About the Iowa Caucus

By Dennis Seeley

How is Iowa used in electing future presidents? The political Parties use the caucus to measure their status among mainstream America. This is the beginning of how presidential candidates will represent themselves among politics, as well as local and party line politics.

Deciphering the Iowa caucus.

The caucus is predominately a closed group of people or more pointedly a political party coming together in a closed meeting to select their party line candidates or to decide on policy. However the Iowa caucus should not be confused with the Primary where the candidate is actually selected to represent their party. The Iowa caucus is considered the first step in the presidential nomination for both mainstream parties. This is not because Iowa is really important, it's because Iowa is first in the series of caucuses.

Why is Iowa considered Important by the media and potential presidential candidates? Iowa is deemed as important because it's the first state in the union to conduct a caucus and it's considered the first real challenges candidates will face. Iowa is also considered a state that equally represents American on a majority of the views on both sides' of political lines. Additionally, Iowa is the first state to start the caucus. Thus, Iowa receives most of the attention. This is also considered a preliminary view of who the individual parties will select to represent them in running for president. So, Hence, January 3rd brings a lot of interests for prior speculations among media and political consultants.

Democratic Process when in Caucus for Iowa

In the Democratic caucuses party officials in each county split the county into groups by either precinct or legislative districts. There are currently 99 counties in Iowa. These groups can be hosted at schools fire stations, or even an individuals home. The whole point is to create a group where the attendants have a minimum of 15%-25 of attendees if another group is present and has less than 15% they must either join another group or stand out. Iowa always holds their caucus on January 3rd. During the democratic caucus supporters write their names and the names of the candidates they have chosen to support on the cards. Next, the cards will be added to the number of people supporting a candidate in the first round. If that candidate doesn't get the 15 percent of votes to be considered viable, the cards won't be used further. Individual supports not in the 15% percentile may reallocate their support to another candidate or group. Hence, candidates vie for support of people that are not in a particular group in hopes of increasing their margin or percentage of people supporting their run for presidency.

Republican Process when in Caucus for Iowa

In the Republican caucuses, each voter casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are given sheets of paper without the candidate names printed on them. Voters begin by listening to other people campaigning for a particular candidate. This again is done by caucus participants, after the voters have made their choice they write it down and the information is provided to the Republican Party. Iowa republicans total the results at all 99 precincts then in turn they notify people of the media of the results. The results are calculated and reported to the state party which provides the results to the media.

A Delegate from each precinct caucus is sent on to the county convention. In turn, the county convention chooses delegates to the District Convention, which makes the selection of delegates to the State Convention. So, in actuality it is the Republican state convention, not the precinct caucuses, which ultimately selects delegates to the Republicans National Convention in Iowa. The media usually allocates delegates by estimating county convention results. However, delegates are officially unbound from the precinct caucus. It should be noted as a part of the democratic caucus there is no way to vote anonymously. Voters may request what could be considered as a sort of absentee ballot, which is commonly referred to as a preference card. A preference card may be issued if the voter has to work or can't attend because of a disability or health reasons or other legitimate reasons. To be a responsible voter we must research and understand the game of the partyline politics

http://politicians-uncovered.blogspot.com/2007/12/researching-your-politician.html

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dennis_Seeley
http://EzineArticles.com/?About-the-Iowa-Caucus&id=917619

Paul's Non-Inclusion In The Polls

By Emma A Johnson

Fox News Channel, last week, restricted the number of presidential candidates who were invited to the debates before the New Hampshire primary. Among those left out was Ron Paul- a fact that has angered supporters of the Republican candidate. Fox News cited a space crunch in its studio as the reason for not including Paul in the debate.

Fox has called upon five presidential candidates from the GOP to a forum with Chris Wallace, to be held in New Hampshire, on Sunday. They include Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Paul, and Republican Duncan Hunter of California, was amongst those who were not invited.

Fox cited limited room in its studio as the reason for not including Paul. The news channel explained that the candidates were chosen on the basis of who had won double-digit support in the recent polls.

A national poll conducted on December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, showed Thompson as having the support of 11 percent of GOP voters. In comparison, Paul lagged behind at a mere 3 percent. A CNN/Opinion Research poll, conducted earlier in December, put Paul at 6 percent.

However, in a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in New Hampshire, Paul shared the fifth place with Thompson, with support of four percent of likely voters. Among New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, though it came within the poll's margin of error.

Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, called Paul's non-inclusion in the polls a "big mistake". He also said that Fox News had not responded to the campaign's call for an explanation. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq, " Benton said, adding, "...that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate."

Livid Paul supporters of Paul have, meanwhile, started sending out e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.

For more information about republican candidates, please visit: http://www.electionspeak.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Pauls-Non-Inclusion-In-The-Polls&id=926860

In Favor Of Flip-Flopping Politicians

By Steven Gillman

Flip flopping refers to changing ones position on an issue. The public generally dislikes politicians who flip flop on their positions, in part because they assume that it is done dishonestly for political reasons alone, and in part because they simple like to know what a candidate for public office stands for. We, the voters, are left wondering if the politician has any true beliefs, or any integrity.

The problem is that the flip flopping label is applied indiscriminately. If a candidate changes his or her mind for any reason, it is considered a lack of integrity and consistency. But is it always bad when politicians change their positions on the issues? Certainly not. Actually, presidential candidate John McCain just made a statement that was worse than even a disingenuous flip flop on a position.

"I've never changed any of my positions," he proudly told an interviewer. I suppose this was to differentiate himself from other candidates who had changed their minds, but what a terrible thing to be proud of! After several decades on the political scene he boasts because he has learned nothing to change his mind on any issue? Apparently he is convinced that he figured out the whole truth in the seventies.

Think about this. Think about all your opinions from decades back. Do you agree with them all still? Mentally healthy humans grow and mature. Changing one's mind and opinions according what is learned and experienced is a part of this. Sure, some consistency in ones ideas and opinions is normal in a rational person, at least short-term. But never changing one's mind almost certainly indicates a closed mind, and/or an unwillingness to learn.

Consider it as a matter of probabilities. It isn't too likely that there has been nothing new learned or experienced in thirty years that would affect a person's thinking, right? But even if true in the case of McCain, his obvious pride in staying the same is still a problem. Suppose he discovers something new that should make him change a position? In order to keep his "non-flip-flopping" status, will he just ignore it?

By the way, this is not a diatribe against McCain. In fact, early in his career he was one of the most honest men in Washington. Also anyone who has read about his experience of being tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison - and then forgiving his captors - knows not only how courageous he was, but how intelligent and open-minded he was as well. But he is also the one who made it a point of pride to have never changed his positions.

I Changed My Mind!

When there is a better policy, or an idea that is more in accord with the truth, any person, including a politician, should choose it right? One's opinions and positions should change once in a while then, if we are capable of learning. Unfortunately, the changing positions we see during election time are usually not honest reassessments, but politically calculated moves.

In the case of honest change, though, there is a scenario I would love to see. Some honest politician (I'm feeling optimistic) is accused of flip flopping on an issue. He had good and honest reasons for the change for good reasons, so instead of defending himself in the usual way, with a tortured logic showing how his position hadn't really change, he says the following:

"It is true that I have changed my position. I looked closely at the issue and I see that there is a better way. Furthermore, I promise to always change my position when this happens. I promise not to stubbornly cling to my opinions or my positions for pride or political points when I see a position that is better for the country or an opinion that more closely follows the facts."

It won't happen any time soon, of course. Such a speech would require an honest politician, and one who is courageous - not a likely combination in our politicians. But maybe the political climate will evolve just enough to allow some honest "flip-flopping" to be acceptable to the voters.

