Will the Kennedy's Continue to Claim Maria?

It is a well known fact that the first lady of California comes from the well known Democratic Kennedy clan (as in JFK and dear old Teddy). It is also known that her husband is one of the more known leaders of the Republician party as the Governor of California. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall at Thanksgiving? It is going to get more interesting now that Governor Schwarzenegger has now expressed that he is supporting John McCain for president. This comes just on the hills of the Kennedy family declaring support for Barack Obama. And the web gets more tangled........ Governor Schwarzenegger is not having a lot of luck lately. His heath care bill is all but in the trash and the checkbook of California is completely overdrawn. He still has his looks, but most importantly (to John McCain anyway) he has his popularity.

The media, including Hollywood, could never be accused of being conserative. Very much on the liberal side, there is no question that the media has a great deal of input when it comes to elections. So much so that I am asking myself if the media is trying to get John McCain nominated? Just hear me out. A few months ago, little was know (and few cared) about John McCain, especially among Republicians. He is, what I would consider to be, on the far liberal side of republician issues and values. He could be easily beaten however by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Mitt Romney on the other hand, might just give the democrats a run for their money. Romney does have the consertive values and brings out the "traditional" republician ways. Many traditional republicians would have a much easier time voting for Romney rather than McCain. Another plus on Romney's side is the fact that he has pretty much an endless supply of cash, McCain on the other hand is running kind of thin and can use all of the support he can get. So if the liberal media can get rid of Mitt Romney, they know that either Hillary or Barack will be in the White House, thus maintaining liberal America. Crazy? I don't know......

And Another One's Down, Another One's Down, Another One Bites the Dust....

This is our goodbye blog dedicated to Rudy and John, who after loosing again and again have decided to step aside and let the big boys (or girl) continue to fight it out. I have to ask - Rudy, what happened to Florida? John, what about the poor and homeless, what will they do without you? The biggest question has already been answered by Rudy, who has selflessly thrown his support to John McCain, but we are on pins and needles waiting to see who will gain John Edwards supporters. Both Obama and Clinton tried to distance themselves from him earlier, but both are starting to court him with comments about how hard he fights for the poor and what a good race he ran. Since the race is so close, either would gain an advantage by gaining the support of Edward's followers. And talking about close race - there were only 5% points between John McCain and Mitt Romney in Florida. Now both parties will start gearing up for Super Tuesday where there will be elections in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.

"A President Like My Father"

Subtitle: "Don't Worry Dad - This is Not About You! You Are Head and Shoulders Above Any of The Candidates."

Sunday morning in the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy formally endorsed Barack Obama with her article on the Opinion Page entitled "A President Like My Father." This was followed later in the day by Senator Ted Kennedy expressing his support for Obama as well. These acts were a hard blow to Hillary, who counts the Kennedy's as long time friends, but will they make a difference in the election?

I think that they could. Although, my personal opinion for Ted Kennedy is somewhat low, he is the second longest seated senator and he does have the distinction of being the youngest brother of John Kennedy. Many of the older democrats (and others) still consider JFK one of the greatest presidents that ever served. This could be a huge swing for older democrats who have considered Obama to have too little experience - Kennedy does have the experience card. Obama has had a great amount of support with younger voters and this possible gain of older voters could help him greatly in the coming weeks. Caroline's article in the Times also could bring in some undecided voters who, like many today, consider JFK a hero, especially among blacks and minorities. The Kennedy name holds a heavy hand with Hispanic voters too, since one of Robert Kennedy's closest friends was Cesar Chavez.

I do see some similarities between JFK and Obama, one of them being hope. I think that JFK gave a lot of people hope for better times and I know that Obama is doing that. I listened to his speech yesterday after the South Carolina primary and it gave me chills in some points. There is no doubt that he and Kennedy will be known for their motivation and ability to get people excited and caring about something. I see that as a real challenge today - to get people to care about something, anything. When people start caring about things (other than themselves), it really does have the potential to change things.

Why the sudden support from the Kennedy's? Is it because they truly stand behind Obama or is it because Ted Kennedy has become increasing disappointed in the "Hill-Billy" campaign and their dirty tactics? He has been very vocal about his disagreement with the way Bill has campaigned and his opinion has apparently fallen on deaf ears with Hillary's people. Hillary also seems to be loosing some of the female support due to Bill's presence. According to many, women were pleased to see such a strong female character, but Bill's attempts to "take over" the campaign have disappointed many.

We were talking about our "personal voting history" yesterday and we cannot remember a single time we voted for a major democratic candidate. We have voted for some independent candidates before, but not democratic and certainly not in the primaries. (We are young though - we have each only voted in two presidential primaries, three presidential elections.) Could we actually go to the dark side this year?!!?? We laughed, commenting that it will depend on who is running the polls when we go vote - in our small town, some of the ladies from our church tend to preside over elections and I would hate to go to church on Sunday where everyone knew that "the Winter's voted in the Democratic primary!" But change looks good to us. The status quo is not very promising for middle class families, just trying to provide for their families and be comfortable. The health care system is in crisis and the social security system that we have paid into for a combined 30+ years won't help us as it currently works. We are worried not only for our future, but that of our child's as well. There is still a long time to go until the Texas primaries and the tables could be completely different by then. I guess we will see.......

