Photo credit: XinHuanet/ AFP

In this election, two horses have been chosen to run the track to compete to win for a stay in the White House. The white horse is represented by the Republican Party, John McCain, who is the senior United States Senator from Arizona, while the black horse is represented by the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, who is also the junior United States Senator from Illinois as the election nominees respectively.

More media coverage, both locally and globally, plus the Americans themselves, and the world have utmost enthusiasts to know who'll be the hero in this presidential election. Does Barack Obama have more horse power than John McCain or vice versa? Who'll end up moving into the White House to become the United States' 56th president, Obama or McCain?

Photo credit: XinHuanet/ AFP

First, of course, there's Obama, a son for a white mother and a Kenyan father. His favorite food is chilli and he's good at basketball. His strong supporter, Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a talent to solve crossword puzzles. These two American idols have now captured global attentions. Their popularities and fames, particularly Obama, has been extremely rated high by the media and publics as compared to his opponent, McCain. The desire rate to vote for John McCain, according to the latest statistic, is very low. That means before the real 2008 Presidential Election on November 4, Obama has won himself the first ticket in people's heart.

Photo credit: XinHuanet/ AFP

Being BLACK is one thing for Obama, but his young, active, optimistic and enthusiastic will definitely breathe the life back into the dilemma of the “land of the free, home of the brave”. His winning in the nominee of presidential election shows that Americans can now accept the BLACK, and can now live harmony with the BLACK community. This is a good sign as compared to the worst conditions that the BLACK people had to face before the era of the President Lincoln, in which the discrimination between BLACK and WHITE was so obvious. Nowadays, as our world has stepped into the stage of globalization, the color shouldn't become the obstacle for the progress, growth and well-being of the mankind.

Photo credit: XinHuanet/ AFP

I'm sure that Obama is not making history for his race alone, but he's showing his voice for all Americans for the problems they're facing now. I do believe that he's making history for America in terms of his ways of thinking, how he carries himself, but the foremost thing is how his prominent role in a global stage.

Photos credit: Xinhuanet/Reuters

McCain in contrary to Obama, he is a bit old fashioned in his thinking. His old fashioned way of thinking, of course I'm sure is not the key element that all Americans need for a fast paced economic growth and technology based living. Though he is a smart person who has a great political head on his shoulders, his charisma and energy to rule America will not that much of Obama. If McCain is selected for President, then he's making his history as the oldest American nominated for a presidential post. Governor Sarah Parin will run her Vice-President duty on the Republican side, who has bended herself into the melting pot of gender equality, maverick politics and working-class. And they must have showed the world the different faces standing proudly in front of the White House.

Photos credit: XinHuanet/ AFP; Xinhuanet/Reuters

McCain is a war veteran with all his philosophies dealing much with the war. Of course, he has a brilliant mind in his dominating field of foreign affairs which seem to rival his competitor, Barack Obama. McCain stands still for his strong platform of unconventional politics, experience and military allegiance. Nevertheless, due to his age of 71, his presence in this election is regarded to be an unusual. Despite of his old age, he has an unprecedented energy and stamina. But, even so, his age has made him to be unfavorable for the winning ticket in the White House.

Photo credit: Xinhuanet/Reuters

I think Obama would be influential particularly in his thoughts of energy independence, technological improvements for deprived and rural communities, racial equality, universal healthcare, culminating the war in Iraq, and reformation for the political system. In contrast, McCain is a type of person who does not have the strongest strengths of commitment to change America, as his speech is focus more on wars rather than emphasizing for the society's needs to look for a change. I truly believe that Obama could play his role and commitment to change the tendency in Washington as in his speech he said he wishes to turn America in a position that it has never been before. This change of position is with regards of the position of the self-discovery as well as the position to gain the respect around the globe. I' m amazed and inspired by Obama's speech when he comments on statements made by his reverend Wright, which is another aspect showing his excellent leadership. Indeed, the capability to transform the tone of Washington lies more obviously on Obama than McCain. Obama has 101 reasons to strive to bring people's good living condition, high-quality of the America ahead of his good quality of the good tongue.

Photo credit: cnsphoto

Americans have been very upset of the incompleteness, arrogance and deception of the Bush administration. They place on little hope to the present situation as most of their personal incomes have almost dried up. They've more than thousand words to express their frustrations with regards to corporate corruption, the downfall of the share market, the rise of the petrol's price, bipartisan bickering and declining dependability. Americans in general, hope for a president who can voice for their present problems, besides having fresh ideas and fresh thinking to bring the better tomorrow for the United States. Peace and growth in America means the growth and peace for the world.