Copyright Steve Gillman. Have New Thoughts And Radical Ideas, with the techniques in the free Radical Thinking Course at: http://www.RadicalNewThoughts.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steven_Gillman
http://EzineArticles.com/?In-Favor-Of-Flip-Flopping-Politicians&id=927290

Lack of Consensus and the 2008 Election

By Philip Harris

Americans lack consensus. A society is whole when its people share values, ideals and purpose. It is obvious from the political campaigning that such a consensus is lacking in the U.S. And, while the job of a good politician is to build consensus, all of the candidates are facing one hell of a job.

Once upon a time there was a nation that was formed because its people shared a common vision. They wanted to build a country based upon freedom, liberty and justice for all. At least that was the common wisdom even though the reality greatly lagged behind the dream. That nation, with its people sharing a common goal, became one of the greatest and most powerful nations on earth. It has had its moments. When values were in conflict, the nation experienced internal conflict. It suffered a civil war, fought in the streets for true freedom, equality and justice. But it managed to stay together. It battled throughout the world to help others gain or keep their freedoms. Because of its resolve, it almost always prevailed.

This nation welcomed diversity. It opened it arms and its heart to those of foreign lands to come and share in its vision. People helped people and the mix of cultures and the freedom of expression enabled this nation to grow, prosper and to lead. One of its great leaders said that a "nation divided cannot stand" and over time itself held together and stood proud in the gathering of nations. Its people demanded excellence of its leaders and if the leaders did not represent their will. They "threw the rascals out."

To an extent, this nation has been somewhat of a myth. It was not perfect, newcomers were not always welcomed, freedoms were not really for all and its motives in dealing with others were certainly suspect. However, regardless of its imperfections, everyone still believed in its basic founding principles.

What has changed? Do we still believe in basic freedoms? Have we not allowed massive government intrusion into our lives? Do we still welcome the weak, the poor and the hungry? Do we still accept new cultures and seek out their strengths to add to our own. Instead of helping others do we now look to government to solve all of our problems? Are we one voice on the economy, health care, the environment, justice, foreign policy, education and basic rights and liberties for all?

We have come to believe that "others" will solve our problems and we have given others the responsibility to do so. In that process, we have lost freedoms and our basic values. In the upcoming elections we look to the candidates to see who have the best "programs" to alleviate our suffering. We look for the quick fix while failing to see that only we can fix ourselves. Obama, Clinton, McCain and others cannot solve our problems. Every time we look to others to do so, we end up disappointed. If we really wanted universal health care; if we really wanted to lead the world in saving the environment; if we really wanted our children to be able to read, write and think; if we really wanted to feed and house the poor, there is no force on this planet that would stop us. Our politicians have debated and promised resolve on these issues for decades and yet they still persist.

It is our lack of consensus and unity of thought and purpose that prevents the resolution of the issues that concern us. One merely has to look at recent events to see that simply changing politicians and political party domination does not result in the solution and resolution of the issues that confront this country. While the inner chambers of our system bicker and while we, as the people, lack a shared dream, the world is moving past us. Regardless of what you read, it is not President Bush that is getting us into all kinds of trouble. And, regardless of what they say, it will not be Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney that will change our standing in the world. It is we, the people, who must make those tough decisions to once again lead the world into a new era. It is we, the people who must find a common dream and present that dream to the world. While is may be convenient to blame our politicians for all that ails us, it is really each of us who must take the responsibility for the ways we interact with each other and the rest of the world.
Regardless of who wins in 2008, do not expect miracles unless we all decide the kinds of miracles we would like to see manifest.

Mr. Harris was born in Massachusetts. He attended The American University in Washington, D.C. and received his degree in Political Science. His graduate work was done at the University of Northern Colorado and Howard University. While in D.C., he spent several years working for local and regional government agencies. Upon moving to Maine he worked with three governors and served as the Assistant Director of the Maine State Planning Office. He worked on a White House Task Force for the development of a National Rural Policy and later served as Rural Policy Coordinator at the Federal Regional Council of New England. He has worked on gubernatorial and senatorial political campaigns and currently works in Special Education.

Mr. Harris is co-author of the novel WAKING GOD and is a nationally syndicated / featured writer for The American Chronicle. He is working on Book II of the Waking God trilogy. His second novel, A MAINE CHRISTMAS CAROL was released by Cambridge Books, his third book, JESUS TAUGHT IT, TOO: THE EARLY ROOTS OF THE LAW OF ATRRACTION was released by Avatar Publication.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Philip_Harris
http://EzineArticles.com/?Lack-of-Consensus-and-the-2008-Election&id=925841

Another Perfect Storm

By Richard Walrath

It looks like another Perfect Storm to me.

I'm talking about the NH Primary results which left egg all over the pollsters and the political pundits and the media.

Ever since the book and the movie, by the same name, came out, things that go wrong are called a perfect storm.

For opera lovers, it was the Una Furtiva Lagrima that escaped from Hillary Clinton as she bravely faced the cameras and voters on the fateful final day before the election. That's what swayed the election, say they.

Not so, says Andrew Kohut, President Pew Research Center, who brings you the Pew Polls. It was the po' white folks, the poor women voters, to be exact, who turned out in record numbers to vote for Senator Clinton.

Kohut, in his NYT Op-Ed piece today, probably has summed up the results best.

Pollsters, pundits and the media saw what they wanted to see, not what was really there.

Now they will have to face the possibility that their dwindling number of readers and viewers will continue to dwindle and diminish. But I would suggest that being wrong isn't something that the pollsters, the political pundits and the media should find so hard to explain.

After all, they've had lots of practice.

It reminds me of one of Clint Eastwood's movies, Pink Cadillac. Somebody named Roy is supposed to be acting as a look-out, but a gang goes right around him unnoticed by Roy. How could they get by Roy, says one character in the movie. People have been getting by Roy for years is Eastwood's answer.

Lots of stuff--people and things--have been getting by the pollsters, political pundits and the media for years--seven going on eight years, at least.

Richard E Walrath is a former budget analyst and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites: Articles and Answers Articles and Answers 2007 and the Alternative Augumenta blog.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Walrath
http://EzineArticles.com/?Another-Perfect-Storm&id=922006

Republicans Call For Tax And Spending Cuts

By Emma A Johnson

Republican presidential candidates seemed to support a combination of tax reductions and spending cuts to make up for an election-year recession. They were arguing in a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News Channel.

Mitt Romney said during the debate, "We should reduce taxes on middle-income Americans immediately." John McCain, on the other hand, proposed spending cuts to get a grip over the budget deficit. He promised to veto pork barrel spending bills. However, he also stressed that the Bush era tax cuts should continue.

Fred Thompson proposed a cut in corporate taxes, and said that tax cuts brought about in recent years should be extended. Rudy Giuliani also advocated tax cuts. In an advertisement, he promised to send the largest tax cut in history to Congress on his first day in the White House. Of all candidates, only Ron Paul said he believed that there was a recession and that it was only going to get worse.

The debate was part of the run-up to presidential primaries in Michigan and South Carolina. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are expected to be the main contenders in the Michigan primary. A failure here would be critical; the candidate who finishes third is very unlikely to win the race.

Economics were dominant during the first part of the debate and hinted at the concerns regarding the approaching recession. Meanwhile, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has said that he would do everything possible to maintain the expanding economy.

Responding to the recent incident in which the Iranian speed boats were involved in a skirmish with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, all presidential rivals gave a clean chit to the U.S. naval commanders. Some also underlined an intention to be tougher with Iran in the future.

