Barack on War

"I want to listen to our commanders on the ground," says Barack Obama on withdrawing from Iraq.  According to Obama's speech, which he is currently giving in my hometown of Fayetteville, North Carolina (home of Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force Base), he has a plan for withdrawing our troops safely and effectively.

If Mr. Obama was truly committed to listening to the military leaders in our country, he would not be advocating for a hasty exit from Iraq.  Just this month the Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff made a statement in which he all but blasted Senators Obama and his partner in demagoguery, Hillary Clinton, for wanting to leave Iraq.  According to Admiral Mike Mullen, withdrawing our military forces from Iraq now would undo all of the good and destroy all of the security gains that we have made to this point.

So if Mr. Obama were truly committed to "listening to our commanders on the ground," if he were truly committed to stability in Iraq and stability in the Middle East, the he will heed Adm. Mullen's advice... and change his position.

Thank you, Democrats

Oh, I love a good fight.  Well, not really.  What I do love, though, is the intense battle that has re-heated tonight between Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

While John McCain will officially kick off his general election campaign tomorrow with a stop at the White House--where he will receive Pres. Bush's official endorsement-- Clinton and Obama are gearing up for round ten.

Of course, if I had to choose a victor tonight I would pick Obama.  In a conversation with my mother today, I decided that "hope" is not a policy position.

Hope will not defeat terrorists, stimulate the economy nor will it even appoint judges, justices and cabinet secretaries.  Therefore, running against "hope" is easy... if you're John McCain, a man who is capable of taking clear policy positions.

Furthermore, Obama carries a stigma that is nearly negative if you aren't in love with him.  After this primary season, it is clear that middle-of-the-road swing voters will decide our next president.  Barack Obama's stigmatizing stances on many issues (well, as many as he's actually articulated a position on) will clearly isolate a large sector of that important vote.

But who can complain.  The longer these two kick and scratch at one another, the longer John McCain can catch his breath.  

That being said, thank you.

I'm Back... At Last

Well kids, after secluding into a period of mourning I have decided to make my re-entrance into the blogging world.

I'm not really sure what I want to talk about first.  Let's start with Mitt Romney (RIP).

The reason Romney decided to make his graceful exit is because he is a sensible guy, a candidate too good to be true and because Iowa Republicans are apparently stupid.

What angers me most about Mitt's candidacy is that it finally captured the group of people it was targeted at a minute too late.  The right-wing sect of the Republican Party started this presidential campaign with luke-warm interest in the former Massachusetts governor.  However, as the candidates dwindled, the likes of El Rushbo and Laura Ingram flocked to support Mitt.  But Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was Romney's new found conservative movement.  In the end, things happened too late and Romney was reasonable enough to realize it was time to call it quits.

Now, allow me to turn my sights on Mike Huckabee.

Dear Mike Huckabee, nobody cares.  The longer ole' Mike stays in the race the more Ron Paul appears to be normal.  While Huckabee has become nothing more than a Republican side show to John McCain, it is almost to the point of embarrassing.  What's sad about the state of his candidacy is the fact that it was he who triggered Mitt's early demise with an unexpected win in Iowa.  Oh well, let the man continue to waste his time and occasionally garner some media attention for the GOP primary.  At least I'll still have a choice when I vote in the North Carolina primary on May 6th.

And, finally, onto the Barack/ Hillary fiasco.

It almost makes me sad that Hillary Clinton is losing.  I mean, who would have thought that enough people would have found "hope" to be substantive enough of a platform to run a successful presidential campaign on?

In an "anyone on the Republican ticket" v. Hillary match up the victor would have been clear.  However, with a McCain v. Obama head to head in November, McCain is going to have to painstakingly point out to America why Obama is completely incompetent (as he's already begun doing).

Although I'm sure I missed A LOT in my attempt to sum up the past few weeks in presidential politics, it's after midnight and I keep thinking about my homework that won't get done.  Be sure, though, that I will post again tomorrow (and the next day, and probably even the day after that).

Dear main stream media

Your job is to inform the public.  Throughout the history of this country (since before it was a country, actually), you have been charged with the task of informing the public.  Although today you certainly make the public aware of goings on, you do so with a bias; I find this bias to be unacceptable.

