HILLARY'S GAMBIT

I am slightly conflicted on how I should approach this piece. On one hand I believe everyone should get the benefit of the doubt and that without proof of guilt, they should be presumed innocent. However, I also believe that very few things in politics are accidental. For that reason I'm going to try to demonstrate for you a timeline of events that seems to be calculated by Hillary Clinton to get sympathy/support from fellow women. I think this is a good example of how politicians try to mainipulate us by separating us and playing on our emotions towards each other. I need to stress here that while the circumstantial evidence is strong, I don't have any info that this was in fact her intent. Just to be fair to Hillary.

This story basically starts in Iowa right after the Caucus. The numbers started coming in and as we all know it didn't look good for Ms. Clinton. The fact that Barack Obama beat her she could shrug off, but what I'm sure disturbed her was the number of women who voted for Obama. This is something that Hillary can not afford to let happen, women are counted on by the Clinton strategists to propel her to victory in the primary and then on to the Presidency. Without strong support from women, I don't believe she can win. So, (and here's where I'm making an assumption) I believe that people within Hillary's Camp decided to make an appeal to women through staged events.

The first one was during a event in New Hampshire with 16 undecided voters. Hillary was sitting at a big table in Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with the voters, who just happened to be mostly women. One of the women asked Ms. Clinton, (you can watch the video here) "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?" After claiming that she didn't always look great, Hillary then became emotional after reflecting,"You know, I have so many opportunities from this country [I] just don't want to see us fall backwards." Now, for Hill, this works on two levels; first she doesn't have to worry about being accused of being "overly emotional" since that will only unify women behind her. Second; her statement about having "opportunities" and her fear of a "fall backwards" is well designed to remind women that she is standing stoic in the face of a male dominated world. She then went on to a populous theme claiming her mission is, "about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together." There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

The second example I have for you is a little stranger. During Hillary's tour of New Hampshire, a male protester stood up and apparently unfolded a large sign that read "Iron My Shirt". To make sure everyone understood his sign, he also yelled his well-thought out slogan. Ms. Clinton, calm and undaunted, despite the fact that a man standing 20 feet from her with a clear shot was unfolding a sign, responded with, “Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well,” Even the Secret Service seemed to be a little slow to react to someone who could have easily have unfolded anything inside his poster. If you look closely at this picture you can even see the folds. The only other answer is that the Secret Service had already looked at the sign and was therefore unafraid. This begs the question; Then why would he be right upfront? One has to assume that someone, some where, said that was all right. Hell, even the press can't get that close to Hillary. Ms Clinton then finished her show with, “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.” The mostly female audience stood and cheered. Once again, a staged play for the female vote.

Now, I'm not faulting Hillary for trying desperate measures in desperate times, but let's call this what it is. I'm not even trying to say that she's the only one who would try such a thing (hardly, history is full of examples). But I am saying this; It seem to me that this is more than just a wonderful series of events that just so happened to work out in Hillary's favor. Given the timing, the numbers and the situation, it would take a leap of faith to believe this wasn't an orchestrated and frankly rather transparent attempt to win women back over by staging events. But, once again.....I don't have any real proof, so come to your own conclusion. H.C.

WHY ARE EX CLINTON AIDS DEFECTING TO OBAMA?

Question; What do Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Ivo Daalder, Sarah Sewall, and Greg Craig all have in common? The answer? All five are respected advisers who once worked for the Clinton Administration and now work for Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) on his presidential campaign. Now, if Ms. Clinton is the wonderful person that the left-leaning mainstream media wants us to believe, why are so many people who stood proudly with her husband fighting hard to keep her out of the White House? Could it be that the loud accusations that ex-Clinton political consultant Dick Morris has been making about Hillary are all true? One has to wonder.

Ever since Mr. Morris left the Clinton Administration, he has been telling anyone that would listen that Hillary is.....well, a bit of a bitch. Maybe I'm being too kind to Hillary there. Frankly, what Dick Morris has been saying is Hillary is a down-right evil, power hungry, backstabbing, vicious bitch who will run over anyone and say anything to become this nation's first female president. He wrote a book bashing the Clintons (Rewriting History) and another one bashing all the main Democrat Players and their shady ways (Outrage). After each book, Dick went out on tour, telling anyone that would have him ( Mostly just Fox News and right leaning talk show hosts) how evil the Clintons are. He must have struck quite a nerve as the George Soros funded (through the Democratic Alliance) media arm, Media Matters, went directly after Mr. Morris, attacking both him and his book. To be truthful, I always viewed Dick Morris as a disgruntled employee, mad at being cut out of the picture and now out for revenge. But the amount of ex-Clinton advisers joining Obama's camp has got me wondering.

