From all of those who are so upset at Obama for his choice in voting for this COMPROMISE, and who are upset because change is no longer happening, 1) what do you think he should have done? 2) Do you truly believe that laws, regulations, and everything that goes through Congress is anything shorter than a COMPROMISE?  Would you rather it any other way?  Would you rather Obama simply stated exactly what he wants and/or thinks is right and have that be the bill?  Would you rather he writes his own bill, which would not have a majority in Congress and therefore would not pass, but at least you agree with everything on that bill?  The fact is that the Government is not about what is right or what is wrong, but rather about COMPROMISE.  That is the way Democracy works, and that is the way it is meant to be.  It is not about every representative writting out the best piece of legislation and having it pass.  It is about representatives getting together, COMPROMISING, and writing a bill that gets enough votes to pass.  Democracy.  I think that no one should be shocked that Obama's priority will always be to protect the Constitution.  The Constitution as he understands it.  The fact is, however, that the United States of America is not a dictatorship.  Obama understands the importance of passing this bill before August, and also understands the importance of changing the law as it stands today.  So ask yourself the question, would you rather let the current laws expire, leave them as they are, or COMPROMISE.  For those who simply want Obama to "do what's right," you should look at the last president who thought he was simply doing what was right without feeling the need to COMPROMISE with anyone.  He shouldn't be that hard to find.

This meeting between Hillary and Obama.  First, am I the only one who thinks that this "secret" meeting with just both of them in the room is kind of going against the change that Obama wants to deliver?  He always stresses "transparency," and although some may argue that this is one of those meetings where the world doesn't need to know what went on, I sure do want to know what happened in that room.  Is it possible that it was Hillary doing most of the talking in that room?  And is it possible that what she said was along the lines of..."Obama, if you don't want me to take this to Denver, here's what I want, 1) VP 2) Money to pay off my debt 3) (you can fill the rest)"  The point is that I definitely do not see this meeting as being a meeting where Hillary congratulates Obama on becoming the party's nominee, and tells him that she is willing to do whatever he thinks will help him win the presidency.  If that were the case, this would have not been a "secret meeting."  All I’m saying is that this surprises me a little bit, and being a huge Obama fan, I am a bit disappointed with this "secret meeting."  Does anyone see where I'm coming from?

I could go on for two or three pages about the whole Michigan and Florida issue, but instead, i will make this very short and to the point by simply stating all of the obvious.  I simply don't understand Hillary's argument.  I really need one of her supporters to explain it to me.  Before the primaries were held in both Michigan and Florida both Obama and Hillary agreed to the sanctions that would be imposed on the states if they broke the rules.  If you are a Hillary supporter please think about this for a few seconds.  Seriously, think about it.  That means that when the party told Hillary: "Hillary if Michigan and Florida break the rules, their delegates will not be seated."  For clarification, this means that they will not count.  Which means that no matter how many people vote in each of the two states, the delegates in those states will not be seated in the convention.  Which means that in a hipothetical situation, if Hillary Clinton gets 55% of the votes in one of those two states, the delegates will still not be seated.  If she gets 60%, the delegates will still not be seated.  And guess what, if she gets 100% of the votes, the selegates will still not be seated.  However, if she only gets 10% of the votes, the delegates will still not be seated.

Now, i may not agree with the nomination process.  Perhaps they should have all of the States vote in one day.  Maybe that would make more sense.  Perhaps they should punish states who move their primaries differently.  But regardless of what I think, the fact is that when Hillary was told what the punishment will be, she didn't mention how unfair that was.  She was not concerned about only counting 48 states and not 50.  She didn't mention that she believed that the punishment was too harsh.  But even if she did complain, what we know is that she agreed.  She agreed.  Think about that.  That means that when she was told what the punishment will be she said: "fine."  She agreed witht the punishment, which means that she understood that MIchigan and Florida will not count.  She knew that.  Knowing, as in, i know that my name is Hilary Clinton.  She agreed, as in, I agree with the punishment.  So Hillary agreed that the delegates should not be counted if the two states brake the rules.  She said, "Ok." as in "Yes."
So can someone please, please, explain to me how after Hillary agrees with the punishment she disagrees with the punishment.  How can anyone make the case that it is not fair, and therefore they should seat the delegates the way the votes were counted.  How?  How?!  Is that fair?