Tonight's Super Tuesday election coverage was an absolute disgrace.  Throughout the night you made known your choice for a Republican presidential candidate.  Despite polls clearly showing a victory for Mitt Romney, you continued to put off projecting him the winner.  Regardless of his 14 point lead with over 80% of the precincts reporting, you chose, instead, to allow the totals to accumulate until you had no choice but to secretly put a check next to his name and bury him under the state totals for John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

If you looked around any of the news sites this evening, you saw a clear slant.  While everyone was enthralled with the Hillary-Obama showdown across the country, attention was diverted from the GOP race: the main stream media having already declared McCain the victor (a few days in advance, no less).

The interesting thing, however, is that it wasn't just Mitt Romney who did better than expected.  Mike Huckabee wowed pollsters, too.  Of course the effect that Mr. Huckabee will have on Sen. McCain's overall delegate count will be played down as producers all across the country attempt to portray Mitt Romney as the day's loser.  Instead, we will see phrases such as "Huckaboom II" plastered throughout the network sites, left-center leaning blogs and liberal daily newspapers.

While I'm not asking anyone to embrace a particular candidate, I am asking for fair coverage and treatment of all.  At the very least, it should be done out of respect for the voters

On Oprah

I was scrolling through the video section of RealClearPolitics.com today and decided that I was bored enough to watch clips from a Barack Obama rally (as if being at one in person wasn't scarring enough).  The first clip begins with his wife, Michelle, speaking.  Fair enough- I would hope that my spouse speaks at my presidential rallies when I run for president.  But the second clip is Oprah.

Now, I love the talk show diva just as much as the next guy, but after watching a few minutes of the YouTube video I can now say that I prefer her in front of an audience watching Tom Cruise jump up and down on her couch.  Simply put, Oprah is out of her element.  What expertise does Oprah have that suddenly makes her a persuasive political pundit?  Just because millions of Americans tune into your show each day does not qualify you to be an expert in presidential politics.

The sad thing is, however, that Oprah is not alone in her attempt to use star power to influence voters this election (or previous elections).  The scary thing, on the other hand, is that their star power actually works.  Although Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg are certainly entitled to their opinions, I'm not sure they are any more entitled to grandstand on national television for their favorite candidate any more than I am (and I'm relegated to this here blog).

This year's real constituency

Last night I was visiting with a friend at a retirement home in my hometown of Fayetteville.  This lady is absolutely wonderful and I enjoy having discussions with her (our discussion last night went on for nearly two and a half hours!).  For the first time since I've had the pleasure of knowing her our conversation turned to politics.

"I don't even care who about I'm going to vote for yet," she said.  "They all sound the same to me."

Although I may not agree with her, many Americans do and I certainly understand her point.  To the average citizen, who doesn't spend their day on realclearpolitics.com or at least peruse Carl Cameron's vlog on the Fox News website once in a while, this election may seem to have become stagnant.  As each side narrows their fields down to two clear front runners (sorry Ron and Mike), the race becomes less of an adventure and more of a battle where two candidates fight to see who can repeat the same rhetoric more often.  On the Democratic side we even have the two candidates fawning over each other as though they're long lost relatives.

While that certainly cannot be said for the GOP race, we certainly beginning to see the same old lines over and over again.  Yes, John, we know you think Mitt "wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq."  We also know that you're a veteran and that you think such a status entitles you to never be questioned on any part of your record ever.  And you, Mr. Romney.  We realize that you can "bring together the conservative coalition."  Yes- we got that you spent a lifetime working in "the real economy" (isn't that a clever phrase?) and we know you have a picture perfect family.

Even the messages of change are beginning to grow stagnant.  Although Obama may have laid claim to it first, it was quickly snatched up by Huckabee, Clinton (of course someone who IS washington can change it) and, most recently, Romney (I tend to put my trust in the latter).

Before candidates can begin to fight for voters in November, they're going to have to get their attention.

Goodbye John

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.  Finally, this morning, John Edwards withdrew from the presidential race.

I'm not sure I really blame him for staying in as long as he did.  In fact, I half expected him to stay in longer and use his delegates to broker a deal in his favor at the convention late this summer.  But after hearing the news of a spot already being reserved for him in the Obama administration as Attorney General I guess staying in the race isn't really necessary after all.  Whether he was staying in the race to gain power at the convention or not, I believe that he served a purpose.