So who exactly are these people? Let me go down the list. Susan E. Rice was the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, she was appointed by Bill in 1997. (Note that the Wikipedia site conveniently leaves Clinton's name out). Anthony Lake was one of candidate Bill Clinton's chief foreign policy advisers during his 1992 presidential bid. Following Clinton's 1996 reelection victory, Lake was nominated by President Clinton for CIA Director but was turned down after Republican objections. Ivo Daalder was in the Clinton administration from 1995-96, he served as director for European Affairs on President Clinton's National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordinating U.S. policy toward Bosnia. Sarah Sewall served as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance during the Clinton administration, and finally, Greg Craig was Clinton's lawyer during his impeachment proceedings.

Now, the question I have for all of you to chew on is this: Why have so many people who have faithfully advised, even defended, Bill Clinton during his years in the White House, joined up with a little known freshman Senator from Illinois to hopefully stop Hillary from becoming our next president? You know, I'm not sure I have the answer, but it is making me take a second look at all Dick Morris' accusations and wondering; Do all these people know something about Hillary Clinton that we don't....and should? H.C.

DEMOCRATS DISCOVER THE ONE EVIL NOT WORTH NEGOTIATING WITH

Democrats and Republicans very rarely come together to agree on anything. There's no new news there. But what's far less reported is the infighting that goes on within the parties on any given issue. From immigration to the War in Iraq, the positions taken by our presidential candidates on either side are all over the map. So it struck me as very strange that there is one issue that has completely galvanized the Democratic Party. That there is one Evil out there so great, so evil, such a threat to our country that they should not be negotiated with in any fashion or form. That threat to all humanity is Fox Broadcasting.

That's right, the people that brought you The Simpsons and American Idol are such a threat that all the Democrat Presidential contenders have agreed to boycott Fox. Now, normally I would just chalk this up to more partisan politics. But I couldn't help but laugh when I read this article. It seems that Fox CEO Roger Ailes made a comment about Barrack Obama that the Dems (who are always trying to find any hint of prejudice by any Republican so they can keep blacks faithfully on their side) took as offensive. Mr. Ailes claims it was a joke that took aim at Bush not Obama. The actual comment was; "And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' " I don't get it, clearly it does seem a slap at Bush being unable to separate the two. So, seeing their chance to accentuate their point, the Dems one by one rushed out to the press announcing that they were pulling out of the Fox sponsored debates in Nevada. The important thing to remember here is; this is really about reminding blacks how prejudice Republicans are behind the scenes. Taking a shot at Fox and having an excuse for not appearing at a venue that might actually ask some tough questions is just icing on the cake.

The great irony is; these are the people (Dems) who are constantly wanting to deal with terrorist supporting regimes. They want us to meet with Iran. They want us to meet with North Korea. They want us to deal with the government of Sudan (which is systematically exterminating some of it's own people). I'm sure they would say we should sit down with Osama Bin Laden himself if the chance arose. In the Democratic world there is no problem so big that it can't be solved with negotiation and no dictator so evil that he can't be reasoned with. With one exception-Fox Broadcasting, the only evil empire that can't be dealt with.

The official reason the Democrats are giving for their boycott is that Fox is controlled by the right wing and has a right-wing bias. Then, just to prove that they won't stand for any bias, the Dems rescheduled their debates to the 365gay channel. Now there's a venue with absolutely no bias whatsoever. I swear, you couldn't even make stuff up this funny. You know, the Democrats would have a lot more credibility with me if they wouldn't continuously contradict their own positions. (Yes I know the Republicans do it too, it's the Dems turn on the fire.)

I guess I should just be happy that the Democrats have finally seen the light. They have finally admitted that there is evil out there that is just plain evil. And how much more evil can you get than the people who brought us Al Bundy.

