I have been trying to write this blog for two weeks now, and I managed to post it earlier this morning. I ended up adding a last minute post since I heard something on one of the cable channels while I was getting ready to post the blog. I ended up not posting it because I didn't get a chance to do it. Here it is now.

Oil prices are still at an all time high, and food is more expensive. Not many people are blessed with a healthy income to support their families, so the economy has to be addressed. It's the number one issue. We need concrete ideas from Obama. I know that there are no quick fixes, but people need to know what to expect when the president takes office.

The oil futures market is not regulated. Maybe if the gov't steps in and set some sort of policy, oil price would not racket out of control. It has to be a long term plan. We don't want any quick fixes. I have complained about my home heating oil in a past blog, so there is no need for me to revisit. Most of us want to see our oil bills much lower than it is currently.

Unemployment is still high. What new jobs can be created to help those people out of work? I know that there is a huge buzz about the environment etc. Is this a phase people are going through, or are we really serious about making the environment cleaner? The options available are fuelling high prices in food such as corn that is to be used in ethanol. Are there any other alternatives?

How will Obama deliver healthcare? I would like him to break it down for the American people. Not everyone is keeping up with the political campaign, so for those few, I would like to broach this topic. Most people do not have health insurance, so they would like to know how to go about getting it.

I would like to divert my attention from the current title to discuss something I saw on a segment on Saturday, 6/13/08. I won't mention the person's name, or the segment, because I don't want to call any attention to said person. The person seems self absorbed as it is already.

I can't believe the gall of a certain cable news personality. Since Obama is the one who claims that he is not going to engage in the negative campaigning, as soon as the Republicans launch an attack, and if Obama responds to the attack, he is accused of engaging in negative campaigning. I think this particular news personality, which I detest btw, is Republican, and said person pretends to be objective, but the person is always picking on Barack Obama. This news personality expects the Republicans to attack, and Obama is supposed to turn the other cheek. Wake up, idiot! Look what happened to John Kerry when he ignored the accusations about his military background. I'm not condoning the negative campaigning, but at the same time, if the Republicans attack Obama's campaign, it is fair game to respond in kind. Ok, I've said it, so can this certain news personality move the hell on?

The subtlety in trying to derail Obama is not working. I detest people who hide behind a damn show and pretend as if they are so freaking upright when they are no better than those networks that go in the gutter and make things up. Fox news anyone? Ugh!

In closing, I will leave you with the following video:

Obama wins: Newspaper Front Pages around the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VfZ4h0uZ4

I also wanted to leave you with this:

with the economy these days, the Treasury Department has issued a new dollar bill.........

Please follow the link to read his essay. He tells it like it is, and he does not hold back.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=106899383&blogID=407580519

/a

Here is the full video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1fJwtQ

The one below is only 9 minutes and a few secs.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/06/the-reintroduction-of-michelle-000770.php

/a

I have been trying to write this blog for about a week now, but work has been keeping me busy. In any event, here are the results of four polls I did in various places:

 

The poll result for the SOC blog is that 100%, of the 5 people, including myself, who were polled, would rather see Obama choose someone other than Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

 

The polling for my MySp page goes like this: Out of 8 people, including myself, 1% was leaning towards Hillary Clinton, and 99% would rather Obama choose someone else as his running mate.

 

On my Obama web page, out of 5 people, including myself, 1% was leaning towards Hillary, and 99% would rather see Obama choose someone else as his running mate.

 

The other website had its own veepstakes going to which I was not aware, so my blog was redundant. I will report their veepstakes results however. Out of 24,313 voters, only 5% chose Hillary Clinton as a running mate for Barack Obama.

 

As you can see, quite a few people would rather see Obama choose someone else other than Hillary Clinton.

 

 

I will now choose my picks for VP. They are not in any particular order.

 

My first pick is Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas. She has executive experience as a governor, and she also has a good working relationship with Senator Obama. In addition, she seems to share the same views as Senator Obama. However, she is not as well known as Hillary Clinton.

 

My second choice is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He is a military man, and he tends to have bipartisan support in the senate.

 

My third pick would be Senator Clinton. I’m including her on my list because the latest CNN poll, as of 6/10/08, the day I wanted to do the blog, stated that 58% would consider her as a VP as opposed to 44%.

