I just saw this great post which states:
While the media covers the news on Hillary Clinton as to why she voted to support for the war in Iraq from the beginning, they are forgetting that in June of 2006 she also voted to ''stay the course'' along with 42 other Democrats-much to my displeasure. While the 42 votes that day would not have been enough to beat the Republicans in order to change the course, Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to correct herself back then. That was 7 months ago.
After her vote in June 2006, learning that her supporters were watching closely and were astonished by her actions, she immediately bashed Rumsfeld at the very first opportunity she had calling the current administration ''incompetent''. Rumsfeld looked at her , curiously enough, as to say, ''I thought you were on our side?''
The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been on the current administration's side since the beginning and stamped her approval in June of 2006. Her votes are fact. Her actions now are that of a politician who now wants to ''start a conversation with the American people..'' and promises to end the war with no plan to present on how. Barack Obama reminds us of how he voted against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and has a plan here http://www.barackobama.com/iss… . Barack Obama says that whether they voted for or against the war in Iraq the first time, that the issue now is to take responsibility and challenges his fellow Democrats to present a plan that will bring our troops home.
I could not have said it better myself.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
"1984" - Hillary Clinton Video / Fictional Video Of Mit Romney With Paris Hilton?
I was talking with a person who's been following the story behind the now famous "1984" Hillary Clinton video and had some questions for me regarding it's impact on the 2008 Presidential Race. One of the questions was what this watershed video meant for the future of political campaigns.
My response was that the real concern is that we're in an era where someone can create a video that in effect "distorts history" by showing a political candidate doing something that in point of fact they never even did. Say a video showing Mit Romney grouping Paris Hilton in Las Vegas. The question is should such a video be removed from the video distribution system -- say, YouTube or Blip.tv -- it was uploaded to?
My answer is yes it should. But I think we should have a public discussion on this matter before it happens.
My response was that the real concern is that we're in an era where someone can create a video that in effect "distorts history" by showing a political candidate doing something that in point of fact they never even did. Say a video showing Mit Romney grouping Paris Hilton in Las Vegas. The question is should such a video be removed from the video distribution system -- say, YouTube or Blip.tv -- it was uploaded to?
My answer is yes it should. But I think we should have a public discussion on this matter before it happens.
Hillary Clinton's Sounding A Lot Like President Bush
I'm reading an article in the New York Post with the title "HILL REDRAWING HER BATTLE LINE" and which reports the following...
After recently vowing to quickly end the Iraq war if she becomes president, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now stressing a plan to keep some U.S. forces there indefinitely - a shift that analysts say shows she's feeling heat from both Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani.
Sen. Clinton's new tough stance is an attempt to convince voters she has the gravitas to be the first female commander in chief, political pros say.
Someone has to explain to me why Iraq's the center of terrorism. I view the 9-11 crisis -- which started this -- as a criminal act on the part of individuals, and not by troops under the direction of heads of state. So this entire approach is illogical. I can't understand why she's buying into this.
But her stance is one more reason I support Barack Obama for President.
The Post goes on to report that...
Political strategists say Clinton's harder-line posture - and acknowledgment that Iraq is vital in winning the broader war on terror and America's security - is a two-pronged approach. She aims to prove to primary voters that she has the seriousness and intellectual depth to overshadow less experienced rivals Obama and John Edwards, as well as the toughness to match up with GOP front-runner Giuliani.
Some of her claims mirrored those of the Bush administration. She told The New York Times, for instance, that a failed Iraqi state could serve "as a petri dish for insurgents and al Qaeda" and spiral into a wider conflict.
So realistically the best we can expect from "Hill" as the NYPost calls her is more of the same of what we got from George W. Bush?
Wow.
After recently vowing to quickly end the Iraq war if she becomes president, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now stressing a plan to keep some U.S. forces there indefinitely - a shift that analysts say shows she's feeling heat from both Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani.
Sen. Clinton's new tough stance is an attempt to convince voters she has the gravitas to be the first female commander in chief, political pros say.
Someone has to explain to me why Iraq's the center of terrorism. I view the 9-11 crisis -- which started this -- as a criminal act on the part of individuals, and not by troops under the direction of heads of state. So this entire approach is illogical. I can't understand why she's buying into this.
But her stance is one more reason I support Barack Obama for President.
The Post goes on to report that...
Political strategists say Clinton's harder-line posture - and acknowledgment that Iraq is vital in winning the broader war on terror and America's security - is a two-pronged approach. She aims to prove to primary voters that she has the seriousness and intellectual depth to overshadow less experienced rivals Obama and John Edwards, as well as the toughness to match up with GOP front-runner Giuliani.
Some of her claims mirrored those of the Bush administration. She told The New York Times, for instance, that a failed Iraqi state could serve "as a petri dish for insurgents and al Qaeda" and spiral into a wider conflict.
So realistically the best we can expect from "Hill" as the NYPost calls her is more of the same of what we got from George W. Bush?