Finally, If I had my way, these debates would be handled by only hostile moderators. I would put the Republicans on CNN with James Carville asking all the questions and the Democrats would have to deal with Shawn Hannity on Fox and all his snippy remarks. I would even have special moderators for specific candidates like Dick Morris for Hillary Clinton and Giulani's past wives for Rudy. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to soft ball questions predicated by compliments and maybe, just maybe, we would get a debate worth watching with real insight into our candidates. In the meantime, I predict our wonderful Dems will continue to demand that we deal with terrorists and dictators and will continue to refuse to deal with the real threat to America, Fox Broadcasting and Al Bundy. H.C.

FIXING A HOLE

Here in Michigan, we are in the middle of a financial crisis. At last count, the State is 800 million dollars in the red and growing. It seem our beloved Governor, Jennifer Granholm, can not for the life of her, figure out a way to balance the budget. It is now the fifth budget in a row that Buffy The Job Killer has turned in that is in the red. To be sure, there are a lot of problems here in Michigan that are contributing to our crisis; manufacturing has been running out the door, high gas prices are keeping our tourism down, and we have to deal with the reality that we are viewed on the world stage as a pro-union high wage state. Still, other Governors in other Rust Belt states have found a way and their states are rebounding rather nicely. Since our Governor can't seem to see an answer outside of cutting schools and vital services, I've decided to help her out by pointing to something that could save our budget.


Since Jennifer became our Governor, she has been embracing a Socialistic idea as a way of fixing our economy. She has been dumping billions into "Work Projects" ala Hoover and Roosevelt after The Great Depression. Jennifer's idea is that if you create jobs though the government, those jobs will lift the economy. This is, in my eyes, such an outdated idea that it's really not even worth debating anymore. If you want to see how badly it works, come to Michigan. Ms. Granholm has spent ten years worth of Federal money on highway projects in just three years. (I wonder how she would have felt if Engler had done that to her?) On top of that, she announced last year an additional $618 million dollars of state money for even more highway projects and increased transportation's general budget by 100 million. The end result? Unemployment that is the highest in the United States.


So where do I suggest we find the money to balance our budget? Let me ask all of you a quick question; have you ever seen so many highway projects at the same time in Michigan as you have under Governor Granholm? If you think that orange barrels have been springing up like dandelions every spring in unprecedented numbers, you'd be right. Governor Granholm has increased her spending on transportation every year she's been in office even as our debt continues to grow. It's now at a record $2.3 billion dollars. She then has the audacity to call herself a Fiscal Conservative! Did they change the definition since I looked last? I thought the idea behind being a Fiscal Conservative was not spending money you don't have! I'm going to come right out and say it, "Our debt has been created directly by increased spending on highway projects with most of that money going to private contractors." Just look at her budget where, on page 10, it demonstrates how the condition of our roads has increased from 75% rated good to 92%, we no longer need to continue this handout to contractors!. Granholm's plan was to increase our spending on roads to attract businesses, but so far all I see is businesses using those roads to leave.


When John Engler took office in 1991, he inherited a 1.5 billion dollar debt and promptly halted all contracted highway spending to help balance the budget. It's time the Senate and House here in Michigan do the same. For us to increase spending when we're in such a fiscal bind even while our highways are in the best condition they have been in for 20 years is ridiculous! Governor Granholm; stop rewarding your contractor buddies and give us a summer without traffic backups. Upper Michigan needs the tourism, we all need to save the gas, and you need to finally admit your plans are a failure and balance the first budget since you've been in office.


On a side note; After repeatedly researching the Governor's office I was amazed at the lack of openness about the State of Michigan's highway contracts and how many of those companies gave to Granholm's campaign. Rest assured, I will be searching for any ties I can find and will be writing about them as soon as I find them. H.C.

THAT WASCALLY WABBIT "W"

The Democrats have finally found something that G.W. does really well....he fools them. In fact, by putting together an administration that's absolutely brilliant in comparison to what the Democrats can put together to counter, he's managed to completely fool the Democrats on just about everything they've ever believed. It's not their fault really, all they did was completely trust him. They had absolutely no reason to believe he was up to no good, that's clear from the way they treated him in the run-up to the 2000 elections. (Sarcasm added for flavor). And what did they get for their trusting ways? A war in Iraq, a ballooning Federal deficit, and faulty intelligence that the Democrats had no way of knowing was wrong. Pa-leeeaase.