For instance, referring to the incident, Huckabee said that if it occurred again, the Iranians "should be prepared to see the gates of Hell." Echoing Huckabee was Thompson who said, "I think one more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing". Romney said, "I believe Iran represents a very serious threat." He added that the incident was a calculated to test U.S. defensive responses. He said," It points out that we have in Iran a very troubled nation. Also, Romney's criticism of Paul for urging against US involvement in another war met with a mixed response.

Find more about Fred Thompson and other republican candidates for US presidential elections 2008.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Republicans-Call-For-Tax-And-Spending-Cuts&id=924264

Baby Boomers And The Presidential Election - Boomers Will Choose Our New Leader

By Connie Ragen Green

More than fifty percent of the voters in this year's United States presidential election will be over age fifty. That's about fifteen percent more than the people over age 50 who voted in the 2004 national elections. That means that the baby boomers will be choosing our next president. People over age fifty are expected to vote in large numbers, most likely due to the serious issues that are facing us in this country.

Baby boomers are now moving into the retirement stage of their lives. During this phase of life, people are more likely to get involved with choosing the people who will be at the helm and making decisions that will affect them on a daily basis. With the economy in a downturn and medical care costs rising, older people are coming forth in greater numbers than ever to make political choices.

This year, states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia will be swing states that can have a tremendous effect on the outcome of the election. This is due to the fact that a greater than average percentage of the population of these states is made up of people who are older than the national average. You can be sure that the candidates will spend more than their fair share of time making appearance and running ads to ensure that people know exactly who they are and what they stand for.

Another interesting result of this age shift is that older candidates are now much more accepted than in past presidential elections. Senator John McCain is 72 years old and could become the oldest candidate ever elected if he wins the race. That record is currently held by Ronald Reagan, who was 69 when first elected to the presidency.

Connie Ragen Green teaches people how to write, market and sell their ebooks on the internet. Visit http://www.EbookWritingandMarketingSecrets.com where you will receive free tips and a Special Report on writing and marketing your articles and ebooks.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Connie_Ragen_Green
http://EzineArticles.com/?Baby-Boomers-And-The-Presidential-Election---Boomers-Will-Choose-Our-New-Leader&id=922025

Bradley Endorses Obama's Campaign

By Emma A Johnson

Barack Obama's run for president has found backing from the former basketball champion, Senator Bill Bradley. According to Obama's aides, Bradley, who has himself in the past run for president, would be campaigning for Obama.

The aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, hoped that the endorsement would help Obama to displace Hillary Clinton from her position as the national front-runner. Clinton, in the recently concluded caucuses in Iowa last week, came third in Iowa's caucuses. According to a recent poll, Clinton was caught in a tie with Obama in New Hampshire.

In a press release, Brady praised Obama saying, "Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics". Bradly also went on to say, "Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. ... His movement for change could create a new era of American politics _ truly a new American story."

As of now, the optimism in the Obama camp seems justified. Obama is running very close to Clinton, with both leaders enjoying 33 percent support in a CNN-WMUR poll. The poll was conducted two days after Barack Obama's victory in Iowa. Another poll conducted by The Concord Monitor and Research 2000, had Obama leading at 34, with Clinton just behind at 33. However, he will face a tough fight from Clinton who is planning to take on Obama in New Hampshire where the presidential primary is scheduled.

In a statement, Obama said, "Bill Bradley has always called on Americans to reach for what is possible in our politics....As a presidential candidate and author, he has continued to challenge us to build a mandate for pragmatic solutions and progressive change, and I am truly grateful that he has endorsed my candidacy."

Incidentally, Obama's state director, Matt Rodriguez, was earlier a top aide in Bradley's campaign. Bradley was a contender in the 2000 presidential primary against Vice President Al Gore. He projected himself as an alternative to the incumbent Gore. He failed because the independents, the biggest voting bloc in New Hampshire's, chose to back Senator John McCain.

Bradley considered another bid in 2004, supporting the Vermont Governor Howard Dean, but then opted out.

Find more on Democrat Barack Obama - latest information and collection videos about his presidential election 2008 campaign, speeches, and quotes.

Emma Johnson has majored in American History. She writes on politics and current affairs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Bradley-Endorses-Obamas-Campaign&id=922395

The Media Disconnect

By Walter Brasch

Add pundits, pollsters, and the press to the list of losers in the New Hampshire primary.

They weren't on the ballot. They didn't vote. And they didn't get it right.

For the Democrats, Sen. Barack Obama, fresh from victory in Iowa, was supposed to cruise into a double digit win in the Granite State. Sen. Hillary Clinton, at least if anyone believed the media, was going to be flattened by the Obama steamroller that was chugging to dominate all primaries.

In the Republican primary, Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucus, wasn't expected to be at the front of the pack, but he and Mitt Romney were going to go head-to-head. Sen. John McCain, according to most of the media, would go down in flames, forced to give up what he hoped was a comeback.

The voters thought different, giving Clinton and McCain "surprising" wins. At least it was "surprising," according to the media, which over and over proclaimed their wins as "surprising," a desperate effort to give a plausible reason for having been wrong.

The TV media, with journalists an almost extinct minority among what passes as their news staffs, think the best way to cover the primaries is to display 15 seconds of a candidate's visit to a doughnut shop, and then shove in another 45 seconds of public comments about the candidate who said the same thing at 10 different stops that day. Print media reporters spend as much as three minutes with a potential voter, condensing the comments to fewer than 20 words. For variety, the reporters quote not only each other but also the pride of pollsters who hover like trash-dump flies around political campaigns and the media circus.

Smugly, the corporate mainstream media believe they are telling the people what they need to know to defend and preserve democracy-and the millions in advertising revenue. When not watching, eating, or sleeping with the candidates, the media horde eruditely fill air time and newspaper and magazine columns with predictions and mindless discussion, trivializing the race to discuss one candidate's hair, another candidate's choice of pantsuits. They make it seem that without hourly ratings and political predictions, American democracy would fall to the terrorists. However, the media's analyses and predictions may be about as good as those of local weather forecasters and sportswriters.

In her victory speech, Sen. Clinton said she listened to the people of New Hampshire and found her voice. Maybe the media need to spend less time with the candidates and more time with the people, and just listen to them, to try to understand them, their needs and problems, rather than see every carbon molecule as a potential seven-second sound bite or indistinguishable statistic. Perhaps, then, we might accept the media as having some credibility.

[Walter Brasch is professor of mass communications/journalism at Bloomsburg University. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available at amazon.com and other bookstores. You may contact Brasch through his website, http://www.walterbrasch.com]

by Walter Brasch

www.walterbrasch.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Walter_Brasch
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Media-Disconnect&id=920857

What You Can Learn From Hillary Clinton's NH Success

By Jimmy Roos

Searching for success and not getting it soon enough, (remember we are an instant society with instant coffee and instant tea), puts us under enormous pressure to succeed and perform. So we often forget who and what we are. The result is that we follow the latest fads and the latest success techniques, bandied about by the so-called gurus who promise you overnight success if you buy their products and follow their formula.

For way too many this doesn't work.

Here is a case in point. When she started her campaign for the Democratic Party nomination Hillary Clinton thought if she just followed all the advice given to her by her advisors, which include the former advisors of her husband, former president Clinton. Unfortunately, it didn't work. The voters were not doing what they were supposed to do, automatically voting for Hillary. They were attracted to the candidate who spoke with a passion, from his heart.

With her back against the wall as the poll numbers started to predict an Obama victory, Hillary realized that the time for pretend was over and started to show more of the real Hillary Clinton. And as they say the rest is history. Within a less than 24 hour period, the voters responded and Hillary Clinton averted, what would most likely have been a devastating loss into a sweet victory.