Photo credit: Xinhuanet/Reuters

For most Americans, it doesn't matter if Obama is inexperience as they wish for a change. The financial crisis has benefited Obama as people were annoyed with the failure of the Free Market. Americans have to pay for a very high retirement plans, education fee and even for their home mortgages on the account of the failure of deregulation and poorest function of the Free Market. People have long desired for a better leadership or perhaps better future, something different from the current situations. The change for America is in demand. The politicians are too corrupt which requires for an immediate change. And thus Americans are now looking for someone who can turn their country into a new direction. Harry S. Truman once said, "Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better." This is why I perceive this election is a tremendous change as it offers people for the change of better tomorrow.

Photo credit: cnsphoto

If Obama is elected for President, he has succeeded to change the America's history. Mr. Obama you make your history, brilliant! Have my claps!!! Besides this new history, there'll be another new history for the United States - the Vice-President is a woman. Should I call her “White” woman or perhaps what? I just say this election stand-off is between the BLACKS and the WHITES as neither an African American nor a female has achieved the offices for President and Vice President in the American history. This eventual winning ticket is indeed to be historical for all Americans and for the world in general.

Photos credit: Xinhuanet/Reuters

While Obama and McCain are racing for presidential post, most of the Americans are struggling and suffering for seeking employments, facing with the pressure of high fuel price, and wondering around the streets. Both Obama and McCain should address their concerns very promptly and accurately. They, Americans, hope for more responses from their future Mr. President. This is Mr. President's role not to escape to answer all the questions, but he has to address his sincere concerns towards the Americans in a more positive and appropriate context.

Photo credit: Xinhuanet/AFP

Again, this is a historical event for all Americans and also for the world. Whoever gets elected will have to face the first toughest task as he has to clear up 8 years of George W. Bush's terms. Either Obama or McCain will have to show the Americans their capability to bring the America's economy back to the track to where people can afford to survive.

Photo credit: Xinhua

The way of Bush's handling the problem with military means will not solve the global problem, but it'll make the situation becomes worst and worst. The cases of Al-Qaeda and terrorism seem not to be reduced with the military pressure, but the situation is getting worst. The Iraq war has left large casualties both for American soldiers and other parties. The financial difficulties for the United States are due to much money have been spend for supporting the Iraq wars and thus expenditure is more than the print dollar to compensate for the losses; secondly, the rising prices are due to the greediness of certain speculators and despotic oil rich countries causing the fall in dollar's value; thirdly, more money are engrossed to solve other people's problem rather than rebuilding its own economic structures in America; and fourthly, the greedy speculators have been allowed to take advantage of American families who simply want to earn some pieces of lands there. The new President should be capable enough to take over his job by intending to fix all these problems. This task is important to win back every American's heart towards his role as the Mr. President of the United States while securing the confidence and trust of the investors and the world towards this giant country.

Photo credit: cnnetnew

As for my opinion, whether it be white, black, yellow or any colors, it doesn't matter much, as long as the selected president is capable to bring the progress to the country, in which the economy is stable, people have jobs and live peacefully, living conditions are good, share market is reliable and stable, people's health conditions are good and etc. As my slogan goes, who's capable, she or he will be Mrs. or Mr. President in the United States or any countries.

Photos credit: XinHuanet/ AFP

This election has made a change for America. No woman has ever served in the White House. Both Sarah Parin and Mrs. Clinton have turned up as the female candidates. Though Mrs. Clinton fell short of her victory with Obama, she is just like Sarah Parin have opened the door for the future female candidates to step through, in which I believe it is the promising factor for female to become the President of the United States in the coming future.

The peace and economic growth are both important elements for America and the world as well. The Americans shouldn't discriminate among each other just because of the color. How can all the Americans live peacefully if they still divide each other among themselves? Similarly, the world should follow the example not to discriminate each other so that all the nations can be united for the betterment of the world.

Photo credit: koreanewnet

Any predictions in this momentous election are pointless as the situation sometimes will change on the real polling day. It's still too early to say who the winner is in this fight. No matter who comes out as a winner, it'll be one of the most surprising results ever made for the American history of all time.

Wake up, Americans! Make your votes count and do select for the candidate that you think is capable to bring your country to the optimum economic growth. Don't repeat the same mistakes or else all the Americans and the world will be suffered! Vote for a better future on behalf of your country and also for the rest of the world, and do bring trust back of investors into America and your lives concerning your government as a whole. This is the time for you to change and to clear of all the disappointment towards the Bush's policies. The choices stand before you, America - it's time to pick an appropriate candidate. Make your decision based on the integrity, responsibility, reliability, morals and voice of your candidate.

