16 posts tagged “candidate”

In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on Monday, Independent Party presidential hopeful (it is hard to type that without believing it should be followed by a punchline), Ralph Nader, made some very interesting statements. 

When asked what is different about Senator Obama relative to other democrats he has run against, he stated that the only difference was that Senator Obama is “half African-American.”  Oh yes he did.  He went there.

He also said that Senator Obama is trying to (are you sure you are ready for this, hold on to your chair) “talk white.”

Did a person running for president actually accuse another candidate of talking white?  Seroiusly? 

It is interesting that the other candidates have mostly relied on their supporters and spouses to say incredibly stupid things, but not Mr. Nader.  He doesn’t need others to do his “stupid” work, he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. 

This crazy candidate (I will avoid the other descriptive terms that come to mind) even took a shot at Jessie Jackson while trying to explain why Senator Obama is talking white.  He stated that one of the reasons he is talking white is (hold on, I have to compose myself) he doesn’t want to “appear like Jessie Jackson.”

Holy smokes!

Is this guy for real?  I seriously think he has come to believe that he can gain more support than he has gotten in past elections by getting the racist vote.

Remember all of the talk about voter who said race mattered in the elections mostly voting for Senator Clinton.  It seems he heard that and decided that being a racist was his best bet in trying to get support.

I have looked at comments on several blogs and some chats on the subject and this foolishness seems to have some support. 

As for me, a person who does not belong to political party, I have to say I hate to have to refer to myself as an independent voter for fear that I will be associated to such an person (I’m being politically correct and nice instead of using many of the other descriptive terms that come to mind for this person). 

Just to leave us with a thought, what exactly are the implications of saying that a person of color or of mixed origin can attempt to “talk white?” 

Is he referring to that fact he does not use slang or “Ebonics” or sound like any of the rap stars on the television.  That would mean that he is saying that those who are white and “talk white” are okay in sounding educated, but any person of color or mixed origin who “talks white” is faking it to distance themselves from someone (as Mr. Nader implies) as stupid as Jessie Jackson or other persons of color.

Is he saying that “talking white” speaks of people who have money and that he is avoiding talking about those in the inner cities and poor neighborhoods of our country.  As if there are no people of color in these better neighborhoods and only people of color live in poor areas and inner cities. 

Need I go on?  How dare anyone who is not a publicly proclaimed racist support this man.  This is an assault on our sensibilities and the Independent party has a responsibility to all of us who call ourselves Americans to pull the plug on this racist madman.

Another blogger recently made some very good comments about third party candidates on one of my blogs.  The basic point was that having a competitive third party candidate most often will not get that person elected but slip the votes between that person and the other party closest to what they stand for. 

If that third party candidate  leans a little left the votes would split between that person and the Democratic candidate. If the third party candidate leans a little to the right the votes would be split between that person and the Republican candidate.  The split would allow the unified vote on the other side of the spectrum to win the election and reduce that third party candidate to the role of spoiler and never really lead to a successful candidate.

In thinking about this, I find the evidence to support this hypothesis to be very strong.  This is worrisome to me.  The party system we have in place is clearly broken and these facts clearly show that there is no hope otherwise.

Maybe if there were to just be one other serious party (along with all of those minor parties that get like one to two percent of the vote every four years) that represented the area closer to the middle.  Not too right, not too left, just in the area near the middle. 

Obviously, there would be conflicts within this party on some issues and some areas that members of this party could possibly never agree upon, but this party would best represent the average American. 

I also think that two serious contenders for the title of president is clearly not enough.  The only alternatives we are left with are ridiculously irrelevant and a waste of our time. 

The only way there will really be change is if the voters come together and vote for someone else from another party who represents the overall values of the people.  That would first require a highly qualified candidate that would attract all of these voters form both ends of the spectrum and was different enough from the other candidates to really represent change. 

The sad fact id that I personally have not seen a person even close to this and I think that the other candidates who are running are in fact simply the spoilers who will devour the campaigns of the parties they used to belong to.

Swiftboating has been resurrected and again has raised concerns or at least questions.

