What is with McCain and beauty pagent contestants??? I'm not trying to be humorous either. This youtube video is a MUST SEE. This is the best V.P. choice the GOP could come up with? It's a shame to use this woman in such a transparent manner. It's degrading. I really hope to see a serious woman on the ticket one day, but Palin is such a step backwards. Dang it. What was McCain thinking...I hate using this phrase, but based upon her vapid, incomprehensible answers to tough questions, Palin may actually be a "low information voter"...and he chose her for his V.P. Wow.

Perhaps someone should advise McCain to quit hanging around beauty pageants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdFIDygFwM&feature=related

Sarah Palin's vague, evasive responses during the debate and her performance during the Charles Gibson and Katie Couric interviews confirm a vital weakness about the Republican Party and raises a few new concerns about Sarah Palin, "hockey moms," and their "soccer mom" counterparts. They are:

1 - The Republicans don't have anyone close to Geraldine Ferraro or Hilary Rodham Clinton as serious-minded contenders for the office of President of the United States, which is unfortunate for the GOP because hockey moms are an important demographic and...

2 - I have always suspected that Sarah Palin is neither well-read nor well-travelled which equates to a diminished capacity for critical analysis of complex world issues. Recall that during the Katie Couric interview she couldn't give an answer to what kind of political magazines and newspapers she reads, and mocked the intellectual-types who send their kids off to backpack across Europe. What better way to learn about the world around you?

3 - Sarah Palin is undoubtedly passionate and full of "spunk." But I don't want someone with spunk running the nation. I'd prefer a considerate, strong-willed, intelligent person.

4 - I also suspect that Palin's world view reflects that of a lot of other hockey moms - they know very little about the world around them. Perhaps being overburdened with raising families, running the house, keeping their children safe, and getting kids to and from school leaves little energy or time to consider the woes of the nation and the world beyond the ice-rink, the soccer pitch, or the cul-de-sac. One thing is for certain - the Sarah Palin demographic is a large group, they are a key swing vote, and they send an awful lot of their children into harms way via the military. I desperately want to be wrong about this one. My son shares the pitch with a lot of shiny-eyed, beautiful young people.

I am not one of the 18,000,000 Hillary supporters, but I am only one person who deeply believes that Hillary sparked a flame within the democratic national will. Therefore, I will be contributing money to HillaryClinton.com to help retire her considerable debt, and would hope that other Barack supporters will do the same. Please give whatever you can. Mrs Clinton deserves the support of us all as a charge of not only defeating the Republicans in November, but her campaign was a prodigy for the hopes of 18,000,000 democrats. Please give.

www.HillaryClinton.com

Translastion: "stooooo-PID" = stupid (just in case any Republicans are reading this). Here's a clip of conservative radio talk show host Kevin James (KRLA, Los Angeles) on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here, he's trying to defend President Bush's attack of Barack Obama during a speech in Israel and it's clear that he has no idea what he's talking about. As Chris Matthews puts it, "This is pathetic!" This is intellectual charisma at it's worst and it's dangerous to our country when it's not properly vetted. Watch the clip and prepare to be disgusted and amused. I swear I was watching this while eating dinner and almost spit beer out of my nose with laughter.

Here's the original clip from msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23412324#24655385

or read all the comments left on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

Just another shameless Republican tactic against Obama and our party. Or was this just a case of three bone-heads trying to cause mischief? Regardless, it's a clear violation of the Privacy Act.

~Read Below~

------------------------

"State Department Fires Two for Looking at Obama's Files"
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 20, 2008; 9:06 PM

The State Department said last night that it had fired two contract employees and disciplined a third for accessing Sen. Barack Obama's passport files.

Obama's presidential campaign immediately called for a "complete investigation."

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the employees had individually looked into Obama's passport file on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. To assess such a file, the employees must first acknowledge a pledge to keep the information private.

The employees were each caught because of a computer-monitoring system that is triggered when the passport accounts of a "high-profile person" are accessed, he said. The system, which focuses on politicians and celebrities, was put in place after the State Department was embroiled in a scandal involving the access of the passport records of then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992.

"The State Department has strict policies and controls on access to passport records by government and contract employees," Casey said.

The department uses contract employees to help with data entry, customer service and other administration tasks. The employee involved in the March 14 incident has only been disciplined so far because the investigation of that incident is still continuing, an official said.

Though the workers were caught by a computer system that focuses on high-profile people, Casey said that a computer report is generated on every access to passport records and that spot checks are taken to ensure that employees are not violating the Privacy Act.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html

Well, there's nothing wrong with the America. But here's what I think are real problems for our country and the voters. I have a tendency to be long-winded so I'll give you the abbreviated criticism.

1. The decay of common sense.
2. Our government holds it's citizens to a higher standard than it holds itself.
3. The inability of most people to project themselves beyond their tri-state area (I believe this is callled "Theory of Mind"?)
4. Apathy
5. Greed. I really think most of us don't know when to say, "I have enough."