Wow.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"1984" - Hillary Clinton Running Dangerous Campaign Against Barack Obama
FLASH: Hillary Clinton sounds like George W. Bush on Iraq.
This week marked the begining of politics in the 21st Century. Yes, I know it's 2007, but it took a good seven years for us to get to the point where one powerful video quickly seen by many can turn a Presidential campaign. That's what this "1984" video -- which to date no one knows who made -- is doing. Here's the video:
The video places Hillary Clinton in the interesting role of the controlling, demonic, anti-democratic establishment using the famous 1984 commercial that introduced the Apple Machintoch to the World during the Super Bowl. While the Clinton camp certainly doens't like the depiction, it's doing everything it can to make Senator Clinton look very much like the person represented in the 1984 spoof video.
The Clinton campaign has shown a desire to control and destroy. Control not just their message, but attack anyone who would make a statement that might even indirectly harm the Senator's Presidential bid. That person is Senator Barack Obama. If the Clinton campaign hasn't said it's surprised and threatened by Senator Obama's rise to power in the 2008 Presidential race, they're certainly acting like it.
The Clinton camp has done everything from try to potray movie mogul David Geffen as Obama's finance chairperson -- he's not -- to recently attempting to claim that Senator Obama's wasn't against the war entirely. That's a rough road -- the hardest off all -- because Senator Obama never came out in full support of the war, whereas Senator Clinton did.
Now, with opposition to the war at an all time high, she stuck between a rock and a hard place and not sure of how to get out. So, like any cornered beast, she's aiming for what she sees as her greatest tormentor -- Senator Obama.
What the Clinton Camp's doing is actually great for Senator Obama's run, because they consistently place him in the role of her challenger -- right now she's on top, but barely. And one rule of marketing is that if you talk about your competitor too much, people will eventually go to them and not you.
It explains in part why Senator Obama's gaining in the poles, although another explaination may lie in the recent Zogby pole, which claims that 46 percent of those polled said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton, and Senator Obama has the fewest anti-votes among women.
Think about that one while your watching "1984."
This week marked the begining of politics in the 21st Century. Yes, I know it's 2007, but it took a good seven years for us to get to the point where one powerful video quickly seen by many can turn a Presidential campaign. That's what this "1984" video -- which to date no one knows who made -- is doing. Here's the video:
The video places Hillary Clinton in the interesting role of the controlling, demonic, anti-democratic establishment using the famous 1984 commercial that introduced the Apple Machintoch to the World during the Super Bowl. While the Clinton camp certainly doens't like the depiction, it's doing everything it can to make Senator Clinton look very much like the person represented in the 1984 spoof video.
The Clinton campaign has shown a desire to control and destroy. Control not just their message, but attack anyone who would make a statement that might even indirectly harm the Senator's Presidential bid. That person is Senator Barack Obama. If the Clinton campaign hasn't said it's surprised and threatened by Senator Obama's rise to power in the 2008 Presidential race, they're certainly acting like it.
The Clinton camp has done everything from try to potray movie mogul David Geffen as Obama's finance chairperson -- he's not -- to recently attempting to claim that Senator Obama's wasn't against the war entirely. That's a rough road -- the hardest off all -- because Senator Obama never came out in full support of the war, whereas Senator Clinton did.
Now, with opposition to the war at an all time high, she stuck between a rock and a hard place and not sure of how to get out. So, like any cornered beast, she's aiming for what she sees as her greatest tormentor -- Senator Obama.
What the Clinton Camp's doing is actually great for Senator Obama's run, because they consistently place him in the role of her challenger -- right now she's on top, but barely. And one rule of marketing is that if you talk about your competitor too much, people will eventually go to them and not you.
It explains in part why Senator Obama's gaining in the poles, although another explaination may lie in the recent Zogby pole, which claims that 46 percent of those polled said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton, and Senator Obama has the fewest anti-votes among women.
Think about that one while your watching "1984."
Giants work Buy-Back Of Eli Manning's Contract
Giants exercise buy-back of Manning's contract- see my note at the Bottom
BY ARTHUR STAPLE AND BOB GLAUBER
Giants fans have complained about the team's unwillingness to spend in the free agent market, but they've invested heavily in their own players.
They not only re-signed center Shaun O'Hara to a five-year, $19 million deal just hours before the free agency signing period began on March 2, but they also spent big money to make sure that Eli Manning remains their quarterback for the next three seasons at least.
The Giants exercised a "buy-back" of Manning's contract earlier this month, Newsday has learned, to keep Manning from becoming a free agent at the end of the 2007 season. Newsday incorrectly reported that Manning's contract had been extended through the 2012 season.
Manning is still under contract through 2009, but the buy-back was a costly one.
According to league sources familiar with Manning's contract, the Giants gave him a $5 million buy-back bonus, as well as a $3 million roster bonus. His base salary for the 2007 season will be $6.45 million. It increases to $8.45 million in 2008 and $8.95 million in 2009. The six-year, $54 million deal in July, 2004, but the deal would have voided after four seasons because Manning had achieved play-time incentives in his first season.