Senator Barack Obama separated himself from a statement made by retired General Wesley Clark, while Senator John McCain went on the defensive against this comment. General Clark made several statements on the “Face the Nation” show on CBS’, but I must admit that that most memorable comment was “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”  Although, rude, unnecessary, and possibly outright stupid, there is a valid question raised here. 

The real point of the conversation or the real question raised is:  “Does his individual military experience make him any more qualified to be president of an entire country?”

I have to say that in reality the question raised here for me is:  “Does any of the past actions of either of these candidates demonstrate their readiness to be president?”

From what I have seen the only thing that we have established about these candidates is that they may be schizophrenic and are terrible at choosing supporters to work with their campaigns. 

The person who is elected will as part of the job be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. 

What is there on Senator Barack Obama’s resume that qualifies him for this job?  Absolutely nothing!

On the other hand Senator John McCain at least was a military officer.  I do have a personal problem with his service however. 

He is in my view a great war hero and a better man than most for having lived through what he lived through in Viet Nam.

The problem I have is one of expecting more from the troops than you expected of yourself.  When I was a child (in a family where every man served this country during wartime for several generations) I was told that a good leader is on who does not expect more from his subordinates than he or she expects of him or herself.

When I was in the military I was taught that if captured, I was to kill myself rather than to talk or give in to the enemy.  The whole “Death Before Dishonor” thing!  I was repeatedly fed the fact that I was to remain “always faithful” (Semper Fidelis) to God, country and corps even if it meant killing myself rather that to be dishonored.

The truth is that I am not convinced I could have done this and think few could.  The thing is I was raised to believe in an ideal.  That ideal is the president should be the best of the best particularly in terms of military service.

While a great man, I do not think it fair to demand such service from those that are under you when you could not do it yourself. 

What I am getting at is that I do not believe that either candidate is even close to qualified to command our armed forces, but I do think that Senator McCain is far more qualified as he at least has some experience.

As a side note, I have to add that one of the biggest atrocities that has happened to our men and women in the armed forces was that a man who dodged the draft was allowed to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  This actually was one of the main reasons that I left the military.   Think that president (Bill Clinton) was a slap in the face of all of those who have served and those that have died for our nation.

That all being said I think this is a valid discussion, but the punches needs to remain above the belt.  The candidates themselves are trying to give the appearance that they are above the fray and not participating in such tactics, but their respective camps are not so “above the fray.”

It seems that that role of Commander-in-Chief has been largely neglected over the past several presidencies and for the past several years.  This presidency, far more than most, will need a person of this understanding and that is a motivation to all of those asked to be willing to give their lives to do whatever their country asks of them through the president.  That means even if they do not agree with the battle, war, conflict, police action, or whatever.

P.S.  Just to make all of this a little more odd a group of Republican senators and military officers jumped to Senator McCain’s defense  on a phone call arranged by Senator McCain’s campaign.  This group stated that these statement s were “Complete silliness,” “Beyond comprehension,” “A very indecent thing,” and so on.  I suppose they wanted to make sure that we all know that the Republican Party is completely opposed to Swiftboating. 

The funny thing here is that the Democrats were quick to point out that one of those military officers, retired Air Force Colonel, Bud Day, was actually on the “Swift Boat” add that coined the phrase Swiftboating.  For those that don’t remember, those were the adds that cast doubt on the medals earned by Democratic candidate John Kerry in Viet Nam.  Now one of the people from that add is crying foul saying that these statements are “A very indecent thing”

Again, the McCain campaign has demonstrated that as a campaign, there is terrible problems in picking people to support Senator McCain publically.

I guess you have to love the irony.

All this talk of “flip-flopping” and supporting evidence from everywhere; can we trust either of these people?  What is going on?  It’s like there is a flip-flop fever going around.

The camps of both major party’s hopefuls for president have been ramping up the rhetoric about the other candidate’s “flip-flops” and inconsistencies.  When one follows the facts, the truth is that both candidates have had major flip-flops over the past year.  Flip-flops big enough to make one wonder; “Who the heck are these people and what do they stand for?”

The truth of the matter is that June and July historically are the months when candidates retool their message and their stands to move a little closer to the center and away from the extreme ends of their party’s ideals to appeal to larger voting segments.