 

My fourth choice is Gov. Ted Strickland. He is from Ohio. He has executive experience. He is a Hillary Clinton supporter, and he is strong on religious and faith values. The only drawback is that he is not well known, and he is only strong on the economic message in Ohio but not elsewhere.

 

My fifth pick would be Evan Bayh. He is a senator from Indiana. He is strong on foreign policy, and he would help to get the rural American voters.

 

My final pick is Sam Nunn. He is strong on foreign policy and national security. In addition, he has street credibility experience.

 

So, who is your best pick for VP? Please keep in mind that both Obama and his VP have to be from different states, so it cannot be anyone from Chicago. In addition, a VP has to have similar views as the president. The candidate has to be someone you would want as a president if Obama is no longer in office.

/a

Please help to spread the word and fight the smear campaign against Barack Obama.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

Please pass this on in an email to your friends.

Thank you.

/a

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=106899383&blogID=403272647

/a

He has officially won the democratic nomination. He now has 2,119 delegates.

It's time for some real campaigning.

Congrats, Senator Obama!




Please view his victory speech below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxa0ihsoiYI

/a

Should Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as a running mate?

I can't do a poll, but I will try and come up with a formula that will work. Here are the choices:

Choice #1...Barack Obama's running mate: Hillary Clinton

Choice #2...Barack Obama's running mate: Someone other than Hillary Clinton

Please make a choice, and if you have anything to add, by all means, please do so.

Here are the arguments:

Hillary Clinton started out strong, and she even had the support of most blacks, but as the campaign progressed, Hillary Clinton became bitter and very divisive. First, it was Bill Clinton who played the race card. Then there was Geraldine Ferrara and her negative comments. Finally, Hillary Clinton made references to poor whites voting for her, and the kicker of all was invoking Robert Kennedy's assassination in connection with the length of the election and Barack Obama. Obama's name was not mentioned, but most ppl thought that it was a cheap shot.

Yesterday, the DNC came to a conclusion re: FL & MI, but the Clinton camp just cannot let it go. The math is not in her favor, so why is she still fighting? I can't believe that Harold Icke, a Clinton representative, had the nerve to say that the Obama camp hijacked 4 delegates from Hillary Clinton regarding the MI decision. Excuse me! Michigan broke the rules by pushing up the date of the primary. Should they not have been punished?

In addition, Harold Icke said that when Barack Obama denounced Rev Pfleger and announced that he was cutting ties with the church, he did not mention Hillary Clinton's name. Eh em! Something is stuck in my throat due to the gall of these people.  Did Hillary Clinton mention Obama's name when she apologized for the Robert F. Kennedy assassination incident?

The Hillary camp is going on and on about winning the popular vote. I have never heard her camp mentioned the caucus states, which she ignored. As most of you already know, the caucus states have fewer delegates.  The caucus states did not release their popular votes, so if they really want to use that argument, they have to count the popular votes for those caucus states.

In addition, Bill Clinton has become a loose canon, and they definitely come with a lot of baggage. The Republicans, who are famous for gutter politics, would use every chance they get to constantly print negative news about the Clinton's, and that would take away from Obama's message. Most of us want to hear the real issues.

Personally, since I've been so focused on the democratic primaries, I have not had a chance to see or hear what McCain is really about. I've heard snip it's however. Since McCain has so many shortcomings re: the economy, I know that they will constantly side step the issues. Each time one of his supporters speak on CNN, they tend to push his agenda and ignore or evade questions that seem negative or unfavorable towards McCain. They are the biggest spin doctors alive.

Finally, I will leave you with the following quote:

“I am stumped that we have the gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters.” Harold Ickes, an RBC member and Clinton senior adviser, told the committee right before it voted to approve the Michigan plan.

Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee,” he continued, as pro-Clinton elements of the crowd started chanting “DENVER! DENVER! DENVER!”

Re: the above quote, everyone is calling for party unity. How is that unifying the party, Harold Icke? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton has the  "if I can't have it, no one else can" attitude. She seemed entitled from the get go. She and Bill Clinton thought that the election was going to be handed to her b/c he was so popular in office. Did I miss the part where the Clinton's are well hated in WA. Does the impeachment hearings ring a bell? Those people are still bitter towards the Clinton's.