Giants sources last night confirmed that the move was made, and that the team had planned the transaction well in advance.
A team source said the money allocated to Manning has not been a factor in the team's reluctance to spend big on free agents. The source indicated that there were simply not enough quality players available in free agency worth pursuing, and that the huge contracts earned by some players was not in line with what the Giants believed their value to be.
And My slant: This is Gigantic(no pun meant!) for the Giants front office, as Eli would have been a Free Agent after this season. For all the crying fans are doing, for better or worse Manning is the Future of this offense, and they should make sure he's happy.
BY ARTHUR STAPLE AND BOB GLAUBER
Giants fans have complained about the team's unwillingness to spend in the free agent market, but they've invested heavily in their own players.
They not only re-signed center Shaun O'Hara to a five-year, $19 million deal just hours before the free agency signing period began on March 2, but they also spent big money to make sure that Eli Manning remains their quarterback for the next three seasons at least.
The Giants exercised a "buy-back" of Manning's contract earlier this month, Newsday has learned, to keep Manning from becoming a free agent at the end of the 2007 season. Newsday incorrectly reported that Manning's contract had been extended through the 2012 season.
Manning is still under contract through 2009, but the buy-back was a costly one.
According to league sources familiar with Manning's contract, the Giants gave him a $5 million buy-back bonus, as well as a $3 million roster bonus. His base salary for the 2007 season will be $6.45 million. It increases to $8.45 million in 2008 and $8.95 million in 2009. The six-year, $54 million deal in July, 2004, but the deal would have voided after four seasons because Manning had achieved play-time incentives in his first season.
Giants sources last night confirmed that the move was made, and that the team had planned the transaction well in advance.
A team source said the money allocated to Manning has not been a factor in the team's reluctance to spend big on free agents. The source indicated that there were simply not enough quality players available in free agency worth pursuing, and that the huge contracts earned by some players was not in line with what the Giants believed their value to be.
And My slant: This is Gigantic(no pun meant!) for the Giants front office, as Eli would have been a Free Agent after this season. For all the crying fans are doing, for better or worse Manning is the Future of this offense, and they should make sure he's happy.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Fox News "In Focus" A Love Fest For Barack Obama - Telecast Gives High Marks To Senator
I'm watching Fox News "In Focus" where they ask the question "Will Wall Street Back Barack Obama." What I expected to be a conservative bashing of the Senator was anything but.
All of the panelists, including Steve Forbes, the Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Magazine gave Senator Obama high marks for being a fresh face on the poiltical scene. And at least two of the panelists were quick to bash the idea that Senator Obama would be too liberal for Wall Street. But all believe that it's time for the Senator to address specific economic policies. Steve Forbes thinks that he will have to be more specific here at some point.
They also focused on Hillary Clinton and how she would react to Senator Obama's popularity. The Fox panelists observed that her campaign is "ruthless" and a "machine" and would take its shots at Senator Obama, but one panelist said that Barack was tough enough to take it and keep on going.
But that aside, it was a refreshing Fox newscast. I'm really excited that the Senator can win the Presidency. The campaign should get a clip of this telecast and have it copied.
All of the panelists, including Steve Forbes, the Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Magazine gave Senator Obama high marks for being a fresh face on the poiltical scene. And at least two of the panelists were quick to bash the idea that Senator Obama would be too liberal for Wall Street. But all believe that it's time for the Senator to address specific economic policies. Steve Forbes thinks that he will have to be more specific here at some point.
They also focused on Hillary Clinton and how she would react to Senator Obama's popularity. The Fox panelists observed that her campaign is "ruthless" and a "machine" and would take its shots at Senator Obama, but one panelist said that Barack was tough enough to take it and keep on going.
But that aside, it was a refreshing Fox newscast. I'm really excited that the Senator can win the Presidency. The campaign should get a clip of this telecast and have it copied.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
CNN Trying To Ignore Barack Obama -- Why?
I am watching Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer right now and even though Senator Barack Obama drew a crowd of over 15,000 people in Oakland and held a massive fund-raiser at the Mark Hopkins in San Francisco, there was no mention of him in the discussion of presidential candidates on the program.
CNN didn't even report where Barack Obama was going to be on the campaign trail. They inforrmed us of Hillary Clinton's fund raiser in New York this evening and the events of five other presidential candidates. But CNN didn't even take time to report that Barack Obama didn't have a scheduled event for Sunday, and they've done that for other candidates in the past.
And when Wolf asked Donald Trump about the presidential election he didn't ask Trump for his view on Barack Obama.
It must be asked why is CNN trying to ignore Senator Barack Obama? Is it that they don't want him to win because he's Black? Hillary Clinton is not vastly ahead in any poll at all. It seems CNN has no problem focusing on Obama when someone brings up bad news -- and that doesn't stick at all.
Again, what's up? I thought CNN was supposed to be fair and balanced, and not Fox News!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)