First, let me go back to what the Democrats were saying about attacking Iraq way back before the reign of G.W..

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." Bill Clinton-February, 1998 speech - Sounds to me like Bill believed his intelligence, was that the same intelligence that Bush inherited?

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors."-Al Gore Dec. 1998 on Larry King Live- Gee, Bush was convincing these people that Saddam was a problem even before he was in office.

O.K., so maybe the Democrats had a little help from their own, but Bush still used his conniving brilliance to falsify the urgency of the threat, right? Yeah, I suppose you could use that argument, but didn't the Democrats have enough evidence to doubt Bush's honesty? Here's some of the things they were saying Bush lied about way back before he was even President.

G.W. was AWOL from the Nation Guard for 18 months.

G.W. hid a D.U.I. he got back in 1976

And then they claimed he lied all through the election debacle

Now, what I'm not understanding is this; If Bush was such an outright liar all through the run up to the elections, (According to the Democrats themselves) lied about most of his life, and then cheated and lied to steal the election, why would any self-respecting Democrat believe him when he inflated the facts on why we should go to war with Iraq? The way I see it, if John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Democrats supported the war before they were against it because they believed anything that came out of Bush's mouth, does that make them naive at best or stupid at worst? How can we trust them to deal with the real bad guys who are going to lie their asses off when they trusted a guy they themselves claimed was nothing but a liar?? Maybe the Democrats should take some of Bush's advice, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." or something like that. H.C.

IS THIS THE WORST GOVERNOR IN THE U.S.?

I used to call her Hurricane Jennifer, because the only states that were doing worse than mine were Mississippi and Louisiana after they were destroyed by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. It doesn't make sense anymore because both Mississippi and Louisiana are now doing better than Michigan, even while still in ruins. She came into office as our first female Governor in 2002, amongst much fanfare, and even won handily in the 2006 elections. Why would I call Jennifer Granholm the worst Governor in the U.S. you ask? Let me call out the facts.

When Gov. Granholm came into office in January of 2003, Michigan was already in transformation as were all of the "Rust Belt" states, so called because of their reliance on manufacturing. The Rust Belt states include Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Every since I was a young student in High school (mid '70s) the manufacturing in Michigan has been declining. In fact, I remember having a Economics teacher in Jr. High who was already saying that the shop jobs in the U.S. were on their way out. Unemployment in all these states were above the national average as a result. The Rust Belt States in general were seeing hard times and good leadership was desperately needed to keep them afloat. Jennifer Granholm came in promising to be that leader for Michigan. In her own words she promised us, "In five years you'll be blown away". Well, after four, I'm blown away all right, every single Rust Belt state has done better over those four years and has an unemployment rate lower than ours.

For the purpose of refuting any claim that Michigan is suffering a unique situation, let's do a comparison to the state that is closest to Michigan both in reliance on manufacturing and in total workforce, Ohio. Michigan has a total workforce of 5.1 million, Ohio has a total workforce of 5.9 million. (All of these stats are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) Michigan has a manufacturing workforce of 637.5 thousand and Ohio has a manufacturing workforce of 797.2 thousand, so Ohio actually is even more reliant on manufacturing than Michigan. Just one of several lies Granholm tells. Ohio has another thing working against it, it has Bob Taft for a Governor, who was voted the worst Governor in the U.S. by SurveyUS. Yet, during the period from when Granholm took office in January of 2003 to December of 2006 when Taft left office, he managed to lower his unemployment from 5.9 to 5.6 while creating over 10,000 net jobs. How did Gov. Granholm do during that same period? She managed to raise our unemployment rate from 6.5 to 7.2 losing over 39,000 jobs net. All this while the U.S. unemployment rate fell from 5.8 to 4.5 for the same period. Taft did the worst of all the other Rust Belt states, but still did better than Granholm.

Another point Granholm supporters try to make in her defense is that John Engler (R) left her with 1.6 billion dollars in debt. While this is true for the most part, nearly every Governor does that when the governorship changes party. John Engler himself was left with a 1.5 billion dollar debt by James Blanchard (D) who was the Governor before him. For this reason, I generally give Governors a 1 year pass on fixing the budget, which John Engler did. For Granholm to try to still blame Engler 4 years later is utterly ridiculous. In fact, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (R-Mass) was stuck with a 3 billion dollar debt and still balanced his budget all 4 years.