To all Americans, my American friends and honorable American staffs at Triond, I wish you good luck for the 56th consecutive quadrennial United States presidential election on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Let me complete this article with a poem.

Together we stand shoulders to shoulders,

Together we sit round the table,

Together we move our brains and motions,

We're here with a mutual dream,

One World, One Dream.

The Berlin Wall has collapsed,

Between you and me,

No more gaps,

No more color barrier,

No more fencing barrier,

No more trademarks.

And we're now sharing one same sky,

With mutual hearts and beliefs,

Towards the betterment of tomorrow,

Heading to the excellent milestone,

Not far away from a place we're now standing.

We want the peace back to the world,

We want better life for our families and generations,

We want better jobs and payments,

But we don't want the nightmare of wars.

C'mon, friends,

Vote for your voices,

Vote for your rights,

Vote for your dignity,

And most importantly vote for your pride,

And too,

For your concerning government.

So the story runs, a few people are mentioned; perhaps you hear the candidate interviewed – once – on NPR (as if they dropped out of the race the day after). And then we forget about this Third Party nonsense until the next election cycle when someone dusts off the old, worn scripts, and the Libertarians make their return appearance as a useful, quirky space filler on a slow news day.

This morning I decided to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for President. I did it because I decided that a vote for either of the “major” candidates would be the real waste of my time. Let me tell you why:

I have voted for Democrats in every election since the first year I was allowed to vote, which was 1984. If the candidate was the Democrat, I automatically picked them. If there was more than one Democrat involved, I researched which was likely to cause the least damage and I voted for them. If there were no Democrats, I wrote in something derogatory about the Republican who was about to re-inherit his power without a challenger.

Why did I vote for Democrats? The reasoning shifted around a bit, but in the end it always boiled down to the same thing: The Democrat was not a Republican.

So far as I was concerned, the Republicans’ swing to the far right involved an idea of government I found morally intrusive. Without fail, the Republicans were openly espousing a frightening brand of intolerance born of pandering to the extreme conservatism of the so-called Religious Right.

Nothing of cultural value was safe from these people – they demanded the ability to legislate what art I could see (or make), which books were fit for sharing in a public setting, what ideas were “dangerous” and “un-American.”

They wanted to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. They wanted to tell men and women whom they could love and how, and imprison them if they disobeyed or discriminate against them if they did not adequately conform.

They demanded that the land be remade in the image of some vague thing they came to call “Wholesome Family Values.” And they had no wish to bring in this reform by using rational arguments and evidence – they simply wanted to put people into office who would rewrite the laws to suit their tastes and place judges on the bench who would enforce their interpretation of the laws.

In short, they wanted to legislate their personal morality without offering so much as a good explanation as to why I was supposed to think their ethical code made more sense than any competitor’s – that is, aside from the baseless claim they infallibly understand the mind of the Deity.

And the Republicans had this habit of making certain their cronies were served, that their wealthy contributors’ pockets were well-lined with government assistance of all sorts. No, they would not spend money on the poor; instead they redistributed taxes to the rich instead of having an open, honest discussion about just what the responsibilities of a good government might be and the proper use of taxes. Just as many see the Democrats as the party of irresponsible social welfare, I saw the Republicans become the party of equally irresponsible corporate welfare.

To my mind, the Republicans, with the advent of Ronald Reagan, were the more dangerous of the two parties – dangerous to the spirit of The Constitution and the hopes of the Founders. So I always threw my vote to the Democrat – as a protest against everything the Republicans stood for.

I also had a certain conviction: That the Democrats tended to cause less damage when in office than the Right Wing Republicans. My thinking went, since the Democratic Party was an umbrella party, they had a certain incapacity to easily agree about anything or readily cooperate. The outcome was (I thought) government that worked very slowly with little that was very extreme, one way or another, emerging at the end of the day. Liberalism in our country had gone out of favor, so this limited the power of anyone who leaned to the left so far as to be dangerous.

The point is, I saw the Democrats as a “safe” choice. I didn’t vote for their candidates because I liked any of them – I have yet to vote for a politician with whom I feel wholly comfortable or a platform with which I wholly agree. I never picked my candidates on the basis of personality – it was always with a hope that he or she would cause less damage than the Republicans seemed capable of inflicting.

Over the past 8 years, I have found myself increasingly faced with the probability my assumptions about the Democrats were wrong. I watched them roll over and give away our personal freedoms to the Bush Administration in the name of some illusory thing they called “safety”; I watched them help expand the power of the executive branch while surrendering the responsibilities of the legislative branch.