What makes it different this year?  I think there are two things that are different.

I think with Senator Obama, his voting record shows him to be almost as far to the left as one can be, while his rhetoric, campaigning, and speeches make him appear to be very close to the middle and as “The Candidate of Change.”  There a already many huge question marks about who he really is to begin with without him changing the message again.

For Senator McCain, he already has done more and more to alienate the far right within his party over the past eight or nine years and who he really is also warrants a huge question mark from his would be supporters.  Many of the things he stands for and represents already is a hard sell to people in the middle or on the right at any level.  Keep in mind that he represents the same party as the largely unpopular current president which makes his candidacy a hard sell as it is.  He has somehow got to get the support of the right and the middle at the same time when both are skeptical to begin with and he is even going so far as to try to draw from the right betting on the fallout from the Democratic primaries.  For those who are not already set on a candidate or a party (voting for a candidate simply because of party affiliation at this point in history with all that could happen over the next four years is not only stupid but grossly negligent) his message seems to be all over the map and makes him even less understandable to us.

The other reason I think this is such a big deal this year is the fact that there are more mediums that will verify what they are saying and more people who are apt to research such things. 

How many of us have heard something stated by one of the candidates and then by the next day heard and read a firestorm of contradictions stated by the same person as noted on “factcheck.org” or other such organizations. 

What I am saying is that the microscope has grown more powerful for this year’s elections and the candidates are under much more focused scrutiny.  I suspect that if previous candidates had been under the same level of scrutiny as the current candidates history would be vastly different.

Are the candidates “flip-flopping” and still undefined?  Absolutely!  Are these candidates distancing themselves from their own past stands and voting records?  Absolutely?  When I look at both of their past stands and voting records, this is not really a bad thing if we are talking about a true change of heart. 

The problem is, will this newly retooled and refined candidate show up in the Whitehouse if elected president or is it all for votes?  I for one sure do like the candidates’ campaign faces a lot better than what the facts show.

Senator John McCain and his advisors finally picked a subject to attack Senator Barack Obama with that actually helps his campaign.  Until now the topics Senator McCain’s camp has been addressing seem to only be targeted at getting approval from those who are already his strongest supporters already.

Senator McCain went before small business owners and said flat out that Senator Obama is bad for business.  As Senator Obama is speaking of tax breaks for the general population and increasing taxes on businesses (the latest example is big oil) Senator McCain is speaking to the businesses saying:  “Hey!  This means more taxes for you and less profit!”

This serves to make all of the rhetoric about how to fix he economy look a lot different to American business owners. 

Another smart benefit that Senator McCain gets from this ploy, is that while Senator Obama has been a campaign contribution machine that has been getting millions of dollars from lots of small contribution s from lots of donors this starts massaging the large donors that are largely untapped by the Obama campaign.  This says, “I am the candidate that will give you return on your investment in me” to the business owners.

This appears to finally be the real start to Senator McCain’s serious campaigning as much of the rest of what has transpired from his camp over the past few months seemed to be just killing time until real campaigning started.

There is however, another side to this coin.  There is the risk of appearing to be the “Same Old Washington” candidate who steals from the poor to buy support from the rich.

Senator Obama responded to Senator McCain’s accusations by discussing things like three-hundred billion dollar tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans to start to show this as the nest wave of media we will be hearing. 

I have to admit, that while I agree that we need businesses to stay open or there is no economy, I do have to wonder if it is not rewarding businesses and the rich while hanging the general population out to dry in the hopes of saving the economy.  Maybe, something in between the rhetoric of the two camps is much more realistic.

As I have repeatedly stated that I am not a big fan of either of these candidates much in terms of becoming our commander and chief.  The thing is, if I am going to end up casting my vote for the lesser evil, for lack of a better choice, I would like to know that there was a good campaign that dealt with real issues.  Like the ref before a boxing match I want to see a good clean fight.  I do not just want one candidate to just pummel the other one in the media and at the ballot boxes.

This is finally a good and sensible start to Senator McCain’s campaign against Senator Obama although it is very risky and may backfire.  I think it is also good that actual issues for right now have come to the surface for discussion. 