(please feel free to add to the list and re-post)

The only thing that makes sense is to let Florida and Michigan replay the 2008 Capitol One Bowl Game where the Florida Gators lost 41-35 to the Michigan Wolverines. I lost $200 on that game and would support a "do-over."

This is the last thing I choose to say of Geraldine Ferraro...

... but I think her comments and the voter turnout in the Mississippi caucuses were directly related. When the national debate during the primaries loses focus, when negative comments like those coming from Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign distracts the voters from real issues, what you're left to vette is race, gender, sex, and a host of other divisive issues.

It's like a one of those scenes out of the movie "Roadhouse." When the discussion turns nasty a brawl ensues, and when you're in a fight the fight has less to do with the issues than it has to do with just winning. And to win a brawl you have to assess if your opponent is younger or older, weaker or stronger, or larger or smaller. And much like this primary, due to the strategy of the Clinton campaign and comments like Ferraro's (mostly, not entirely. Barack's side is partly to blame as well) the debate isn't about the issues right now. At times like this, race is politics, gender is politics, and sex is politics...and that's unfortunate.

And what's even worst is that the Clinton campaign has NOT fired Ferraro from the fundraising campaign.

Why not?

Because in the 21st century this is the fight that the Clinton campaign wants. Because Hillary doesn't want Obama capturing any of the white voters in Pennsylvania.

And that's frightening that she's willing to turn the voters against themselves in order to win.

To say that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is 'caught up' in the concept."

That is a breathtakingly racist and sexist comment. Why? Because it says that Barack Obama's record is not as impressive as a white man's and the only reason that the half the Democratic Party is currently voting for Obama is because his race is a novelty and the country is thus "caught up." Comments like this diminish us a party and African-Americans.

And Ferraro is a vocal Clinton supporter, which is exactly the kind of tactics that I wrote about in my blog yesterday, "Hillary, can you (s)paradigm?" In Hillary's defense, she quickly disassociated herself from Ferraro and her comments. Still, these kind of comments divide us and anger a lot of African-Americans.

The Clintons once embodied the true spirit of hope in the Democratic Party, but I feel a little sorry for Hillary and us (democrats) that she's running this kind of campaign. Barack and Hillary are the same candidate and whomever gets nominated will be a historical moment in politics. But the Clinton campaign is seriously harming the party.

In an effort to be fair to the Clintons, she has some good points: the press was overly generous to Barack up until Texas and Ohio, so Hillary felt the need to go negative to get her message across. I understand that. It's not fair to Hill. She also chose to go negative because she felt that if Barack does win, that it will prepare him for the buzz-saw of a general election with the GOP. I understand that point as well. It's a good point.

I understand...BUT, it doesn't appeal to me at all as a voter. Why? Because Hillary would make a great president and she could unify the democratic party if she won the nomination but she can't be either of those things because she's chosen to run the same distracting, contemptuous campaign that every other candidate in the past has chosen to run with.

For the first time in history, we don't have two, dour, dandruffy, stuffy white men trying to be president. We have two true candidates of change. But I feel like I'm seeing much of the same and it's mostly coming from Hillary's camp. I like Hill. I REALLY like her. And she doesn't have to run a campaign like this. And if it continues, I don't think that I can support her nomination if she wins. And that makes me sad because as an African-American I'd like to see someone with real courage assume the office and her record speaks of a lady with lots of it.

I don't care about experience or lack thereof. The current administration has plenty of experience and hasn't done much good while in office. I don't even care about Hillary's vote on the Iraq War. She was duped along with the rest of us. I want a change. An enduring change and Hill isn't showing me much of the power of change and hope that she should be running on. And she's got plenty of "it" too.

As for this week's bizarre assertion that she would accept Barack on the ticket as veep when he has most of the popular vote, most of the delegate count, and has won more states is well....daft.

The rules before the primaries began (even though FLA and MICH were counted out because of GOP strategy) were accepted by every candidate. To claim that now, this far along in the primary that those delegates should be seated is UN-democratic wreaks of desperation because Hillary is behind. There's no doubt that it's a last ditch effort to win the nomination but at what cost? It's destroying the unity of our party.

Why?

Because you can't keep moving the goal-posts. Particularly by the DNC when the other candidate is an African-American. Changing the rules is why people of color distrust the process of government and are often left baffled and angered when the rules are a prodigy for only white people.

Race is politics. Gender is politics. Age is politics. Clearly.

Take the Hispanic voters for instance. Immigration is an issue that all races in this country care about. But most of the Hispanic voters fall on one side of the immigration issue than most white people. And understandably so, since the immigration issue affects Hispanic families differently than non-Hispanics.

There's not going to be a do-over in Florida and Michigan. The physics of the problem won't allow it. There's not enough time or money or consensus. No "force" or "mass" or "acceleration" so to speak.