I heard the Democrats complain about the president and his policies, but at the end of the day I watched many of them bow down, unwilling to take a consistently principled stand of any sort on any issue, unable to ask any of the questions that needed to be asked about The Bush Doctrine, about The Patriot Act, about the National ID, about torture. They were pragmatists; their sole objective was to remain in office.

I have just watched a Democratic Congress sit around while the nation’s economy went into a slow motion train wreck over the past couple of years. They took no meaningful action, did nothing worthwhile, seem to have exercised no more oversight on this issue than they have with other issues of national importance.

And then the Bush Administration shoved the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (The Bailout) across their collective Congressional desk and demanded they get out the rubber stamp one more time and sign off on a huge shift of power and a tremendous redistribution of wealth to… a gang of irresponsible wealthy people.

As of today, both Houses of Congress approved this bill and President Bush immediately signed it into law.

I have just witnessed the Democrats and the Republicans cooperate to re-make our government, spend our tax money, lard up the bill with very questionable tax breaks, all without adequate time to examine the proposals in the bill or clearly think out the ramifications that will only become apparent as the months pass.

Certainly we civilians did not have an opportunity to educate ourselves and properly perform our role as holding the first office in a Democracy: Citizen.

Both candidates for president from both of the major parties, being senators, voted exactly the same way on this bill and never questioned it in any meaningful fashion… other than half-hearted swipes against President Bush to score a few points.

So I have had to re-think my vote, which was solidly for Obama. At this point, I have asked myself a serious question: Is my strategy of supporting Democrats against Republicans really doing much more than perpetuating the very situation I oppose?

After this episode in which both parties cooperated to expand the power of the executive branch in unimaginable and unknown ways one more time, I am afraid I have decided the answer to my question is, “My votes have done little more than contribute to the loss of the possibility of any real change in our country’s perilous situation.”

The Republicans and Democrats have written the rules to favor themselves, concentrate all institutional power in their hands. As long as no one opposes them in the name of ideas that vaguely resemble the values that inspired the Founding Fathers, voting for one of them is nearly the same as voting for the other.

Each is more than happy, when hard choices must be made, when crises must be faced, to attempt to legislate their way out of the difficulty. And there will always be hard choices and crises – that is why we have government. But as long as the two parties can count on getting my vote, neither has to radically re-think its motives or really consider anything as impractical as ideas and principles.

They are wasting my time.

So I have decided to vote for the Third Party candidate, the Libertarian, Bob Barr. Again and as usual, it has nothing to do with his personality and charisma. But this time it does have to do with principles. I do not wholly agree with the Libertarian Party platform – but, then again, I’ll never wholly agree with many groups in this world.

But I absolutely agree with them that the Founders created a country based on the idea that no one in government should be allowed to have very much power, because politicians can’t be trusted to use power wisely outside a system of strict checks and balances, and outside The Constitution and the laws. I firmly agree that, ultimately, the most important force in a nation is its citizens, and that it is only by the citizenry choosing to be responsible, educated, and ethical that a just government and a proper society can be created for future generations.

I agree that it is not the government’s business to tell me how to live beyond a certain minimal level necessary to keep peace and promote a proper sort of tolerance. I agree that many things need to be re-examined in our nation, our values, our beliefs – and that politics cannot achieve this. If this is to be done at all, it must be done as free people thinking for themselves, using social, not governmental, institutions to achieve as many of their aims as is possible and reasonable.

Will my vote be wasted? Quite the contrary; I am voting for a better future. I have decided to cast a vote to show I am through playing the rigged game the two major parties have set up for me, the one in which I surrender my will and my judgment and slave away to provide the tax money for whatever “project” or whatever restrictive “law” these people decide to concoct. All while ignoring my letters and phone calls… and yours too, perhaps.

I am casting a vote for a different game – the one the Founders agreed on, the one that respects my value as a rational human, the one that limits, not expands government, the one that keeps theocrats and tyrants of all sorts from improperly affecting the laws. I’m going to vote for the Libertarian Bob Barr, not because I like him, but because I cherish these ideas, and because the Republicans and Democrats don’t care about these things at all in practice, regardless of what they may preach.

Evidently, the Libertarians are asking for an opportunity to show me they will act on these principles. I’m going to support them till they show me otherwise.

There are worse ways to spend your time and vote.

Richard Van Ingram

3 October 2008

California will supposedly repay the 3 billion dollars in overdue Medi-Cal money to the providers once a budget is signed, but that does not help providers in the meantime. It will not stop supply providers from cutting credit off, patients from doing without, and businesses from going bankrupt. By failing to pass a budget, they are also affixing yet more debt into their budget. Most proposed tax increases or program cuts can not be retroactive. Therefore, they could be adding up to another billion dollars to their deficit.