Granholm is still doing a good job of protecting our schools you say? Not according to a recent study of top Universities by Michigan Auditor General Thomas McTavish published by The Detroit News on March 1, 2007. Michigan tuition is up 37% in the four years of the Granholm administration and is now the nation's fifth most costly. The Granholm administration has cut Michigan Universities funding by $250 million since she came into office. In fact, with inflation factored in, Universities in Michigan have gone from having the state pick up 45.3% of their operating costs 5 years ago to only 34% last year. All of this has lead to Michigan Universities leading the nation with a average tuition hike of $740 in 2005-2006. Not exactly higher education friendly if you ask me and completely contrary to what she has claimed for the past 4 years. For a point of reference Engler increased funding for Universities 50% during his 12 years.

What is the end result of higher tuition and less job opportunity on our future, the young people of Michigan? They are leaving. According to this survey 46% of people under 35 are seriously considering leaving Michigan. Frankly, as much as I love this state, I don't blame them. There is nothing that I can tell them to give them any hope that things will turn around. With her failing philosophy of raising taxes and fees to turn the state around, I'm getting closer to leaving every day, and so is most everyone that I can think of. I can no longer take the burdens Governor Granholm sees fit to heap on my family. She has shifted my property taxes to six months earlier forcing me to put off purchases and vacations. She has raised fees for licenses which cost my daughters, who are both single mothers, money they don't have. She's forced Universities to raise tuition which is causing all my kids more debt they wonder if they can ever repay. She has raised property taxes for this year 3.7% even as my property values fell by 8%. And now she wants to raise my hunting licenses, sales taxes, and taxes even on my only refuge from her, my beer. All of this despite the fact that her General Fund Revenues are up 3.4%. The truth is, she wants to spend $900 million more than she has. Is it any wonder people are leaving?

And the people aren't the only ones leaving. Since her re-election, companies are running for the door. Pfizer Co. out of Ann Arbor has announced it's closing it's shop costing the Ann Arbor area 6,000 jobs, could this have anything to do with the recent decision by the Democrats to reverse tort reform on drug companies? Ford and Chrysler have both recently announced further job reductions in Michigan through buyouts. Most of the people I've talked to who are taking them say they will use the money to leave this state. And then the most recent demonstration of her lack of political skills, Toyota announces it's building it's $1.3 billion manufacturing plant in Mississippi, the only state doing worse than us on employment, or at least they used to be.

Putting all this together, it's hard to believe we're still standing at all, thank God the nation isn't in a recession right now or we all would be doing far worse. Jennifer Granholm seems to me to be a nice person with her heart in the right place but her head in the wrong one. She honestly doesn't seem to understand the politics of drawing jobs to a state that has to compete for them. If it were up to me, I would standardize tort law, environmental law, and labor law at the Federal level. But this is not the reality we are living. We must work harder to draw jobs to Michigan while making the tough choices necessary to keep people from leaving, instead of taxing them out the door. In the mean time, I have a new nickname for Governor Granholm, Buffy the Job Killer. The Worst Governor in the United States. H.C.

BOB AND NANCY, A TALE OF TWO SPEAKERS

My job, as I see it, is to look through the kaleidoscope of media sources and find that one juicy little tidbit that they thought they could slide by you. The little one liner that they knew they had to mention, but hid halfway through their piece. The story buried on D12 of your local newspaper or the angle they were hoping you wouldn't think about. For the most part, these little hunks of gold are hard to find, hidden among the dirt clods of crap they serve up.

But this one I've been waiting for with baited keyboard.

It was a great year for the Democratic party. Against all odds, they captured the House and Senate away from the evil Republicans and daylight will finally shine on the shady dealings of the Bush Administration. I couldn't be happier. I love divided Government. When these idiots start trading accusations against each other and blocking each others pork, our government runs cleaner and closer to the middle ground than at any other time. But most importantly, we get a good look at what these rats have been up to when they answered to no one. I'm not just picking on Bush here, it's true no matter who has complete control. Their backers figure there's no more excuse, and dammit we won't our paybacks for the millions we invested in you bums. So the pork is shoveled in every direction.