I keep hearing all of these arguments about Michigan and Florida.  I wonder what Hillary thinks would happen if she gets both Michigan and Florida to count, and she gets the delegates she wants.  I'll try to get past the fact that this is ridiculously unfair for Obama who understood, as Hillary did, that the delegates will not be seated because the States broke the rules.  This is something that they both agreed on!!!  But anyway, i'm going to pretend that it is ok to do what Hillary wants.  What does she think will happen if she gets her way?  What do you think will happen?  I mean, it is still very hard for her to get the nomination even if she gets her way with Florida and Michigan, but let's pretend that she does win the nomination.  What would that mean?  What would happen with Obama supporters?  I see that Hillary supporters say that they will not vote for Obama, but how would Obama supporters feel if she wins the nomination by cheating?  I know that the democratic party would lose my vote.  Would it not lose yours?  This is a lose/lose for Hillary Clinton.  In order for her to win the nomination she must get her way in Michigan and Florida, but if she gets her way in Michigan and Florida and gets the nomination because of it, the Democratic Party will shoot itself in the face and lose the presidency to the Old Man.

I keep hearing all of these arguments about Michigan and Florida.  I wonder what Hillary thinks would happen if she gets both Michigan and Florida to count, and she gets the delegates she wants.  I'll try to get past the fact that this is ridiculously unfair for Obama who understood, as Hillary did, that the delegates will not be seated because the States broke the rules.  This is something that they both agreed on!!!  But anyway, i'm going to pretend that it is ok to do what Hillary wants.  What does she think will happen if she gets her way?  What do you think will happen?  I mean, it is still very hard for her to get the nomination even if she gets her way with Florida and Michigan, but let's pretend that she does win the nomination.  What would that mean?  What would happen with Obama supporters?  I see that Hillary supporters say that they will not vote for Obama, but how would Obama supporters feel if she wins the nomination by cheating?  I know that the democratic party would lose my vote.  Would it not lose yours?  This is a lose/lose for Hillary Clinton.  In order for her to win the nomination she must get her way in Michigan and Florida, but if she gets her way in Michigan and Florida and gets the nomination because of it, the Democratic Party will shoot itself in the face and lose the presidency to the Old Man.

Ok, hold on, take a breather, let me explain.

I posted my reasons for why I think Hillary will be Obama's VP in an earlier post so i will not make the point again.  Like many of you, I agree that this is not preferable, to say the least.  I hate Hillary Clinton and she stands for the oposite of what Obama represents.  However, I am beginning to be convinced that Obama can secure the presidency if he chooses Hillary as his running mate.  Hillary has a lot of support and a lot of her supporters are saying that they will not vote for Obama.  If he doesn't pick her then i think that it is going to be a little too close for comfort in September.  So here is the question, would you rather have Obama win with Hillary, or lose without?

Am i the only one who thinks that Hillary's new point is ridiculous?  She thikns that she should be the nominee because Obama cannot finish her off...Let me give you a minute to think about that.



Is that not like saying, Ok, i know i'm down by 3 runs with two outs in the 9th inning but the fact that it is only by 3 and not by 7 or 8 clearly means that i'm the better team.  Am i missing something?  She claims that even though Obama is winning the popular vote, number of states, delegates etc... He can't finish her off so she should obviously be the nominee.  Can a Hillary supporter please explain her point for me...seriously, i'm not kidding.  Maybe i'm just not smart enough to understand what she is trying to say.

This has probably been posted here a million times, and has been talked about before just as many times but I finally get why Hillary is doing what she is doing.  Again, I know this has probably been talked about already, but it finally hit me.  I read a post here that said the reason Hillary was playing hardball even though she knows it is unlikely that she will get the nomination is because she had a "master plan" that will land her the White House in four years after Obama loses the presidential race because of her attacks.  I simply just do not want to believe that.  I guess I have a little more faith in her than I should.  But as I sit here thinkin that the greater the division between Hillary and Obama the more likely it is that Obama will HAVE to pick Hillary as his running mate if he wants to beat the Old Man in the general election.  So that's it, I now truly believe that the reason she is splitting up the party is so that Obama has no choice but to pick her as his running mate in order for him to get those Hillary voters that claim will not vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.  I have no doubt in my mind that she understands that by hurting Obama her supporters are more likely to not vote for him in the general election.  If she understands that and continues to try to hurt Obama then the only explanation I have is that she wants to be in the White House even if it is as a Vice-President.  As much as I want Obama to pick anyone else as his running mate, exit polls show that only 50% of Hillary voters would vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.  This is the number that Hillary, in my opinion, has been working on in order to be Obama's running mate.  Are you buying?