After the debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute in Myrtle Beach last week I had a chance to do a one-on-one interview with Edwards's senior advisor Joe Trippi.  Not surprisingly, his overall message seemed to echo what his candidate tried to remind everyone of throughout that night's debate: that there were three people left in the race- and the third person wasn't staying in just for the fun of it. 

I feel as though John Edwards hung around as long as he could to be a constant reminder that the presidential race wasn't about race or gender or slum lords or executive boards but, rather, about substantive issues.  Whether you agree with Mr. Edwards or not (I, of course, do not) you have to applaud him for not being so willing to lay down for the Clinton-Obama steamroller that seems to have run over this year's presidential race.

His departure, however, was certainly inevitable.  Now, lets hope that his people call Ron Paul's people and maybe even manage to convince Mike Huckabee's people that their campaign is become more and more of an exercise in futility too.

Stuck in the past...

Is it 1960?  No, it must be 1980.  Of course not! Apparently it's 2008.

Not that you- or anyone else who has been paying attention to presidential primary race- would know.

I was listening to sound bites of Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama today on Rush Limabaugh's radio show.  After listening to the clips I realized that the Republicans aren't the only ones who are running on a platform of their forefathers.  While the GOP field is clinging tightly to Ronald Reagan, it seems that the Democrats are hanging ever so steadfastly onto John F. Kennedy.

Neither of these men are bad choices for presidents that current candidates should cling to.  In fact, it is probably fair to make some comparisons between JFK's ability to bring together this country and Barack Obama's rally of mainstream America.  Mitt Romney may be doing a standup job of molding himself into the candidate that can unite the old three factions of the Conservative Coalition.  Both of the latter, though, are also running on a campaign of change (albeit one long before the other).

But change is not a theme that stops with Barack and Mitt.  Hillary Clinton is advocating for change.  Mike Huckabee says that hope can bring change to his White House.  John McCain wants to change the way the federal government doles out money.

Can any of these candidates actually deliver?  Is change actually on any agenda?  I don't believe so, not when that change is going to come through presidents who served decades ago.

If there is one message I wish the candidates to glean from this point (because I'm sure their senior staffers are glues to this blog), it is that their messages should synchronize.  Or, if all else fails, the Romney camp should realize that one can only say "I'm going to re-unite the Conservative Coaltion" so many times before America gets tired of hearing it.

Dear South Carolina

Thank you.  

Over the past week you have brought out the true colors of the Democratic party.  Without you, the world would still be left thinking that Barack Obama just wants to hope, Hillary Clinton just wants to better America (as she chokes up with emotion conveniently a few days before the New Hampshire primary) and John Edwards just wants to help poor people.

Alright... John Edwards does just wants to help poor people, but the other two have began to shed their campaign messages of hope and happiness and have started to go at one another.  Of course, as a Republican I couldn't be happier.

The real culprit behind all of this is Hillary Clinton (or maybe her husband- I can't remember who's running).  Faced with an almost certain loss in South Carolina, the team devised a strategy to polarize the state's electorate to the point where nobody could expect a win from anyone but Obama, who gains a favorable advantage from being Black.  Their strategy for losing South Carolina is kind of like Mitt Romney's- only less laid back and meaner.  Rather than just accept a loss, they've created a reason for it.  "We're not Black," they're chiming.  Even as Bill walks the streets of Black neighborhoods, he knows that the stunt is a futile effort at coming off as gaining favor within the Palmetto state's Black community.

I was at Zion Baptist Church- one of the state's oldest Black Churches- in Columbia, South Carolina for the NAACP's MLK Gospel Service last Sunday covering the election.  A planned appearance by John Edwards is actually what brought me to the church.  As I walked around the pews looking for someone who would let me interview them, I asked one lady if she was an Edwards supporter.  "I used to be," she said, "because he was for helping the poor.  But then Barack Obama started doing well and I just have no choice but to vote for him."

Everyone who has a shred of a clue knows that Barack will carry the heavily minority state.  Bill and Hillary have just decided to exemplify that fact.

No matter, though.  Please continue ripping your party apart on the lines of who-supports-who while the Republicans quietly duke it out in Florida and then go onto Super Tuesday.  Maybe by the summer whoever gets the nomination will have alienated one portion of the party so badly that a Republican victory is but assured (even if, by a freak accident, Ron Paul were to get the nomination).