Here is another case in point. The album that turned Usher Raymond into a superstar is entitled "Confessions." if you listen to this album you'll hear that it is a very personal album. Before he worked on this album Usher had a number of albums and worked with a number of producers including Jermaine Dupri and P Diddy. However, none of these collaborations gave him the type of success he so craved.

It was at this time that someone suggested that he do an album that reveals more of him. The result is the 2004 album, Confessions, which sold 1.1 million copies in the United States in its first week of release, setting a record for the most number of records sold in 1 week for an R&B artist.

Here is Usher in his own words during an interview he gave: "I always felt like I held something back on my albums - on every album, I was playing a 'role'. This time, I decided to shake my fears and allow my personality to come through. I've really 'lived' this album: I'm in a healthy place right now. I'm 25-years old and I'm dealing with my responsibilities as a man and I'm not afraid to speak, to be realistic and talk about the issues men deal with [in relationships]."

We are often afraid to be ourselves because we are afraid that we'll be judged and looked down upon. The truth is that most people who do this, open up and be themselves, find it to be a freeing experience. They discover that people actually love what they see and hear.

So go ahead and be yourself, you have nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Jimmy Roos is a self improvement author and entrepreneur who is passionate about sharing the good news that anybody can change their circumstances, by changing their thoughts. Visit his website http://how-to-manifest-your-desires.com and receive a free complimentary affirmation course.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jimmy_Roos
http://EzineArticles.com/?What-You-Can-Learn-From-Hillary-Clintons-NH-Success&id=923138

After New Hampshire, the Garish Spotlight Moves On - Who Is the Next Frontrunner?

By James Hyde

Finally, janitors have swept up the last of the campaign placards, streamers and other political trinkets and returned to their work-a-day world. The tornadic political activity that tore through New Hampshire has ended, and not without surprise. While hints of Bobby Kennedy's last public words, "Now on to [pick a state] and let's win there," rang from the bully pulpits of some candidates, for Bill Richardson and a few Republicans the words might well have been, "And now it's back on home and let's rest there."

As members of the press scurry to pack up their satellite trucks to head off to the next state, some folks in New Hampshire may find themselves a little depressed. After all, the garish spotlight of world attention is now focused elsewhere. To others, it's good riddance to all the mayhem. It's been years of candidates holding rally after rally to dip their toes in the rapids of political confrontation.

Some candidates decided to neglect the Granite State altogether for lure of big wins in the bigger states. It's a dangerous strategy for both Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thomson. Rudy has just released a new tax-cut plan that will appeal to voters. But much was made of his recent hospital admission and questions about his health have wounded him.

Thompson is now wandering around South Carolina, happy to be near the bosom of his native Tennessee. He's striving as best as he can to convince South Carolinians that he's "the man." But he campaigns not well or not at all. And late entries into the fray this year tend to be viewed as indecisive. Americans want a strong, tough and dynamic leader.

And that's why Hillary's win was such a surprise. It was as if the people of the Granite State were playing the pollsters. "Oh, yes, I'm voting for Obama," then a brief giggle as they donned their Clinton buttons.

If the people want strength, then they'd be wise to watch that press conference Hillary held the day before New Hampshire went to the polls. The pollsters, fully fooled, sent screaming headlines to the media: "Obama Surges." Even Hillary believed it because during that press conference she came a hair's width away from a serious sob. Her voice cracking and trembling, she tried to explain the pressures of the campaign.

It was a far cry from, "I'll hit the ground running from Day One," a line she's used to the point of tedium. If losing Iowa and being behind in the New Hampshire polls almost had her in tears, wait until she feels the true weight of the Presidency if she qualifies for Hail to the Chief-or would that be Chiefette? We're living in a post 9/11 world-nothing like the 1990s when she was Bill's queen--and should she win, her first gander at the daily threat report won't have her in tears, but it will have her sucking her thumb. Things have changed since she and Bill left the White House. Things have changed a lot, and as a current senator, she should know better.

Her win was hardly even a sprinkle on Obama's parade, the difference only three percent, and now for her there is no margin for error. She had miles of wiggle room not that many weeks before, but this nomination is no longer hers to lose. She's in a serious fight for the banner. What we saw in Iowa, what we saw in New Hampshire is pretty much meaningless in the scheme of things, not that either state isn't important, but if she thinks it's all down hill from here, she'd do well to cast a glance at the mountain ahead. Iowa and New Hampshire were minor hillocks compared to what looms between Hillary and the Oval Office now. She has to work a lot harder long before she thought she'd have to. What happens in South Carolina will be very telling. The pundits have that firmly in the Obama column. (Democrat are boycotting the Michigan and Florida primaries because both states broke party rules by rescheduling their primaries). She has to win the vast majority of upcoming contests, or she'll be saying, "And now it's back to Chappaqua and I'll throw stuff there."

James H. Hyde is Co-Founder, Editor and Designer of newenglandtimes.com He has served as Managing Editor of three magazines, two at the same time; is a winner of the prestigious Jesse H. Neal Award for "Best In-Depth Analysis Article of the Year"; has written two syndicated newspaper columns; and has written for "The New York Times."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Hyde
http://EzineArticles.com/?After-New-Hampshire,-the-Garish-Spotlight-Moves-On---Who-Is-the-Next-Frontrunner?&id=922022

There is No Business Like Political Show Business

By Jim DeSantis

Sen. Obama trotted out Oprah. Sen. Clinton put her family on display, including former President Bill, and she teared up in New Hampshire. These are just the warm ups for the main political show of election 2008.

Gov. Huckabee had Chuck Norris at his side at numerous events. The Chuck Norris appearance with Gov. Huckabee was not as extensively covered by media as were the Oprah and Clinton family events. Sen. Clinton's choking up on camera was shown over and over and over just prior to New Hampshire. It gave her the boost she needed from women voters to grab a close win after being upset by Sen. Obama in Iowa.

The campaign trail will increasingly be like going to the movies or watching the "tube" as Hollywood tries to take advantage of the lazy voters among us. Most recently, Boston Legal on A.B.C. took some strong swipes at the Bush administration and the Iraq war. They attacked the National Guard as well. This propaganda will be seen more and more on TV in the coming months.

Let's look at the Obama-Oprah and Clinton family events.

Sen. Obama proudly proclaimed that the turn out for one Obama-Oprah event was the biggest turnout for a political event ever for any candidate in this campaign. Yet, after Oprah gave a rousing speech, people began leaving the stadium in droves while Sen. Obama was making his speech. Obviously, star struck Oprah fans came to see their idol and could care less about Sen. Obama's views on the issues of this campaign.

To counter Oprah, Mrs. Clinton put family members on display as if to say - "Family values, not star power, are more important to me." Well, that should be the case in every election whether it's a Democrat, Republican, or Independent saying it. The truth, however, cannot be hidden from active voters. The love affair between the Clinton's and Hollywood is well documented. Hollywood money is being poured into the Clinton campaign, along with advice about how to influence star-struck voters.

The only bright spot in media thus far has been Charlie Gibson and A.B.C. News for putting on the live debates. The debates were largely balanced efforts to give voters some solid information from the candidates. In my opinion, the Republican debate was much more lively and revealing than was the Democrat debate. I was disappointed that Sen. Clinton's claim to offering "35 years of change", as qualification to be President, was not challenged by an opponent or media.

You may think that I am anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, or anti-Democrat. I really don't care about political party affiliation, male-female, or black-white-brown-yellow, or Christian-Mormon-atheist-agnostic.