Barack Obama is running on change, and Hillary Clinton is far from it. She is extremely divisive, and I don't see her uniting anyone, unless something is in it for her. That's just selfish in my book.

Please don't forget to vote. I really need to know what you think.

Re: SoapCentral blog, If you have not registered, please do so in order to reply to this poll. It doesn't take that long to register. I appreciate your feedbacks in emails, but I would prefer if you register and voice your opinions for everyone to see.
Love you guys.

/a

Here is another fantastic article by Leonard Pitts. It's a follow up from the previous blog.

BY LEONARD PITTS
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com

"Sure, I'll answer your question.

It rose from a recent column about the Democratic primary in West Virginia. The contest, you will recall, was a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, amid reports that two in 10 voters in that overwhelmingly white state said race was a deciding factor in their decisions. I called that atavistic, to which dozens of you responded: If two in 10 whites voting for Clinton is wrong, isn't the overwhelming support of blacks for Obama equally wrong?

It isn't quite the stumper some folks seem to think.

I suppose the first thing that needs saying is that I have no objection to people of any marginalized ethnicity, race, religion or gender voting in a bloc for some member of their group. That's how they become less marginalized, how they win a seat at the table. The Irish did it in New York, the Cubans did it in Miami, many women are doing it now.

Thing is, that's not what happened in West Virginia. Not unless you're going to tell me with a straight face that that vote reflected marginalized whites (an oxymoron if ever there was one) seeking a seat at the table. No, all the evidence, statistical and anecdotal, tells us those folks did not vote for Clinton because she is white; they voted against Obama because he is black. There's a difference.

So there is something rather specious in all this hand-wringing about black support for Obama. Moreover, it is based upon a fallacy. Namely, that black support for Obama was automatic. The inconvenient truth is, it was Clinton who started out with the black vote sewn up. Then two things happened: 1) Obama's win in Iowa demonstrated his viability and, 2) Clinton and her surrogates made a series of racially insensitive remarks.

The willingness of black voters to support white candidates, then, is not at issue, much as some would like to pretend otherwise. Blacks have long supported white candidates (like they had a choice?). No, the issue is that some whites still find it impossible to return the favor.

Me, I've been around long enough to understand that, while some folks asked about black support for Obama out of honest curiosity, most did it to change the subject, the best defense being a good offense.

One encounters this particular ''best defense'' often when a discussion of race points to conclusions some of us would prefer not to reach. So instead they paint themselves as victims of a double standard, posing profoundly unserious questions like: Why is there a Miss Black America when there could be no Miss White America? Why is there no White Enterprise magazine or United Caucasian College Fund?

The point is not to get answers -- those are obvious. Rather, it is to carve an escape route route through the thicket of logic. It is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, ''Your shoe's untied!'' and then running away when the other person looks down.

To take the questions seriously, you have to believe that black and white stand equivalent in this country, that one does not hold and has never held advantage over the other, so that we should worry white kids might be shoved to the margins if, say, no United Caucasian College Fund existed to help them. That is, putting it mildly, an absurd conceit. Yet it is a conceit some of us still sell and others still buy.

So here's my question: When will people stop trying to weasel out of what is self-evident? After all, there's no mystery about West Virginia. It offers just the latest evidence that something old and ugly has not just survived in us, but flourished. What's it going to take to make some of us stop hiding out from that hard and withering truth? What will it take to make them face it?

I answered your question. Anybody want to answer mine?"

Hey. Don't shoot the messenger. Pleases read the following article and judge for yourselves.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/544738.html

I did make reference to this topic in a previous blog. Here is the quote taken from:  "Lookout, Obama! The Republicans Are Coming After Ya!"

"It wasn't so long ago Hillary Clinton targeted the working class voters, whom she considered uneducated. Was she targeting them because she thought that they were ignorant and stupid? They were so gullible that they would believe every single thing that Hillary Clinton told them. She played the race card, and the people who had racism on their minds from the get go, used that as an excuse to vote for Hillary Clinton. They used the Rev Wright issue as an excuse to vote for Hillary Clinton. Well, if you read between the lines, most voters in West Virginia voted for Hillary Clinton because of race. The Clintons used the race card to evoke those dormant feelings in the voters. There was no surprise there."

Please read the article above and forum your own conclusions.

Have a lovely day, all.

/a