A Perspective on Tragedy

The press has suffocated us during the past week with the "tragic" death of the young actor, Heath Ledger. From reports, Ledger was a young man who had a limitless future. He, according to neighbors, was a doting dad to his two year old daughter, and did not live the "Hollywood" lifesyle, preferring a quite, private life. Sensational journalism abounds, with speculation about the prescription medications found in his apartment and this morning the lack of details about his families decision to have a private memorial service and to bury him in his native Australia. Try as they may the press cannot seem to crack the private life and ultimately private death of this young man. One word continues to be thrown about and that is "tragic". Other actors have said that this is such a "tragedy". While I am sorry for the loss to his family, especially to his toddler daughter, and I am not unsympathetic to their loss, this is not a tragedy.

Webster defines tragedy as a disastrous event and tragic as a calamitous or disastrous. When you read the definition and then reflect on true tragic events, even the untimely death of a young talented actor is small by comparison. Lets talk about a tragic event that has been on my mind lately.

As I mentioned in my first post, I am kind of a military history buff. As the daughter of a Vietnam Veteran, I am especially interested in reading books about that time period. I am currently reading a book called Homecoming. It is an older book, written in the early 80's and contains letters by literally hundreds of Veterans and their families about their experiences coming back to the US from their tours in Vietnam. I am absolutely horrified to read of the stories of these brave men who had spent a year or more away from their families, returning to airports full of protesters who aimed their anger and frustration at these men returning from war. These men were called all kinds of vulgar names and many were spit on as they entered the airports. The anger and spit from these "Americans" was not reserved for those Veterans who walked into airports, it was also done to injured Veteran's who were taken off of ambulances and transported to hospitals. These men, risked their lives, many coming back injured and returned to an ungrateful nation. This is a tragedy.

There is no excuse for the behavior of these so-called "Peace-loving" individuals and I can only hope that they are haunted everyday for their actions. It doesn't matter why we were there, if we should have been there, or what the war was about. The hero's that left their homes and families were treated as the enemy upon their return. One Veteran described it very well when he said, "It was very ironic that these people were spitting on me - my willingness to fight gave them the right to spit."

I believe myself to be pretty balanced, I can read stuff and not really get too emotional. I am not the dramatic kind, but I have had to put this book down several times while reading it because my eyes were too filled with tears to see, because I was too angry to continue reading, and because I was literally sick to my stomach at the events. Any country that treats returning troops as the enemy, has gone beyond tragic.

I am so thankful to the men and women who have risked their lives for 200 years to make this the country it is today. It would never even cross my mind to say anything but praises and encouragement to those men and women and I cannot even imagine the deep anger someone would have to have to spit on them. I hope those men who came back from Vietnam know that they are hero's and that what was done to them by those ungrateful cowards is almost unforgivable.

Say a prayer right now for those men and women who have served and are currently serving our country and pray that a tragic even such as this never, never happens again.

And The Winner Is....The One With The Most Cash

There is no question that to campaign for president (or any other office) it takes a huge amount of money. Campaign fund raisers are part of the process and it is not uncommon for candidates to host $1000 a plate dinners or other events. Self-funding has also been something that has come to light more recently due to the huge fortune of Mitt Romney and the great deal of his own money he has put into the campaign. This is in strong contrast to Mike Huckabee's campaign where some of the team is refusing paychecks to help the strained finances there.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the candidate who has access to the most money has a much higher advantage of winning. With plenty of financial support, candidates can put out more radio and TV ads, they can travel more, they can travel faster, and they can hire more people to help with the campaign. The candidate that has access to the most money is not necessarily the one who will make the best person in office.

The recent reports of the millions of dollars spent by the campaigns leaves a sour feeling in my stomach. As part of the middle class, I really don't even know what $1 million would feel like, much less the $40 million that it is estimated some candidates have spent so far. I do know however how far we stretch our budget of much, much, much less than that and I know the value of even a single dollar. On the subject of finances, lets pit me up against any candidate. Who do you think would know how much a gallon of milk cost, a well child doctor visit, a well puppy visit (more than the well child visit!!!!), home owners insurance, car insurance, medications, the list could go on. Don't the majority of Americans feel their wallet crunch at the grocery store, the drug store, and the gas station? I can't be the only one, who could feed my family for nearly 20 years on $1 million dollars. It is the waste that breaks my heart and the amount of good that all this money could go for.

Campaign finance reform needs to do much more than just limit what individuals can donate to campaigns, it should limit spending.