While I am decidedly conservative, I do not lean toward the G.O.P. In fact, there are conservative Democrats and Independents, too. At this point, I haven't begun to decide whom I will vote for. To be honest, I am not impressed by any single candidate of either party. Likely, as it always does, it will come down to the lesser of two evils. But, I will vote because, if I do not vote, I will have no right to complain about my government.

So, what is my motive for this article?

I am antagonistic toward any group that attempts to manipulate the electorate by virtue of money or star power. These are the people we need to guard against and any candidate who makes deals with any special interest group should be crossed off our list of choices.

Think about it. Will Hollywood moguls and other power brokers not expect something in return for their support if their candidate wins? And, can the candidate ignore them once in office? No, not if he or she wants to be elected to a second term in the White House.

Hollywood's agenda is the most dangerous one for America. They want the government to leave Hollywood alone so they can promote their liberal agenda and make piles of money. They claim the rights of "free speech" and "artistic freedom". In fact, it's all about the money they make by appealing to the basest leanings in our human nature. The more unfettered are the movie moguls, the more tickets and DVD's are sold.

If Hollywood gets control of the White House and Congress, look for laws regulating them being watered down or repealed. Look for violent crime and drug use in the movies and on television becoming even more graphic because the movie and TV rating systems will be scrapped or watered down. The result will be a society that will increasingly believe there is no right or wrong and will no longer be hindered in satisfying the basest of desires at the expense of others.

Perhaps you think I have gone off the deep end and see a demon behind every bush. My answer to that is simple - "When in doubt, shout it out!" I would rather find that my fears are unfounded than have to admit I knew the truth and remained quiet.

Jim DeSantis is a retired broadcast journalist who writes social commentary at On Line Tribune Front Page.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jim_DeSantis
http://EzineArticles.com/?There-is-No-Business-Like-Political-Show-Business&id=922282

Virgos Like Obama, Pisces Support Clinton

By Vicky Lynum

Slim folks prefer Obama over Clinton or Edwards for President, according to an unusual, informal survey on various web sites and social networks where the candidates' supporters congregate. By contrast, workout buffs don't seem to be turned on to Obama. Fortunately for the Illinois senator, of those who are fit or weight less than the average, fifty-one percent support him, compared to forty-seven percent for Edwards, who takes the second spot.

Other surveyed factors showed similarly unusual patterns among the Democratic candidates' supporters. Barack Obama has the most numerous group of single supporters. On the other hand, married couples and those in a relationship seem to prefer John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, according to the survey.

When it comes to race, twenty-four percent of Hillary Clinton`s online supporters are Asian, the largest popularity percentage registered among Asian people for a Democratic candidate. Black, Middle Eastern, and white Americans prefer Edwards. Obama has more Hispanic supporters than the other Democratic front runners.

When it comes to religion, Edwards seems to be the candidate of choice among those who consider themselves rather religious. The South Carolina candidate has more religious supporters in his groups of online friends than the other two Democratic front runners. By contrast, Hillary Clinton seems to be very popular among declared Agnostics and Atheists.

Among those who described their religious beliefs, Catholics seem to prefer Edwards as their top candidate, followed by Obama and Clinton. However, Obama seems to be the favorite among Evangelic Christians, who prefer him over Edwards.

(c) Project Weight Loss 2008. All rights reserved.

www.projectweightloss.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Vicky_Lynum
http://EzineArticles.com/?Virgos-Like-Obama,-Pisces-Support-Clinton&id=915061

Presidential Candidates - Don't Judge A Book By Its Category

By Kevin D. Moore

Does it really matter what category or group the future president of the United States is in? Should we really care?

I say "No!" Some say, "Yes!" Some ask, "How can you possibly make such an important decision as to who to vote for without knowing what category or group a presidential candidate is in?" My response to this question is, "So what?"

Call me old fashion but my life experiences have taught me that you can't judge a book by its cover (i.e. category or group.) Just because a person belongs to a political party, religion, gender, or race doesn't mean that they automatically stand for and support the same principles that may commonly be associated with any of those categories or groups.

Sure you could take the easy way out and vote for a candidate based on a specific category but you may be shocked in the end when that candidate takes a stance that is opposite of what you thought the category stands for. Surprise!

I know for many of you, I am preaching to the choir. However, there are so many that I am not preaching to. Perhaps these individuals should consider rethinking the criteria that they use to determine who to vote for. I can't tell you how many times I have been asked who I was voting for simply based on a category.

Now to be honest, even I have thought about supporting a candidate that fits into a category or group that typically is aligned with some of my thoughts on certain issues and concerns. And I must admit that it is so much easier to vote this way. But deep down inside, I know that this method of selection is very naive. Again, the old saying that you can't judge a book by its cover comes to mind. Better yet, no matter the group or category, candidates are individuals and will make decisions the way they want. To think that a candidate makes decisions solely based on a category or group may not be the best use of brain power.

I don't know about you but I believe that the only true way to judge a person is not by their category and affiliation to a group but by what they say and do.

So, does it really matter what category or group the future president of the United States is in? Should we really care? Again, I say, "So what!" I don't care about the political party, religion, gender, or race of a presidential candidate. These aspects are nothing more than the candidate's cover. All I really care about are the principles of the candidate and what the candidate says and does (i.e. walk the walk and talk the talk.)

The decision of who to vote for to be the next president of the United States is just too important! Don't make the mistake of missing what's on the inside. Let's not judge a book by its category.

Copyright © 2008 Knowledge Driven & Moore LLC.

Kevin D. Moore is the author of "Did You Ever Wonder Why Black People Do The Things They Do?" and is the President of Knowledge Driven & Moore LLC (http://www.knowledgedrivenandmoore.com) a motivational speaking and consultant company on Leadership, Management, Communications, and Diversity. Additionally, he is a Chief Information Officer (CIO), a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_D._Moore
http://EzineArticles.com/?Presidential-Candidates---Dont-Judge-A-Book-By-Its-Category&id=918360

Mitt, Barack and Multiculturalism

By John K. Press

It would be extremely rich for culturists if Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama were the nominees of their respective parties. Romney is, of course, a Mormon. Obama has many ties to Islam.

Normally, assuming America has any culturist sensibility at all, Obama's ties to Islam would disqualify him from the presidency of the United States. He went to a madrassa as a child, his father and stepfather were Muslim. Obama visited Kenya, the country of his youth where his muslim stepmother still lives - and supported the Muslim leader in their now bloody conflict, Raila Odinga. But media's blackout is based on its buy-in with multiculturalism. To multiculturalists all cultures are interchagable and equally worthy of celebration.

Romney's Mormon religious roots are problematic too. Many Mormons still believe in Polygamy. Culturism, the book, explains why accepting this on an individualist level makes sense, but culturist reasoning rejects it. What happens when pimps start to marry their whores? When bad men collect women? Mormon's have, in Romney's life, been outwardly racist. Culturists know that even when you are clearly talking about cultural issues you are likely to be smeared as a racist.
Nothing gets you exiled from reasonable discussions faster.

If these two get their party's nominatios we'll get to look at two very unseemly, (Western standards) cultures closely. If multiculturalists qualify their celebration of diversity, they are actually culturists. Either they would have to say they love polygamy and racism, Jihad and honor killings or ignore these examples of diversity. That is what they normally do and strive to do. But the temptation for Romney to use the Islam card and disqualify Obama would be huge. Obama's temptation to uncover the unseemly side of Mormonism would be equally large. If either exposed the other, multiculturalist's unqualified love of diversity would take a hit. Culturist issues would be raised and perhaps our culture would realize that Western values are unique and not to be taken for granted.

