sure why her supporters don't want to respect the rules of the DNC.
There’s murmurings that they want those disputed Florida and Michigan delegates seated and if so, then maybe Hillary pulls a win somehow. This whole Michigan and Florida nonsense is well...nonsense. They broke the rules, Clinton maneuvered herself&nb sp; to benefit and broke her own word about honoring the DNC's decision. A pattern of convenience that seems to be re-emerging.
It's bad enough McCain is using Hillary's own words against Obama and probably scoring some points with her supporters - now she has to play coy? If for some odd reason there is some dramatic reversal at the convention there will be no more Democratic party. There will be a split.
The fall race will be a three person race and Obama will still win.
And Hillary's career will be over , and she won’t be alone in the unemployment line.
Or at least that's the doomsday scenario. Only the convention will let us know what will really happen.
I just hope Hillary supporters understand that this has nothing to do with gender and there are plenty of other qualified women who SHOULD have run.
Hillary Clinton is just not qualified to run this nation based on how she ran her campaign and based on her behavior during it, let alone her checkered past filled with resentments and controversies.
Clinton insulted foreign leaders, fanning the flames of our enemy (calling Putin soul-less does not help), she refused to disavow and in fact seemed to support the rumors falsely being spread about Obama, she exaggerated her stories and experience calling into question her veracity of character. Not to mention she's in debt up to her head after having run a negative campaign both in tone and in finance.
Pelosi, Rice and a whole host of other women deserve it more and would do it better - despite any of their own mistakes. (although Pelosi lately has been rather feisty and less then helpful)
The point is, anytime the Clinton’s materialize this cloud of resentment and anger follows them like some Peanuts cartoon. They’re angry. Yes. We get it. Bill is upset with how George has ruined the country and Hillary seems to think she was supposed to be the first female president. I get it. They miss the 90’s. I get it!
But I don’t miss those roaring 90’s.
The 90’s folks were not so great for a great many of us. Yes the economy was booming, but that had little to nothing to do with Bill Clinton and everything to do with the natural progression of technology. The internet boom in the late 90’s propelled our economy through the roof, only, as we all saw, it was a temporary boost . (as with all new things)
But we also ignored Al Queda’s growth in the 1990’s, not taking it seriously. There was the first World Trade Center Bombing, a warning sign we ignored. We entered Bosnia far too late and didn’t finish with Saddam (why was there no trial for him back then?). And let’s not get into Somalia.
The point is –it wasn’t all rainbows and sunshine. We were drifting. Wading in a sea of potential, but the wind had died down, distracted by the nonsense of the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment that followed.
I was speaking with an Obama supporter recently and they were expressing to me how much work it’s been these past few weeks to get the Clinton supporters to back Barack and prepare for the convention. The frustration I felt from this Obama supporter was not one of anger or negativity, but of sadness. A sadness that comes from seeing a potential great shift in the U.S. slipping away – allowing the dream of once again being the land of promise and opportunity fade into the morning mist.
Let’s hope the lantern stays lit and we can find our way safely back to the shore and return to rebuilding this nation into the example it once was.
Advertisement
John McCain's Foriegn Policy - His Definition of Victory in Iraq
Last week I was fortunate to have one of my questions asked of John McCain at CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. My question was for McCain to define victory in Iraq. The answer he gave was long and circular, including one of his conditions for victory was the U.S. pulling out of Iraq - in other words he thinks one of the signs of victory, how we'll know that we've won, will be when U.S. troops leave. Of course that begs the question, how do we know when to leave? When would be the polite time? And why are we now relagated to house-guest status, when once we were the leader of the free world?
I heard from a mother of a some sevice men recently and she expressed to me that her sons, both of whom have served in Iraq, don't want to go back (mulitple tours, years of their life gone, careers thrown off) and that the Iraqi people do not want us there. Not quite the message McCain and Bush have been trying to hammer into the American pysche I think.
The most ludacris of all of McCain's conditions for victory was the idea of a "normal" country, that when Iraq is more like a "normal" country we can leave. What exactly is a normal country and when will some Americans really realize that we don't fully understand the culture over there. For example, look what happened to the Palestinians - they get democracy, hold an election, and guess who wins? Hamas!
The problem with Democracy is you can't always predict what the populace will do. McCain's condition for victory denies the possibility that the Iraqi people will choose to go a different path on any number of issues - which then begs the question of what happens if we don't like what their eventual idea of "normal" is...
Living abroad as a child I got to experience different cultures and understand that how one community does something may not translate into another. Something I think McCain's foriegn policy (or lack there of) ignores.
If you want to see my response to McCain go to:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-54079
I heard from a mother of a some sevice men recently and she expressed to me that her sons, both of whom have served in Iraq, don't want to go back (mulitple tours, years of their life gone, careers thrown off) and that the Iraqi people do not want us there. Not quite the message McCain and Bush have been trying to hammer into the American pysche I think.
The most ludacris of all of McCain's conditions for victory was the idea of a "normal" country, that when Iraq is more like a "normal" country we can leave. What exactly is a normal country and when will some Americans really realize that we don't fully understand the culture over there. For example, look what happened to the Palestinians - they get democracy, hold an election, and guess who wins? Hamas!
The problem with Democracy is you can't always predict what the populace will do. McCain's condition for victory denies the possibility that the Iraqi people will choose to go a different path on any number of issues - which then begs the question of what happens if we don't like what their eventual idea of "normal" is...
Living abroad as a child I got to experience different cultures and understand that how one community does something may not translate into another. Something I think McCain's foriegn policy (or lack there of) ignores.
If you want to see my response to McCain go to:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-54079