I have a question for you guys. Do you think that if Obama wins the Presidency, assuming that he keeps running a clean campaign (even during the general election), the "silly season" will end forever? I know it may sound crazy, but if Obama wins the presidency by being the "clean" candidate, it seems only natural that in the future the "silly season" will be easier to identify and will turn off the electorate. We may have an election during my lifetime that has every candidate running a clean campaign. I wonder what that would be like... (I'd rather get answers from people who agree that Obama has been running a clean campaign...those who think that he hasn't are simply not going to provide the answer to the question so save your self from answering; I completely understand that whether Obama's campaign has been clean or not is up for debate but that can be answered in a different post).

It is absolutely amazing that Obama continues to "bet" on the American people.  I just wonder how long it will be before the American people are misled once again.  I can only "hope" that people continue to see past the thick political cloud that surrounds him.  I think it's funny that everyone around him is trying to get him to play the game but he knows there is no game to be played.  Is it possible that Americans have finally become a people that seeks what lies behind the political cloud that has covered all politicians in the world today?  I sure do hope so.  Obama seems to be winning his bet.  Let's hope he continues to do so.  Do you think he should continue to bet on the American people?

Dear Barack,
    I'll make this as short as possible since i know you're a busy man.  Like many people in America, i'm inspired by you.  As a matter of fact i will be getting my degree in political science next semester because of you.  I remember watching your speech on race not too long ago and thinking to myself, Wow, i can't believe this one man is trying to take on so much all by himself.  Throughout your campaign you have been very bold and ambitious in regards to the issues you are trying to take on.  Trying to take on the issue of race takes a lot of optimisim and belief in the general public.  Now you are dealing with the issue of class.  Some have said that you need to give another speech on this topic.  In this race to be the next president of the United States i strongly believe that you have been the candidate that has stuck to the issues the most, and has stayed away from the nasty political game, that we all blindly believe must be played in order to win votes, the most.  I believe that this has been the reason for your success.  People have noticed that you are taking on the real issues that face this nation and the issues that others are too afraid to take on because of their political well-being.  I admire you because of it.  Lately however, i've noticed that you have decided to finally push back and join the political game that your oponents, as well as most politicians in the past believe needs to be played in order to win.  I think that it may very well be the best strategy to win the presidency, but it certainly damages my optimism and hope to see real change.  I still think that you are by far the best candidate i've ever seen (granted, i'm only 23), but i would like to see the man that tackles the hardest problems with great courage regardless of what people may think.  I recall some one saying that, "Americans should not be told what they want to hear, but rather what they need to hear."  Stand up to those who doubt, and if they want another amazing speech, but this one on the issue of class, let them hear it.

I just saw some early exit polls in Mississippi and the number of people who voted for Hillary who are not OK with Obama is astonishing.  I don't know if this has changed recently or if it has always been that way.  In either case, i believe that the main reason for this is the way each candidate is running their campaign.  Hillary's more aggresive stratergy has caused the party to be strongly divided among the candidates.  Obama's constant respect for Hillary has caused people who are in favor of him winning the nomination to be OK with Hillary winning the nomination--or at least more so than the other way around.  Among many things, i do think that this is a clear indication of what Hillary intends to do if she becomes president:  maintain the divisions that are already in place in America.  She has the same attitude Bush has in terms of creating and maintaining a unilateral presidency.  It is about winning(.)  In contrast, Obama's way of running his campaign--trying to get the party's nomination, while keeping a strong and united party--is a clear indication of what he will do as president of the United States.  He will acknowledge that he is commander in chief, but will understand that a United States of America is better for everyone than a Divided States of America.

Am I Wrong?