John Press is the author of Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. He is also a doctoral student and adjunct professor of education at New York University. http://www.culturism.us has more information about culturism.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_K._Press
http://EzineArticles.com/?Mitt,-Barack-and-Multiculturalism&id=914293

Hillary Warns Obama Voters About Al-Qaida

By Emma A Johnson

Hillary Clinton has warned voters not to elect Barack Obama. The reason: Because the Al-Qaeda is watching the US elections. According to Clinton, America could not risk electing an inexperienced candidate as Obama to president as this would exacerbate the threat of a terrorist attack from the Al-Qaida.

Clinton pointed out how, days after Gordon Brown took over as the British Prime Minister, terrorists had planted bombs, which, incidentally failed to go off. She was referring to the two devices, which, however, failed to explode, and the car, which crashed into the Glasgow airport in June 2007.

"I don't think it was by accident that Al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," the New York senator said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do ... they play our allies," she added, quite evidently attempting to playing on the issue of national security to her advantage. With Obama predicted to deal her a second defeat at the New Hampshire primary, to follow on the earlier one at Iowa, Clinton's move could reflect her desperation.

"Let's not forget, you are hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says he or she will do in an election," Clinton said, adding "You are hiring a president who will be here when the chips are down, and problems pile up, because that's when you really need somebody who knows exactly what has to be done, to make the tough decisions."

"I hope I don't face any of those in my first 100 days, but if I do, I think I will be ready," Clinton said, in a reference to her long career in US public life. On the other hand, Obama, she argued, was a freshman senator from Illinois who was too much of a novice to serve as US commander in chief.

Obama retorted by questioning Clinton's foreign policy expertise. He referred to Clinton's flawed judgment, regarding her vote during the 2002 Senate authorizing President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

Earlier, former president Bill Clinton, referring to the 9/11 tragedy had also argued that the next president of the US would have to be ready for sudden, national security challenges. "You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough... to deal with the unexpected," he said, adding "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign."

Senator Hillary Clinton - latest information and collection of flip flop videos about her election campaign, speeches, and quotes.

Emma Johnson has majored in American History. She writes on politics and current affairs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Hillary-Warns-Obama-Voters-About-Al-Qaida&id=918984

Experience Isn't Everything

By Ahmer M Byrd

In the political arena in 2008, some critics argue you have to have experience to become the president of the United States of America. Their rational is that not having experience would put this country at harms risk in respect to national security. However, this argument reminds me of how employers would deny perspective job applicants. How can you ever gain experience, unless you were given the opportunity to do the job? Barak Obama the presidential democratic front runner is now being attacked about his lack of experience, by members of his own party.

Let's take cliff notes on how our government is set up. Every State in the union has U.S congressmen, except Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S Virgin Islands and up until recently Washington D.C. Every congressman according to their respective state's population either creates or votes on legislation. Two thirds of the congress has to pass legislation before it goes to the Senate. In the Senate legislative bills are either ratified or killed and any bill that is passed must have the same two thirds approval. This branch of government is referred as the legislative branch.

As president your office is called the executive branch. This branch of government has several functions including the title of commander and chief. With such a broad range of responsibilities it would be impossible to have previous qualifications for such a demanding position. To delegate power, the president has cabinet positions which are appointed and must be approved by confirmation by the senate. Currently today we have fifteen presidential cabinet positions; Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Secretary of Homeland Security, these men and women are responsible for executing are government affairs.

Our final branch of government is the judicial branch. This branch, which is also known as the Supreme Court, is responsible in protecting our rights under the constitution and to oversight the legislation that is passed by the congressional and executive branch. Also the court is responsible to review lower court cases from the state and local branches of government. All twelve judges that sit on the court were appointed by former presidents and their positions are lifetime for each judge.

It seems to me that under our system of government no one man or woman is truly qualified to be a president. Our current president W. Bush was a failed Texas businessman. To be a good president of the United States it takes a mandate or purpose, charisma or passion and good judgment of character. Obama's popularity and rise in the polls exemplifies all of these qualities that it takes to be a good president. Barak has a mandate for change of the way politics is done in our nation. People are sick and tired of big dreams and empty promises. The nation want's someone to stand up and deliver.

Mr. Obama has passion that is heart felt; it's not some empty chatter box spouting out a bunch of cleverly worded clichés. His victory speech after the Iowa caucuses was one of the most powerful speeches that will go down as one the best in American political history. Evidence on his judgment of character is too early to call, but the choices for his political advisor's is any indications of his judgment the nation and he'll be just fine. A president needs more than just experience, because he picks out others with expertise to advise him on just about any matter he needs a professional opinion on. Just like a good head coach or captain, a leader has to give people hope and confidence that if we work together we can overcome any obstacle that gets in our way and that is exactly what Barak Obama brings to the table.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ahmer_M_Byrd
http://EzineArticles.com/?Experience-Isnt-Everything&id=912458

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

By Joel Hirschhorn

Ron Paul's obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: "The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won."

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that's not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul's effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani's.

None of these results will impact Paul's supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: "Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier." He was right when he said: "The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously." But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: "The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don't want to tinker; we want to change the status quo." He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul's supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don't think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don't think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don't think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul's passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joel_Hirschhorn
http://EzineArticles.com/?Change-Yes,-Ron-Paul-No&id=911211

Will Barack Obama be the Next JFK or Bhutto?

By Laura Cosse

Obama is asking us to believe in change, and I for one do. What is it about this man that makes us want to follow him? He is charismatic beyond words; he is hopeful, progressive, intelligent, peaceful, inspiring and down to earth. He stands for something we sorely need in our declining country, change. On his website he has a quote, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours." And it seems that America is ready to believe.

Obama stands for the things that made America great in the first place. He stands for justice for all people, no matter what their race, creed or gender. He cares about the poor and the down trodden masses that are ever increasing in America as our middle class declines into poverty. He isn't going to sit back and let the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. He won't let large corporations shirk their tax responsibilities any more and place that huge burden on the working class. Obama sees the world in a different light than these old-school politicians he is running against, their ways are destined to become part of our bitter past.

As an American Muslim, I feel that Barack Obama is going to be the best candidate to protect the civil rights of Muslims in America and abroad. He has lived in a Muslim country and he has had Muslim friends growing up. H went to a school where he studied Islam for two hours a week. This man is not going to fuel the flames of hatred, ignorance and suspicion that the present administration has fired up.

What about the rest of the world, what are they saying? Well, you only have to read comments posted by people around the world on various news websites to know that the world wants Barack Obama as the next American President. I have read comments from Nigeria and Singapore and beyond stating that having Obama as president will restore foreign countries' respect for America once again. The world wants America to change. The youth want America to change. But will America allow that change to happen?

It seems that America has a violent past when we are asked to embrace change. Abraham Lincoln is known in our history as a great man who united the north and south, abolished slavery and initiated the Emancipation Proclamation. However, the confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth assassinated this great man for the changes he brought about, not all of America could handle the radical change.

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were both visionaries who wanted to do great things for our country, namely pulling out of the Vietnam War and focusing those funds on building a stronger America. But, once again, America couldn't handle the changes JFK stood for and he was also assassinated. And Bobby Kennedy, intent on following in his brother's footsteps to bring about the changes America needed, also assassinated. What does this say about change in America? Can we handle it?

Unfortunately, this is not just an American phenomenon, recent events in Pakistan show that once again, change is something to kill over. Prime Minister Bhutto may have brought about some wonderful, progressive changes to the Pakistani government, but now we'll never know.