Please, Just Tell Me The Truth

I can take any statement out of context and make it say anything I want it to say. The 2008 presidential candidates seem to have made a science out of twisting the truth and turning statements into something totally different than they were intended. I was looking for something else today on line when I stumbled upon a wed site that strives to separate the facts from the fiction : www.factcheck.org . You can look at some of the statements that some of the candidates have made and find out what the truth is behind them. It was really interesting to read some of the stuff that was listed and just how far some have taken statements to serve their purpose. I was however slightly disappointed (although not surprised) to find out that they are all guilty of stretching the truth to get ahead.

Hillary and Barack have both asked voters the question, "Don't you want a president you can trust? Don't you want someone who will not manipulate the truth or change their stance?"

Yeah, I do. Do we have any Independent candidates yet, because none of the current ones fit the bill.

Obama vs. The Clinton's Round Three

Wow! If you have any compassion in your entire being, you have to be feeling some for Barack Obama right now. He seems to be on the Clinton's hit list and they are not letting up. The Democratic debate last night gave Clinton and Obama another chance to tear each other apart, with John Edwards, the martyr, standing by saying how he represents the "Grown-ups of the Democratic Party" and "all of the bickering will not get children health insurance or help the economy" (One point for him - yes, I am admitting that John Edwards said something intelligent and that I agree with.) The three are buying for last minute undecided voters in the South Carolina democratic primary this Saturday.

I believe that the problems started when the Clinton team realized that Obama had a real chance to gain the nomination. Before him, I think they (along with a lot of other people in the US) thought that Hillary was unstoppable in her push for the White House. When the primaries started and they realized that Obama was really close to her in the polls and actually beat her in some of the early primaries, they got scared that they might loose. The Clinton's don't like to loose. As the gap in the poll numbers has closed in between the front runners, the attacks have gotten more vicious and much more personal, seeming to criticize every word out of Obama's mouth.

One of the latest "Obama Quotes" that has gotten under the Clinton's skin was where Obama was talking about wanting to be a president who makes an impact in the world. He said, "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of American in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not." Can you believe that he had the audacity to say that the Clinton presidency did not change the world? (If you know me, you would know that the previous sentence was said with sarcasm and the word "audacity" was emphasised in the sentence - there should be a universal symbol for sarcasm.) The truth is it didn't. Bill Clinton was a good president, but he did not do anything spectacular. The waters were relatively calm, he did not rock the boat, he cruised through 8 years in the white house. Congressional hearings and dealings with interns were all his doing and had nothing to do with making a difference on the world. Reagan on the other hand had the Cold War and the Berlin Wall among other events that made true change in the world. Obama said this and he was correct in this. Talk about a bee in the Clinton's bonnet. Not only did Obama "dis" the Clinton presidency, he talked supported about Reagan - ultimate treason for any good Democrat since Reagan continues to be a face for the Republican Party.

Something that makes this whole campaign even dirtier, is the involvement of Bill Clinton in the hateful remarks and personal attacks toward Obama. Eugene Robinson, writer for the Washington Post has dubbed Bill, Hillary's "cold-blooded political hit man." Senator Ted Kennedy, well known for being outspoken himself has joined with Congressman Rahm Emanuel, another leading figure in the democratic party, to tell the Clinton's to "stop attacking Barack Obama." and Representative James Clyburen from South Carolina said that "Bill Clinton needs to chill." Bill's behavior is made even worse by the fact that as a former president, you expect his demeanor to be more reserved and for his main priority to be to unite the party. Right or wrong he is held to a higher standard because of his position. Wait a minute? Don't we hold the president to a higher standard while in office? Isn't Bill Clinton the one making sure interns were taken care of in the Oval Office? I guess we are expecting too much.......

When asked about the former presidents behavior on Good Morning America, Obama said, "He has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a new level that I think is pretty troubling and I promise to directly confront him when he is making statements that are not factually true." I respect Obama for the way he has tried to continue to remain calm and I respect his right to confront Bill about untrue statements, but has he ever heard the one about winning a spitting match with a snake?

Last night during the debate, Hillary was asked about Bill's "new attack dog role" in the campaign, to which she replied that the "campaign is not about spouses. Michelle (Obama) and Elizabeth (Edwards) are staunch advocates for their husbands and I respect that."

Okay, Hillary, first of all Michelle and Elizabeth have been a quiet, strong support from the background with no attempt to overshadow or make the campaign about them. They have never once gotten up at a rally and attacked Hillary's record, professionally or personally (and we all know there is plenty that they could attack), nor have they made themselves the focal point of their husbands campaign. Having a spouse as a former president could be a huge advantage in a campaign, but the Clinton's have shown their true colors the way they have handled what would seem to be an upper hand in the election.

This has been a hard post, I am very disappointed in the Clinton's. I think that their tactics are becoming more and more immature and that if they continue to down slide, it could be a factor in a loss for them. This post was also hard to write because I had to write that I agreed with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy. I don't know which is worse.......