Some larger providers argue that they would rather wait for an acceptable budget, rather than rushing into an inadequate budget that would eliminate adult dental services, optometry, podiatry and psychology, and cut Medi-Cal rates by 10%. Organizations like Planed Parenthood agree. However, these organizations are getting loans through the California Primary Care Association. Small providers and mom and pop facilities have not been able to get these loans and since the mortgage crisis hit, it has become nearly impossible to get a business loan.

Lupe Henry, co owner of 12 homes for disabled children, told the Contra Costa Times “"It's not like we can cut corners. I can't tell my staff to come back in two weeks or reduce the amount of food we buy.” She is right. Over 50 caregivers at Sunnyside Convalescent Home, in Fresno Ca., are planning to go on strike starting Sept. 15. The workers say it has been a month since they got paid. The owner says the budget stalemate is the reason he is unable to pay the workers. The owner also says he has used his entire personal savings and even put his house up for loans. Casa Healthcare, which provides care for disabled children, has also suspended pay checks due to lack of funds. These are just a few of the medical facilities that are in dire times. I fear soon we will see this in unimaginable multitudes if something is not done. Furthermore, services that provide these small medical businesses with supplies are not going to go on credit and minimum wage employees can not afford to live on credit. I wonder what the Ca. legislators think will happen to these disabled children when they are not getting diapers, medicine, attendance, or even food? What will happen to all the medical field workers that will soon be forced into unemployment?

The medical community is not the only ones that will suffer from the complete ineptness of the Ca legislature. Cal Grants, Community colleges,Transportation, and K -12 special education programs will also not have money for their programs. That will be 12 billion dollars that will not be available for the above.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told the media that he would wait until winter to sign spending bills into law, if necessary, to get what he considers a decent budget. At the beginning of September, a Republican proposal to release emergency funds to service providers was rejected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He cited it as fiscally irresponsible and said it would precipitate a cash crisis, emptying state coffers of billions of dollars at a time when reserves are low and the usual bridge loans can't be accessed because there is no spending plan. I say…. the human suffrage is too high a price to pay, while the politicians in California play a shell shuffle game with funding and budgets.

The way it looks, the newly powerful Democratic Party has done an almost impossible mission since the Clinton years. I mean, the Democrats have pretty much sealed the fate and covered every issue important to all voters with their selection. So, getting back to my main point. Can John McCain and the GOP reciprocate a comparable match? But more importantly, can they make the American people believe in them?

I think there are only two choices John McCain can do. The first one is to actually find a running mate similar to O'bama. The next would be to find a running mate and just not respond to counter O'bama. To me it is apparent that each time they bad mouth O'bama, he picks up more steam and popularity. I mean, there are actually Republicans who are willing to crossover to vote for O'bama. It's that historic! My suggestion to the GOP, play this one cool!

I will check my mailbox periodically to collect all the checks you are mailing. A Brinks Armored Car will take them to the bank for me. While I wait for your checks to arrive, let's continue to discuss Hillary and her future with the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton does not need Barack Obama and I personally believe the Democratic Party needs her more than she needs them, right now anyway. She can win a Presidential election without the block of voters who support Obama but will not support her. The gotcha is that Obama cannot win without the block of her supporters' votes that he is likely to lose. Her supporters that will not vote for him are greater than his supporters that will not vote for her. It is a numbers game and elections are all about the numbers.

It is surprising that more of the super delegates did not see the aforementioned truth when they were busy lining up behind Obama. It is a testimony to the number of super delegates who do not like the Clintons. It is also evidence that many of those super delegates are not in touch with the wishes of their party's majority. Those super delegates forgot that the final word comes from the masses that vote, not the supers themselves. Many of those supers have to count on the masses vote to get re-elected and some of them are in for a big surprise.

You can stir those two states that wound up with half their delegates being seated any way you want to stir them and I do believe that Hillary would have won the most votes in those states. She did in fact win the popular vote and the majority of the states that really matter in the general election. Granted, a few of those states will fall to Barack because the states vote overwhelmingly for democrats.

However, there is one or two states that he may lose and those could be the difference between election and a concession speech of his own. The Hillary factor could definitely make the difference in a couple of swing states. The first woman President's supporters may make a greater difference that a first black President's supporters. We need to stop dodging that race factor. There are more people in America who will not vote for a black person than there are people who will not vote for a woman.