The biggest news this time around is the appointment of Nancy Pelosi (D-SF, Cal) to Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ms. Pelosi is now the first female Speaker in history and the media is tripping all over each other in an effort to find yet one more angle to report on. This is a great thing in my eyes. The sooner all these "barriers" are torn down, the sooner we can get on with the business of electing people based solely on merit. I'm not saying Ms. Pelosi isn't qualified, she is. I just want to move forward. My congratulations to all woman everywhere, it is a huge victory.

Now for the fun part. While the media was celebrating this history making moment for women, another far more sinister event was taking place in the other House of Congress. With nearly no fanfare, buried deep in your newspapers, ignored by all but a few conservative bloggers, Robert Byrd (D-WV) shuffled his way into the fourth highest position of our government. The Senate President Pro Tempore, leader of the Senate and third in line of succession to the Presidency. (For more on Senator Byrd read my past piece,"Why Are Democrats Still Supporting An Ex-KKK Member") So what's the big deal? Ol' Bob Byrd is the biggest disgrace left in our government. Ol' Bob, at 89 years of age, has had a long and checkered history of holding black people back. Starting with his membership in the KKK as a recruiter no less, and leading through 50+ years of blocking every advancement black people have tried to make. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and every black nomination that fell before him. While the Democrats celebrated a monumental moment for women, they kicked black people square in the nether region.

And Nothing was said.

Not by all the black activists, not by Michael Moore, and not even by the Republicans.

While this pitiful disgrace to all white people took his throne, we were distracted by all the fanfare and backslapping in the Media about the Dems regaining control and Ms Pelosi's barrier breaking. Take a look at how both Michael Moore and CNN barely mentioned it at all. The Washington Post mentions him in this piece, but says nothing about his becoming the new Senate leader. People, I can not stress enough how utterly pissed off this makes me. I DO NOT CARE how many times this man has apologized for his past deeds. I DO NOT CARE how old he is or how much seniority he has in the Senate. He should have never been in such a position of power to begin with. I have to believe that I can never look a black person in the eyes and tell them honestly that we have moved forward as long as this vestige of a dark time sits there unpunished. I wince every time I see his face or hear his name. For moving the ball forward for women I applaud the Democrats, but for the stab in the back that they gave the black people of this country I give them these four words.......for shame, for shame. H.C.

ARE DEMOCRATS EATING THEIR OWN?

It’s now a year and 9 months away from the 2008 Presidential election, but you sure wouldn’t know it to read the news. Already candidates are entering the ring. Much like Christmas, the elections season keeps starting earlier and earlier. Already in the ring are Democrats; Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL) Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Gov.Bill Richardson (D-Kan) and Senator John Edwards (D-SC) and Republicans have Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kans) and a one-foot-in-the-ring John McCain (R-AZ). It may be early, but already the fur is starting to fly.

A recent poll showing Barack Obama near neck and neck with Hillary Clinton seems to have set off a few revelations about Barack being leaked to the news. First that his middle name is "Hussein" (Which by the way is not included on his offical site) and then immediately afterward that he attended a Muslim school in his youth in Indonesia. The Muslim school leak was picked up by Fox News from conservative Insight Magazine and hence was dismissed by the left as an effort by right-wingers to discredit Barack. I have a different opinion on this. I don't think that the right has as much to lose by a Obama candidacy as Hillary Clinton does. An early lead by Barack could spell disaster to Hillary who isn't about to watch this newcomer steal away her monetary supporters and constituents and do nothing about it. If you think about it, it would be a good move for Hillary's Machine to leak info on Barack to Fox News and then claim it was a right-wing effort thereby leaving her with a double win. Slapping both opponents with one hand. Say what you want about the Clintons, they are not stupid.