So what has to happen? Howard Dean and the DNC has to step up and enforce the rules that were set at the beginning of the primaries. They knew that discounting the vote in those states were "un-democratic" before this election began. So why is there a movement to have those delegates seated? It's because the Clinton campaign is frightened that they'll lose the nomination and they've managed to raise enough shackles to confuse the issue. It's a brilliant tactic as one would expect out of the Clintons. But again, at what cost would a nomination be acceptable to the Clinton campaign? Hey, it's an election and someone has to lose. If we reach Denver and she has most of the popular vote and is ahead in the delegate count, then I'll feel good about casting my vote for such a resilient candidate in the general election. But if FLA and MICH are somehow allowed "do-overs" and if this ends up being a brokered convention then we'll have all been duped. Black, Caucasion, Asian, Hispanic. Everyone.

I for one am tired of being duped by politicians. I expect those kind of tactics from the GOP. Not from my own party. The party of the underrepresented. The party of the disenfranchised. The party of my parents. The party of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. The party of color.

DEMOCRATS KEEP GETTING IT ALL WRONG!

What just happened to me was very disturbing. I logged onto the DNC website for the first time, posted my responses in an open forum criticizing a comment that former president Bill Clinton made about Barack Obama and challenging if the DNC took the black-vote for granted.

A number of people responded, though they were mostly negative. In response to my comments, I was called an "UNCLE TOM" and an "ass". But that's fine because people are entitled to their opinon. For the record, my comments weren't verbally abusive or offensive. In addition, I have traditionally voted for democrats and in response to Clinton's comments the other day, I donated $25 to Barack Obama's campaign and I also donated to John Kerry's campaign during the last general election.

Here's what's really disturbing. The person(s) moderating the open forum deleted all of my comments. But I always considered the Democrats, the party I've donated money to in the past and recently, to the THE party of the underrepresented. Still, the moderator removed my comments for being critical of how I think that most Democratic nominees have taken the black-vote for granted.

A number of people responded to my commentary. A person named BlueinIdaho, BobVADemHawk, GregL, margotb822, and marymac_memphis. And as I stated above, while my comments were critical, they were not abusive. Nor did I use offensive language even after being referred to as an "UNCLE TOM."

So why would the moderator erase all my comments? As an African-American, this is what I mean by being taken for granted.

The DNC has been the ONLY party for the VOICE OF MINORITIES, but if one of us is being critical, does that criticism deserves censorship? Heck, I wasn't even censored, the guy completely erased my comments...and all my answers to rebuttals. In fact, I was blocked from commenting in the forum and had to log in again under a different email address.


Here are my original comments:

---------------------

"I don't understand why Hillary has to rely on Bill Clinton to do so much of her campaigning this election.

Mind you, I don't think her show of emotion is a sign of weakness at all. And throughout most of her career, I've applauded her courage for sticking her neck out for her beliefs. But things are getting...weird. Here's why.

I'm a 38 yo African-American voter. I voted for Bill Clinton and after his first term, I began to have doubts about his convictions because Bill really pushed himself as the "change" candidate on the issues of Bosnia and China, and did nothing about either one once he won the presidency. He perjured himself under oath to a Senate grand jury which places him in that same contemptuous cell of liars like G.W. Bush and Vice President Cheney. In addition, I can NOT forget about the Lewinsky scandal. Say what you wish, but I don't understand how women can find this man tolerable at all after what he did to that intern. Granted, she was no saint but he was the President of the United States, which is a position deserving of everyone's respect, and a man of supreme power, yet he choose to defile the office in such a tasteless manner.

Bill Clinton does not respect most of you in my opinion and that includes his own wife. Still, like anyone else he is deserving of forgiveness.

But here's what I can't forgive. With the chips down on Jan 8th, Bill Clinton told a live audience that Obama has gotten a free ride from the media as he has been "trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war every year," and how this "whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."....

....Well, that's enough for me. I've officially had it with the Democratic Party. And so have many of my friends.

For the record, I believe that Bill Clinton would have said the same thing if Sen Edwards or another white candidate had won Iowa, but let's not even debate about the fact that the black vote is vital to the Democratic Party.

Black people vote for Democrats because this is the party of compassion for the underrepresented. But, that statement showed that the Clintons will do just about anything to win the nomination, which to me is nothing more than the same old, stale, cowardly politic. Any candidate regardless of race is open for intense scrutiny. But to call Barack's record a matter of "fantasy" just because you're behind in the polls shows breathtaking disrespect for the man and the black vote.

I'm a father of two children (one on the way), and trying to start my own biotech/life sciences company. With that kind of purposeful attack on a minority within their own party, I'm have real trouble distinguishing Bill and Hillary's resentment for minorites than say...the Republicans.

It's rude AT THE LEAST, but what it says mostly is that it's okay to be black and vote democratic, but it's not okay to be the front runner in the Democratic Party.

If Hillary wins the primary and goes on to win the Presidency, that means since 1992 until 2012, two families (the Clintons and the Bush's) will have controlled the white house. That doesn't sound like change to me. That is literally the same old mess.

No thanks.

I'm neither a Clinton supporter, nor an Obama supporter. I was an undecided Democrat until Clinton made that statement. Now, I'm not even a democrat. I'm sick and tired of being taken for granted."