Are those who will not vote for a black candidate racist… yes! Just like those who will not vote for a woman are chauvinistic. We can make race discrimination and gender discrimination illegal with as many laws as we want, but you cannot make someone who is a racist or a chauvinist walk into a voting booth and vote for a black candidate or a woman if they are prejudiced against either of them. Voting for the candidate of ones choice is something that sets us apart from many other nations on earth.

With respect to Hillary Clinton's place in the Democratic Party, it is cemented much more than the future of Barack Obama. She is solid in her Senate seat from the state of New York and is on some very powerful committees. She is in a position to make herself even more attractive to her party in 2012. The super delegates who abandoned her this time will clamber to her four years from now. That chosen messiah they cling to now does not walk on water and they will realize that on November 4, 2008.

Think about it, if McCain wins the White House and congress is still controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats the gridlock will make the McCain administration seem like a losing cause to America. It is unfortunate that Hillary's age will not let her wait eight more years, but the truth is, her age will be against her, as the age of McCain is against him now. Add that age factor to the male chauvinist factor and she will not be electable in 2016, but she does still have a shot in 2012. That campaign kicks off on Tuesday night in Denver. Expect to see a few protest signs that read that very thing.

Okay, I need to go check the mailbox now for the checks you are sending. If you do not see another column from me you will know I got multiple millions of dollars and Deborah and I are on the beach in Hawaii. Otherwise, I will write again very soon.

History

Joe Biden received a Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law. He is a Roman Catholic. His first wife and an infant daughter died from a car accident in 1972. His two sons were badly injured, but eventually made a full recovery. Latter he remarried Jill Tracy Jacobs, and had a daughter. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County City Council. Then in 1973 he became the fifth youngest Senator in U.S history. Since then he has won every reelection to his Delaware Senate seat, making him the longest serving Senator in Delaware history. During his time in the Senate he has served on the Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. Over the years he has chaired and co-chaired many of the divisions within these committees and has been instrumental or the author of many laws and acts. Some of Senator Biden's accomplishments include: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act , Violence Against Women Act , RAVE Act, KIDS 2000 legislation, etc….

What Senator Biden Adds

So, what does he bring to the Obama ticket. First, he brings the foreign policy experiencethat Obama lacks. He can tout that he has been the ranking member and chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations. These titles have given him first hand exposure to foreign relations. In the 1990's Senator Biden made many trips to the Balkans and meet with Siberian leaders. He argued to lift the arms embargo, investigate the war crimes, and advocated for NATO involvement. Biden's argument was an instrumental element that convinced President Clinton to act on the human rights issues of the area. No doubt that Senator Biden has the references to go head to head with Senator McCain where Senator Obama does not. Second, he provides the age and white male factor. This year Senator Biden will be sixty-six years old. Therefore, he provides the “wisdom comes from age” contrast to Senator Obama's “fresh politics.” Third, Senator Biden has a son that is about to deploy to Iraq as a JAG officer (military lawyer.)

What Senator Biden Detracts

Now, what will he detract from Senator Obama's campaign. First, Senator Biden is going to have to do some major foot in the mouth backpedaling. Senator Biden at a Democratic debate: “This is not about experience. It's not about change. It's about action. Who among us is going to be able to, on Day 1, step in and end the war?” This quote along with many others directed at Obama's lack of experience and readiness are going to be hard to explain. Second, there is a stark contrast in that Senator Biden initially supported going to Iraq and Senator Obama's did not and has made that fact a key element of his campaign. Third, Senator Obama is running on a platform of change but, Senator Biden is a thirty year veteran of Washington.

Dirt

So what is the dirt on Senator Biden? In 1988 Joe Biden plagiarized a law review article while he was attending law school. Biden also had made claims to have graduated in the top half of his law school class, with three degrees, and on a full scholarship . Where as in actuality he graduated 76 th of 85, received two degrees, and had a partial scholarship. Then, in 1988 when Senator Biden was in the midst of his presidential bid, lightning struck twice. Parts of a speech were plagiarized from a previous speech by British politician, Neil Kinnock. Senator Biden when announcing his bid for the 2008 presidential race: “the first mainstream African American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Many African American were offended by this comment. Senator Biden: "I've had a great relationship with East Indians in America. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." This offended many Indian Americans.

My Theory

To sum it up………Senator Biden is one of the most experienced politicians out there, but also has a really bad case of foot in the mouth disease. . It would be hard to find a more vetted and well rounded running mate. However, the stark contrast between some of Obama's key platforms and Senator Biden's political decision history does not mesh well. The real question will be this: Can Senator Obama pull continue a “change” message while allowing Senator Biden to be the experience blow horn?