I hope to hear more about different sides of the issues (including both candidates’ strange voting records that seem to contradict their campaign rhetoric) and less about the candidate’s friends and distant acquaintances. 

Maybe the real campaign has finally has begun at last.

The odds against Senator Hillary Clinton are moving from highly unlikely, past impossible, to just stupid.  Her advisors are divided, some now saying she should drop out (so she might have a future in politics beyond this race) and some saying to keep on fighting to the bitter end (sort of the captain going down with the sinking ship).

It looks as if the battered Senator, Barack Obama, will be victorious after all in his bid to get the nod of the Democrats.  He has the lead in the popular vote (even though Senator Clinton keeps claiming the votes of the states he didn’t run in and one of which he wasn’t even on the ballot give her the lead). The problem is that the price has been heavy in terms of his electability.  The man who once was seen as the candidate to unify the country is now the face of the division of the party (thanks to Senator Clinton’s insistence on going down with the ship) and is the face of the racial divide still existing in the country (thanks to a certain Mr. Wright).

These candidates have beaten each other so badly that a presidential race that should have been easily won by the Democrats due to the unpopularity of the current Republican white house is now a pretty even fight between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I personally think the parties need to go or at least revamp their value systems and stands, but why go through so much effort to defeat yourselves?

The truth is that much of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Senator Hillary Clinton and her party’s inability to stop her when she is single-handedly destroying the party she claims to be building.  If Senator Clinton is the face of anything it is the face of stubborn, selfish people who will do anything not to lose.

When will these two stop this nonsense?  It seems that Senator Obama has moved on to campaigning against Senator McCain and that Senator McCain is campaigning against Senator Obama, but the truth is Senator Clinton is attacking both and her party is loosing in the end.

I am not sure what people are telling her to continue that have disguised themselves as good advisors, but they are definitely not loyal to her party or to her.  These people clearly feel this is the one big shot or they would be thinking about her getting the mark of being the person who ruined what should have been the easiest election ever.

Senator Clinton should stop now.  As an obviously selfish person, she should do it to preserve her legacy, her future in politics, and to avoid passing the mark of “crazy person” on to her daughter (who in public speaking seems to be the most sensible politically and otherwise in the family).  I believe these reasons should be her real reasons for leaving the race along with the facts that she keeps destroying her party’s chances at winning and the faith of the people in her party at all. 

But, it is a free country.  That means each individual has the right to look stupid in the public eye for all of us to watch in amazement.

This weekend, for some very strange reason, I finally got around to paying attention to these obviously extremely relevant flag pins that everyone has been on and on about.  I never really thought that flag pins on a politician meant any more to me than lures on a fishing hat.   I always assume they must mean something to the person, but I have bigger fish to fry (like that pun).

My research was definitely in the form of casual observation, but strange as it seems, the only flag pin I noticed all weekend in clips and in rallies was proudly on the chest of Senator Barack Obama.  Not that they were not on the other candidates, I simply was not able to see them if they were.

I never really understood Senator Obama’s aversion to wearing flag pins, but then again I was never sure that it made a difference.  I consider myself to be pretty patriotic, yet I do not own nor remember wearing a flag pin.  I did however suddenly have huge questions when Senator Obama refused to wear on because although I do not wear them, if it was the norm for something patriotic I was participating in, I would have no problem wearing one.  So I assumed that prominent flag pins were the norm in politics and that it was rare and possibly unpatriotic for government officials not to wear them.

Imagine how mortified I was to see this absolute necessity ignored by the other candidates and several politicians all weekend.  I am exaggerating of course about my response, but I was deeply surprised not to see these things. 

I quickly looked at some pictures of Senator Hillary Clinton online in a few different places and I only found one picture that looked like she was wearing a pin that may have been a flag.  I looked at several photos of Senator John McCain and noticed a tiny pin in maybe two of the pictures, but couldn’t even tell if they were really pins much less flags.

I know it is a silly issue and I tried to ignore it as long as I could, but it finally got the best of me and I decided to pay attention.  The problem is that when I did finally pay attention the whole issue turned out to be smoke, mirrors, and invisible flag pins.