For Senator Barack Obama, I pray that we are not left wondering, "what if?" I pray for his safety so that he can continue on his mission to bring about change in America and around the world. The world is going to be a safer place if Barack Obama is allowed to be the 44th President of the United States of America. America is going to begin the recovery process when Obama takes control. Keep democracy alive, vote for Barack Obama.

Laura Cosse' converted to Islam in 1996. She is the author of several Islamic children's books and currently resides in Virginia Beach, VA with her husband and twin sons, Muhammad and Hamza. For more info and articles please visit http://www.AdvocateIslam.com and subscribe to our blog for the latest videos and current events with an Islamic perspective, http://www.blog.advocateislam.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Laura_Cosse
http://EzineArticles.com/?Will-Barack-Obama-be-the-Next-JFK-or-Bhutto?&id=911965

The Overlooked Role Of Culture In Obama Victory

By Rick Weaver

In reporting the Barack Obama victory in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa political pundits, including those for the candidates themselves, have missed what is possibly one of the most significant events of the day.

It is not necessarily their fault for missing an unprecedented event as they are focused strictly on the candidates and voter demographics. On the surface this seems sufficient as demographics represent people. But that is similar to saying a fever represents illness. Although it is true that demographics represent people, they miss the reality that people represent cultures. If they were looking at cultures also demographics they would have seen an absolutely amazing story.

They did pick up on the fact that Iowa has a heavily white population. According to the United States Census Bureau, only Vermont and West Virginia are whiter than Iowa. This is important in analyzing the results, but fall short of diagnosing a fever.

Historical perspective

African-Americans historically have been rated higher in polls than on the actual ballot casting. The difference between the two, polling and balloting, is that the pollster knows the identity of the respondent. Balloting is anonymous.

The simple fact shows people want others to think they are inclusive. By publicly stating they are for a minority candidate they feel good about themselves. Once in the voting booth, the anonymity allows for personal prejudices to take over. The stunning aspect of the Iowa results is the caucus process causes someone to publicly declare their vote. It removes the curtain of the voting booth that cloaked the personal bias of the voter.

White Iowans publicly declared their desire for an African-American in the White House. They stood before their friends and neighbors, people they work with, and white folk they had never met to say the African-American Obama was their candidate for the presidency. Never before has this happened. Iowa was a reversal of the norm. Obama actually received a larger percentage than pre-caucus polling had indicated -- and he did it with white voters.

The future

It will be interesting to see how Obama does in the states where secret ballots are used. Regardless of whether or not he ultimately gets the Democratic combination, or the privilege of moving into the White House next January, he will always be the one who broke a very significant cultural barrier -- whites publicly saying the time has arrived for an African-American President.

Rick Weaver is an accomplished business executive with a wealth of experience in retail, market analysis, supply chain enhancement, project management, team building, and process improvement.

Rick career began in retailing as a stockclerk, eventually becoming the Director of Vendor Development at Kmart Corporation during it's heyday. In this position he worked with hundreds of Kmart's suppliers to improve mutual processes, procedures, and profits.

As a consultant, Rick has worked with companies in various industries to develop leadership and business strategies. As an entrepreneur, Rick has founded or co-founded six successful organizations, including non-profit and for profit. Now in his role as president of MaxImpact, Rick uses his vast experience helping individuals connect to their dreams and teams connect to a common vision. Rick's presentation style of blending humor, real life examples, and easy to implement ideas has made him a popular speaker at seminars, workshops, and conferences in in 43states, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

(c) Max Impact Corporation

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rick_Weaver
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Overlooked-Role-Of-Culture-In-Obama-Victory&id=910645

Is Barack White or Black?

By Molly Barrow

Is Barack White or Black?

A rule of competition is to make it personal, if you cannot beat the platform. Sound familiar? Does it serve the competition to refer to Obama as the first black president?

Senator Barack Obama launched his campaign for presidency quietly and is now ahead of the pack. The media, caught showing Obama's photo in juxtaposition with terrorists, has begun to announce Barack Obama's bid for president with the words "Black and historic." Who were Carol Moseley Braun and Reverend Al Sharpton when they ran for President?

Has someone checked the bloodlines of every white past president to say for certain that Black has not been presidential before? Certainly, in other countries black has been King. How much black does it take to be black? One drop? That again ignores good scientific theory of 51%. What does it take to be white? Why does it matter? If he is fifty-fifty, then why not say Obama's historic white bid for presidency?

Crowds are cheering Obama's message and fear is striking in the heart of leader evildoers. As the control of the people slips from this administration, politicians who have aligned themselves with an unpopular side, are now forced to reevaluate their political posturing. Criticism is loud and abundant for Bush choices based on lies and disregard for the good of the people. Clearly the people are demanding politicians of the past release their grip on America's throat.

A country run with intelligence and morality that crowds imagine Barack demonstrates would be a welcome change from unbridled greed and the lightly veiled business of war that makes new billionaires while children bleed to death. Hillary now placing third and John Edwards in second, trailed by Richardson help to make the choice complicated for blue voters.

America is hungry for strong leadership. The one word that is making a difference is not "change" even though Republicans and Democrats presidential contenders scramble to mention change repeatedly in their speeches, but rather it is the word "leader." Who can lead and inspire the people to tackle our country's difficult tasks ahead? We shall see.

Introducing the new relationship compatibility test, Match Lines Systems for Successful Relationships for Singles, Couples and Business by psychology expert, Dr. Molly Barrow. Official Web Site: http://www.DrMollyBarrow.com - Find love and healthy relationship advice for dating, pre-marital, marriage, and business relationships. Dr. Molly Barrow holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and is the author of the new book, "Matchlines: A Revolutionary New Way of Looking at Relationships and Making the Right Choices in Love," ISBN 159507158X. As an authority on relationship and psychological topics; a member of the American Psychological Association, Screen Actors Guild, and Authors Guild and is a licensed mental health counselor, Dr. Molly has appeared as an expert in the film, My Suicide, documentaries Ready to Explode and KTLA Impact, NBC news, PBS In Focus, WBZT talk radio and in O Magazine, Psychology Today, Newsday, The Nest, MSN.com, Yahoo, Match.com, N Magazine, Women's Health, Harvard Business School, Women's World and Shrink About This columnist for Menstuff.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Molly_Barrow
http://EzineArticles.com/?Is-Barack-The-Next-White-President?&id=915938

Hillary Finds Tearful "Voice"

By April Lorier

Well, the big debate today is did Hillary's tears turn her campaign around? Were they real tears, or contrived tears with a purpose? On the "real" side, we have pundits asking why Hillary, a woman, would deliberately make herself look weak when she's running for the most powerful office in our country? On the "contrived" side, we have other pundits saying Hillary is a manipulative woman -- she's always been manipulative -- and women have been getting their way for thousands of years with wavering voices and tears. It makes other women sympathize, and it makes men feel frustrated, mean, and powerless. The important thing here is that people are talking about Hillary ad nauseum! (Any celeb is pretty much dead-in-the-water unless people are talking about them.)

Today Hillary is saying she "found her voice". What voice is that, I ask? I sincerely doubt Hillary has a voice. I believe what she has is a cacophony of voices, depending on where she is, what people are saying about her, and how desperate she feels.

Webster defines cacophony as a discordant and meaningless mixture of different sounds. But, as a musician, I'm well acquainted with a musical cacophony, especially if I'm listening to the oh-so-cerebral genre of jazz. The sound is not pleasant, except to those who like musical noise, it is understood by none, but is appreciated by the pseudo-intellectual.

Five musicians are on stage and they're playing a song we know. Then, without warning to our nervous systems, they begin to play a mish mash of horrible chords that jar us out of our chair. Nothing makes sense! Your nerves are in a wild uproar, and you wonder where you are, what they're doing, and why? Have they all gone crazy? Are they on drugs? Did Alzheimer's hit all of them at the same time, and they forgot what song they were playing?