The first point I would like to make is his ability to generate interest among most young voters between the ages of 17-29. His gift for identifying with their concerns on education, world affairs and the economy while assuring them that they have a place in this country and that they matter. His talent for being able to reach them unlike the current president mirrors the legacy of John F. Kennedy who also brought hope to the young America of his day. In addition, Senator Obama plots his own course and is not afraid to go against the grain (establishment) which I feel why most young people today admire him so much. They too have strong opinions and will voice them without fear of repercussions.

The second reason he has so much appeal is the genuine message he conveys concerning a change of course and how we as a country should not be discouraged to face that change since the direction we have headed thus far has created a void within our own borders as well as with the world. An inclusive America can be somewhat of an oxymoron if one would look at how the politics of the last eight years has separated us. We are the United States of America and Mr. Obama has called us to live up to that. Blue and red states no longer exist as far as he is concerned because we are one people....one voice!

My third point I wish to discuss is his presence when dealing with world leaders as well as its people. I can't remember any U.S. politician having that much popularity in my lifetime. His credibility as well as pop star quality could be felt when he visited Germany where 200,000 people went to see this man who must have been larger than life to some Germans. Even with his trip to the Middle East there was some disappointment concerning Israeli and Palestinian conflicts but in most part the two sides did agree that Senator Obama did breathe new life into possible peace talks between the nations.

Finally, I would like to point out the pride in the African-American community about how this man has changed the face of black men and what their role could be in this country as well as families. Too many images of fatherless households have been ingrained in the minds not only in the black community but others as well which gives the impression that this is the norm. He has dispelled that with sharing his involvement with his two daughters and loving wife. In addition, older generations of black Americans are in awe that this man has a chance of becoming President of this nation, a dream they probably felt would not be in their lifetime.

In conclusion, Barack Obama stands for change not only for African-Americans but young and old alike. His entrance into this political race has increased voter registration as well as more people getting involved in politics to serve rather than be served. He also carries a torch for peace to our nations abroad with the message that change is coming soon and for the better. All I can say is....it's about time!

Barrack Obama's recent remarks about people of faith, who he describes as clinging to their guns and religion when they get frustrated, show how elitist the man is. If elected president of our country, this man poses a real threat to our right to bear arms.

The people of faith to whom Obama is referring are the common people of America. I am a person of faith - I try to live my life righteously, and I am an American citizen who has enjoyed our constitutional right to own and use guns all of my life - that's what many ordinary or common American people do in this country.

My faith is much deeper than Obama's shallow explanation. I like and appreciate my guns; I like using them, and I don't believe I am frustrated because of them. Most people I knew when growing up loved God and guns, and none seemed frustrated to me. Most of my relatives and friends have always enjoyed owning and using guns and most of them are of deep faith, but I don't think any of them are frustrated. If they are frustrated over something, it's certainly not God or guns.

Obama's remarks and attitude show how condescending the far left wing of the Democratic Party is of American's common people. Abraham Lincoln said, "God must love the common people because he made so many of them." Obama seems to be oblivious that America's population is made up mostly of common people, and that his remarks are insulting to them.

He doesn't know the people of this country at all. He knows the jet set, the limousine liberals, Hollywood bunch, save the whales and kill the babies crowd, but he is naïve about those outside these groups. He thinks the common people don't count and their opinions are unimportant. He must think they are so stupid that they don't know who he is talking about when he says things like this.

Obama tells us what he wants to do for us in America, but has very little respect for the ordinary or common people who represents a very large segment of the population. Would he ignore most of us and only represent the high-minded liberal ideals of the far left?

How could he be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces when he does not respect the very people who mostly make up the armed forces?

He makes these elitist statements and when challenged, says they were taken out of context, or some other flimsy excuse.

His wife's remark about not being proud of this country and his pastor's statements calling America the U.S.K.K.K.A. and his own statement about not wanting his daughter punished with a baby, should cause us to wonder what kind of a man Obama really is and what kind of a president he would be.

Would he not respect the religious beliefs of America and not take them into account in his agenda? And, would he be an anti-gun advocate pushing the effort to take firearms out of innocent citizen's hands?

Obama came from out of nowhere and America knows very little about him. We know he is a good speaker and has charisma, but little more. This does not make a particularly confident picture. America may be in great peril if this man becomes our next president.