I am thinking that if this is such a big issue for Senator Obama that he made some kind of stand publicly, why was this stand overrun simply by a man handing him a flag pin.  On the other hand, if the other candidates and their campaigns want to make such a fuss about this, they should practice what they preach. 

I mean if flag pins were the end of the world for the average American and I was running for office I would have a flag hat, flag shoes, a flag tie, a big flag belt buckle, etc. 

I thought the whole thing was nonsense to begin with, but now I see that the people who brought us the nonsense can’t even face it themselves. 

Ladies and gentleman, another horse in the running for the presidential sweepstakes.  Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr has burst onto the presidential scene this week as a possible Libertarian Party candidate for president. 

“A what” You might ask..  A Libertarian.  You know, the people who finished forth four years ago behind George Bush, John Kerry, and even Ralph Nader.  I know it is hard to believe that there was anyone behind Ralph Nader, but there was this poor soul named Michael Badnarik, who ran as a Libertarian (who, did what).

But, don’t write this guy off so fast.  He has a little bit of end the war now for the Democrats and a little get tough on the borders for the Republicans.  He also has a lot of, breaking party lines for the true Independents.  If you add that to the fact that the longer these primaries go on the less the public likes the three candidates that are in place now, you get a possibility of actually winning.  It may be a remote chance, but the odds look better for him than they do for Senator Hillary Clinton right now and she is still being taken pretty seriously.

If nothing else, the confusion and division that Senator Clinton has caused for the Democrats can be mirrored by this former Republican’s resurfacing in a race where the Republican candidate has such shaky support from the party itself.

What a phenomenal development.  This is the great reality television that this election year continues to promise. 

We have had crazy staff, crazy supporters, crazy husbands, crazy clergy, several crazy candidates, but now we are about to get another wave of insanity.  Scary as it truly is, I cannot help but appreciate the entertainment of it all.

Since his primary win in North Carolina, Senator Barack Obama has moved from a gradual trickle to a near avalanche of superdelegates who have moved to support the senators bid for president.  The tide is so in Senator Obama’s favor that if this continues at anywhere near this pace there will be an absolute crushing of Senator Hillary Clinton within weeks in spite of the predicted wins in the next few primary states.

This has to be a blow to Senator Clinton and her support base.  With only a few more superdelgates for Senator Obama, Senator Clinton could win all of the remaining primaries and seat Florida and Michigan only to loose the Democrat’s nod and a whole lot of her own cash (not to mention whoever it is that is still throwing money into this sinking ship) 

I am not sure how this story ends, but I know it is looking more and more hopeless for Senator Clinton in light of the surge in support for Senator Obama.  As more primaries loom, I am wondering if the attacks are about to ramp up again further damaging the Democrats as a party and the popularity of each of the candidates. 

At what point does a determined candidate like Senator Clinton say that the remote possibility of creating a miracle come-from-behind win is not worth the risk of possibly damaging their party?  As I watch this whole thing unfold I am more and more convinced that her whole candidacy is completely about her and not a single sole else.  All of the ranting about the poor and the middleclass etc., is simply rhetoric.  I am left to ask, who is she loyal to.

If the party says certain states should be punished because of not respecting the rules of the party, to exert tremendous pressure publicly to override that ruling because you may gat a little closer to winning, even though it makes the ones you are supposed to be loyal to and representing look terrible, is incredibly self-centered.  To campaign in a state that your party instructed you not to campaign in so that you could plan this party revolt shows premeditated disloyalty. 

I admit I am not a fan of our current party system and usually welcome some venturing outside of traditional party boundaries, but I am not convinced this woman has any true loyalty to anyone but herself.  What kind of president would a person like that make?

I do believe however, that she is desperate enough to get into the Whitehouse that she will definitely run as a Vice-presidential candidate with Senator Obama if asked and prove to be a formidable opponent for the Republicans and other candidates.

The real problem is that a person with no loyalty whatsoever, has no value system that can outweigh the value of personal gain.  This is a person who would sellout anyone or group of person for money, power, and/or respect.  This is a seriously scary president or vice-president.