Is The Hillary Machine ready to take on all comers? The answer is a resounding "Hell yes". She's been getting ready for this almost as soon as she finished packing her bags to leave the West Wing, maybe even sooner. She finished off 2006 with a campaign war chest at an estimated 13 million, most of it leftovers from her '06 New York Senate campaign. That Hillary is a force to be contended with is not even in dispute. She has tons of connections for raising funds (some estimates are that she could raise 300 million), the Democrat Leadership Council is behind her 100%, (it was after all, formed by her husband), and machinery that includes all the top minds in the Democratic field; John Podesta, President and CEO for the Center for American Progress, a major Democrat front group, James Carville aka The Ragin' Cajun, longtime friend and CNN Commentator and Terry McAuliffe the ex-DNC chair, and a certain inside ex-President. With tons of money, friends in the press and Hollywood and both the DLC and the DNC on board, frankly, she looks unstoppable.

So how does this bode for Dems like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson? Not good at all. It almost looks to me like a fight for the V.P. slot. I myself am hoping for John Edwards to pull out of the pack. Maybe all this infighting between Barack and Hilary will give him an opening. I'm also not opposed to Bill Richardson or Obama. Edwards, Obama and Richardson have one trait that I find appealing, they're not "Heirs to the Throne". I really don't think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to have the presidency handed down from father to son (Bush) or from husband to wife (Clinton) . The 2000 elections were a prime example of this with Al Gore riding his Senator father's legacy and Bush riding his President father's. Surely we can do better. It looks like we have a good chance this time of getting someone who knows what it's like to struggle a little. The Republicans are looking very weak at this point in time and don't have any real candidate that I would want to get behind. But it is still way early and God only knows what will happen in the months ahead. If there's one bright spot for the Republicans, it's that after the infighting that's sure to happen if anyone should threaten Queen Hillary, there might not be anything left to fight against. H.C.

THE GREAT BLACK HOPE

I love boxing. I know, I know, it's just two Neanderthal people beating the crap out of each other, but it's so simple in that form. Mano a mano. I used to fight when I was a bit younger at Berston Field House on the north end of Flint, famous for producing a lot of great fighters including former Heavyweight champ Chris Byrd, in fact I trained under his dad, Joe. It was a great outlet for all the anger that I was experiencing at the time. Like most boxing fans, I worshipped Muhammad Ali as the greatest fighter of all time. He had it all; style, skill, agility and a great knock-out punch. I wanted to be the next Ali, only white. That was the one thing that bothered me about boxing, all the great fighters of the time were black. I began thinking that it was impossible for a white guy to become Heavyweight champ. Every once in a while my hopes would be increased by some upcoming white fighter who was always deemed "The Great White Hope". As much as I loved Ali, I desperately wanted some white dude to dethrone him. One by one they fell; Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Gerry Quarry, and too many more to count. I began to think it was hopeless. One thing always bothered me about the "Great White Hopes", it seemed that they were always picked off the vine too early. As soon as they got noticed, before they even had one fight against a top-ten fighter, they were in a Championship bout. It seemed to me a conspiracy to keep them losing.

Now the black people of the U.S. have their own "Great Black Hope" in a field dominated by white males. Barack Obama, a Freshman U.S. Senator from Illinois, is making a run for the Presidency of the U.S., and I'm a little worried the same thing is happening to Barack. Senator Obama stepped out into full public view after giving a great keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, with his charactaristic easy going, confident style, he was the hit of the show and soon became a household word, athough one constantly mispronounced. Both Ted Kennedy and Rush Limbaugh have famously had a hard time separating poor Barack Obama from Osama Bin Ladin. Not really someone you want to be confused with, but then again, both Ted and Rush have been a tad confused for some time.

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. He started his education in Jakarta, Indonesia where his family were originally from, then went to Occidental College in L.A. and finally studied law at Harvard where he got a J.D. He was first elected to the Illinios State Senate in 1997 before making his leap to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He has published two books; Dreams of my Father; A story of Race and Inheritance and The Audacity of Hope; Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Both have been well recieved and give us a little insight into the man and his past. Maybe too much.