 

Was it right for Hillary to play the game hard and fight to the bitter end of the primary calendar in spite of long odds? Of course. There were still primaries to be fought, pledged delegates and super delegates to be earned. I compare Hillary staying in the race with my guy, Mike Huckabee, staying in the Republican race until John McCain clinched it mathematically March 4. McCain won the nomination on January 19 when he won South Carolina. However, he did not clinch it until March 4. As soon as McCain did clinch the nomination mathematically, Huckabee graciously stepped aside and endorsed McCain. (That does not mean I have to.) Huckabee, like Clinton, got to taste victories and big ones between January 19 and March 4. He won the SEC (Southeastern conference) primary as I call it on Super Tuesday winning Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and his home state of Arkansas. On February 9, a few days later, he won Kansas by over 30 points. He showed that he belonged in the race, but left when the race was over. Hillary lost the nomination when Obama won eleven contests in a row from mid-February till early March. Hillary has had some big victories since then. They included Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania (big states) and Kentucky and West Virginia (big margins).

Hillary will lose credibility and “bargaining power” the longer she withholds conceding and endorsing Obama. She teased us last night in her speech and asked “What do I want?” and then she never answered the question. Is she trying to “save face” or does she want another job, like Supreme Court or vice-president? I can understand if she wants to be Obama's running mate. I don't think she does, but if she does, she needs to talk to him about it. If she really wants to make a stink about it, she could take her fight to be the Vice President to the convention. However, she is not going to be the nominee for President, at least not this year. She essentially has had almost a month for this to sink in. She needs to start the healing process on this that she will not need to call her drape person to fit drapes for the Oval Office.

The Democratic race was largely about identity politics (race and gender) and personality (experience versus change), but it was not about issues. Simply put, this is so because Hillary and Obama were almost identical on every issue. I am looking forward to the campaign of Obama vs. McCain as there are differences on almost all of the issues. We will look at these issues from the war on terror, foreign policy in general, taxes and other things for the next five months. Fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be another long ride!

This resolution seemed like a common sense solution to me. Rules need to mean things, namely both states went early and they needed to penalize the states for voting early. Had they restored both states full delegation and voting, that would have showed that violating rules for the DNC have no consequences. It appeared according to the rules that the Committee had to cut at least half of the delegates of both states. That is what they did; this is what they should have done in the first place. (I am a Republican in South Carolina; the Republican National Committee cut our delegates in half because we voted too early. I was upset about this. However, we had a robust campaign here as all the candidates showed up. John McCain won a close, but decisive victory over Mike Huckabee and then cruised to the nomination.) Upsetting Florida and Michigan voters is not a good idea as they are going to be huge states (remember Florida 2000) in November. It seemed to me watching from a distance that the Rules Committee made the decision that they should have made last year.

Restoring the delegates from Florida was an easier decision for the committee to make. They even considered restoring all of the voting rights of their delegation. The Florida Democrats did not make the decision to vote early. This decision came from the majority Republican legislature and signed by Governor Crist, a Republican. The Florida Democrats were caught in a bind and it appeared that there was nothing they could do.

Michigan was another story. US Senator Carl Levin led the charge to move the primary date up to an early slot. The Democratic legislature and Democratic governor Granholm pushed this change through. The Party had already agreed to penalize Florida prior to Michigan wanting to move their primary up. A harsher penalty for Michigan would have sent a string message for states to not break the rules on the scheduling dates in the future. Again, however, not restoring some of Michigan's delegates would have been more likely to lead to John McCain winning Michigan in November. So Michigan gets a slap on the wrist and not worse.

Michigan was also more difficult decision for the Rules Committee to make as Obama was not on the ballot in the decision for delegate allocation. Hillary won about 55% of the vote and Uncommitted took about 40%. Most of that vote was probably for Obama, some to John Edwards and some to the minor candidates. Hillary would have seemed to make a claim for 73 delegates (and she wanted the other 55 to be “uncommitted.”). However, in trying to figure out the intent of the voters, the Committee, relying on the presentation of Carl Levin, shifted the allocation to 69 for Clinton and the other 59 for Obama. This very well may lead to an appeal to the Credentials Committee at the beginning of the National Convention in Denver by either Michigan for not giving them the full vote or by the Hillary campaign for a different allocation. This makes it possible, maybe even probable that Hillary will not concede until she takes her fight to Denver and the convention.

We will have to see what happens with last primaries on Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota. I think that most Democrats wants this done and will push the last undecided superdelegates to go for Obama and take him over the top for whatever the “magic number” of delegates to win is now. The members of Congress will be under even more pressure to decide since the Congressional leadership wants this “done”. I could be wrong, but I see Hillary (even though she is beat) taking this to the bitter end. I'm a political junkie, so I'll be here watching and writing on it.