It seems that in his first book, Sen. Obama admitted, ala Bill Clinton and G.W., that he tried marijuana and cocaine in his early years. Now, the pupose of all these confessions is always the same, to get it out before someone else finds out. I myself have no problem with anyone experimenting in their youth, although you need to be careful and none would be better. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone nowadays that didn't at least try pot. Which once again makes me question why we're still ruining lives over it. Will this be a problem for Senator Obama? I really doubt it. If it doesn't bother evangelists when G.W. did it, it's hard to imagine it would bother Democrats or Moderates when Barack does it. He's wise to get it out there early

So do I think Senator Obama has a chance? No, not really. First off, he's a Senator, and not since J.F.K. have we seen the Senate path to the presidency work. Although trends, like rules are made to be broken. Second, he doesn't really have much of a record having only been a Senator for 2 years, a fact the he's trying to promote as being less corrupted by the system. He's a great orator and after 8 long years of a President that mangles the English language, that may be a welcome change. Will his race be a factor? Certainly. America has not quite gotten over the whole race thing on both sides. Some black people will see him as too white and some whites will see him as too black. He does seem to have a gift for walking that line between the races, but I'm not sure he can hold on to that with all the contraversy that will surround him once he becomes a serious contender. Mostly, I'm concerned that like my boxing examples, he's simply been picked off the vine too early. A great speaker that crosses race lines only comes around once a generation and Barack needs to be patient and allow his star to burn. My hope is that he will be the V.P. choice for John Edwards, I don't think I would even take the offer if the candidate is Hillary Clinton as she's too devisive and I'm not sure she can win. For now, Barack, do what you do best, be yourself, The Great Black Hope. H.C.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS STILL SUPPORTING AN EX KLANSMAN?
Posted in political on December 23rd, 2005
In the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate a small grey haired 88 year old man makes his way to his seat. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) has walked these halls for a very long time. He’s been a senator since 1958. With his re-election underway in West Virginia, he most likely will slide easily into his record 9th term in 2006. He is, as of now, only 9 months from being the longest serving senator ever. Popular even amongst his enemies on the other side of the aisle, his past is rarely brought up. Lets see if we can change that. You see, Senator Byrd was once a Ku Klux Klan member. Not just some reader of white trash literature, but a full fledged Kleagle, a recruiter. Earning $10 a head Senator Byrd was so good at his job he once garnered praise from the Imperial Wizard himself for recruiting over 300 people. Makes you wonder what them folks are up to nowadays. Oh, I know what your thinking Dems, Come on H.C. He left the Klan way back in 1943. He’s a changed man. He’s repented. Just look at his website, he’s shaking hands with a black man. Christ your hypocritical. You run Trent Lott out of office for one statement at a birthday party but forgive a KKK recruiter. But, to be fair, let’s see how much Robert Byrd has changed. In 1964 he filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours, a Senate record he still holds. In 1965 he opposed the Voting Rights Act. In 1967 he opposed the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice and a Democrat appointee. In 1991 he opposed Clarence Thomas, another black justice, and most recently, he led the opposition against Condelesa Rice, who now holds the highest position ever held by a black woman. I couldn’t find how he voted on Colin Powell as there was no roll call, but I think we can all guess. It seems Old Bob thinks black folks are fine for photo ops, but not for higher positions. So why do Democrats still support a man who once vowed to “never fight with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand deaths and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds”? The answer is easy. He wins, and the Democrats would rather tolerate a racist than risk losing a state to a Republican. Senator Byrd is also an expert on congressional procedure and a gifted orator, he beats on anyone who dares to oppose him. He’s held nearly every position in the Senate. He’s been Democratic Whip, Democratic Leader, Senate Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and even President Pro Tempore of the Senate making him 3rd in line to the Presidency. Yikes! He wins his state over and over again by bringing in huge sums of money for special projects. In 2005 alone he brought in 399 million dollars for pork projects in West Virginia, earning him the title of “The Pork King” among the other members of the Senate. He uses this money to build tech centers, expressways, high schools, visitor centers, and a long list of other projects most of which he conveniently names after himself. A short 10 minute drive through West Virginia will have you losing count of the times you see the name Robert Byrd. This all works to keep him well known and thereby, re-elected. In conclusion, let me tell you a little story that might shed some light on why I take Old Bob (D-KKK) so personally. It’s a story of a white kid (me) who is stuck in a nearly all black school in racially charged Flint, Mich., beaten and harassed to a point of near suicide by misguided people who justified their actions by pointing at racist people in power like Robert Byrd. Now we can debate whether or not their actions were justified, but they were right about people like Senator Byrd. It’s inexcusable to have a man with his past in the Senate. The Democrats shouldn’t accept it, and neither should we. H.C.