Hillary's voice strikes me the same way. I'm a person who likes melody, harmony, and beauty. Once I've heard a song and felt moved by it, I appreciate predictability in anyone else's rendition of that song. If Celine Dion made the song famous, I don't want to hear Willie Nelson's version! Hillary's voice sounds different every hour, and her face looks different, too. Who is she really? Is there even a real Hillary that exists?

I have my own little theory about Hillary's voice and her tears. Research over many campaigns in many years has shown that people ultimately vote for the candidate they like the best. So issues become second to likability. Why else would candidates make fools out of themselves by showing how badly they play musical instrument, or chowing down a huge piece of whatever is popular in each state? Why would they spend so much time on late-night-television shows auditioning for such a serious job?

I'm postulating that it went like this: "Hillary, people don't like you! They don't give a tinker's damn where you stand on issues. The men hear their shrieking, nagging wives' voice when you yell. The women are turned off by the abrasive tone in your voice as your face contorts in unflattering views. You scare the children, Hillary! You need to make these people see you as a real woman -- a caring, compassionate, and sometimes vulnerable woman who would relate to their personal struggles. Show your feminine side, Hillary! Look softer! A wavering voice and glistening eyes could turn this whole pony race around!"

Hey, if there's one thing no one can accuse Hillary of being, it's dumb.

(c) 2008 April Lorier

April Lorier is an award-winning poet, writer, Author, Christian Speaker, Columnist, and former music teacher.

As a pastor's daughter and a survivor of severe child abuse, April Lorier has an intimate knowledge of child abuse in and out of the church. She founded COPE, Inc, for the retraining of abusive parents. She successfully fought for the passage of The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA), signed by Ronald Reagan.

Her autobiography, "GOD'S BATTERED CHILD: Journey from Abuse to Leader" (2007) is available at Amazon, B & Nobles, Target and at http://gods-girl.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=April_Lorier
http://EzineArticles.com/?Hillary-Finds-Tearful-Voice&id=919840

College Voters - Apathetic or Patriotic?

By Kevin D Mccarthy

As I am writing these words, presidential caucusing in Iowa is just beginning. But as you are now reading, the top Democratic and Republican candidates have already been chosen and dutifully reported throughout the media.

Allow me to make a prediction: the Democratic winner will be a current U.S. senator. The Republican will be a former governor. Think for a second. Am I correct? Keep in mind that I am writing this article before the respective winners have been identified.

The fact that you're reading this implies several possible realities: a) you're my mother; b) you've stumbled across this website during a routine web search for "donkey" and "caucus;" or c) you are at least mildly interested in presidential politics. If you fall into the first two categories, stop reading. You will be sorely disappointed. However, if you're in the last category and especially of college age, keep on reading. This column may actually prove to be useful to you.

Countless talking heads on television- as well as suicidal high school civics teachers- have said that young people aren't politically aware. Actually, they use a more ominous term: young people are "apathetic."

Is this true? My CNN/NPR/Larry Craig fetish would seem to indicate otherwise. After all, check out my daily routine. Wake up at 6 a.m. Turn on talk radio. Turn on the computer. Google search for "donkey" and "caucus." Read New York Times. Watch CNN. Google search for "Anderson Cooper" and "caucus." Go to sleep. Dream about Anderson Cooper's caucus.

I know, it's a pathetic existence, but it satisfies my daily thirst for all things political.

It may sound trite or even narcissistic, but I consider myself far-distanced from youthful, political apathy. And since you're still reading, you must be at least slightly similar to me: way too interested in Anderson Cooper... or... er... politically aware.

So, why the bad rap for young people? Are the talking heads right? Are you and I the exception rather than the rule? If so, what can be done to keep the college cohort from descending into the annals of history as the reason why George Bush was reelected?

After all, the likes of Bruce Springsteen, assisted by P. Diddy (is that still his name?), who told our age group to "Vote or Die" (whatever the heck that means) tried to rock the vote in 2004. It turns out that our age group didn't vote much in 2004, which theoretically led to the reelection of Bush.

I got the "vote" part down, but I'm still waiting for that death thing to arrive, Diddy.

Let's step back and look at this from a wider angle. Did the college crowd refrain from voting in 2004 (or any year, for that matter) because of apathy? Perhaps, but can we take a more academic approach (which is something I've been told that college students are supposed to do)?

If there is one thing our age group has been historically good at doing (other than taking bong hits and test-cramming), it is demonstrating the art of protest. From Vietnam-era marches on Washington, D.C. to standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, it's our age group that consistently leads the way in protest and major social movements. Heck, it's almost expected of us. I often hear people lament that current students have not taken as noticeable a stand against the Iraq War as our counterparts did against Vietnam. But that may have more to do with circumstances than anything else. After all, there are no draft cards to burn this time around, and the social outcries formerly seen on the National Mall in Washington take a more technological approach on YouTube and blogs. Have you seen the movie Hackers? It shows youth leading the electronic dissidence movement.

Dissent, as some believe that Thomas Jefferson has said, is the highest form of patriotism; no group voices its dissent for national policies and trends quite like the college crowd.

Therefore, rather than writing off the voting habits of our college population as evidence of political apathy, why not view it as our exuberant and youthful form of political participation? Could it be that in 2004 our age group cared not about Bush or Kerry, or is the problem more systemic? Could it be that we took a serious look at both candidates, each with his respective record and plan for America, and decided that neither would be fit for command? Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a rationale used all too often, and quite frankly, it's a disturbing one to hear. A refusal to vote is just as valid, if not more so, than settling for a "less bad" candidate.

If college students remain politically disengaged during this campaign season, let's dispense with the "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" campaigns. Instead, let's recognize the great contributions that college students have made towards refusing to partake in voting sorely for the sake of fulfilling a School House Rock notion of civic duty. When students all over the country protest the November general election, let's congratulate them for their refusal to engage a system that consistently only allows well-endowed senators and governors a chance to win.

Now, if you'll allow my indulgence, I've got some internet searching on Anderson Cooper to do.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_D_Mccarthy
http://EzineArticles.com/?College-Voters---Apathetic-or-Patriotic?&id=917008

President Barack Obama We Salute You

By Otto King

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Caucus goers in Iowa thought so, turning out in record numbers to give Mr. Obama his first decisive win.

What happened to Mitt? What happened to Hillary? All that money... I guess Iowans had enough of empty suits and empty promises. The watchword was "Change" and with Barack Obama, that's exactly what they saw. Or what they thought they saw.

Like Jack Kennedy, Obama offered hope - a commodity in short supply in these disastrous years of the Bush administration. Hope, and reasonable expectations of realizing it.

Mr. Obama, of course, has a secret weapon: the magnificent Michelle, his wife, who personifies dignity, grace and intelligence. We should be so blessed to have her as First Lady. In fact, were she the candidate instead of her husband, there would be no contest. She'd win in a landslide.

Oh, by the way, Mike Huckabee carried the day for the republicans. Sort of an afterthought there. It's amazing how far just being a likeable guy who can crack a joke once in awhile can take you. I predict that the Huckster's facade will soon be broken. People will begin to realize that, much to their amazement, Mike Huckabee would not represent any improvement over the present incumbent. He could, in fact, actually be worse.

I hereby nominate Mike Hoaxter for president of Arkansas. His qualifications to lead this country do not extend beyond the borders of that state. As will be quite clear to almost everyone in short order.

As for the rest of the candidates - there are only a few with any chance at all, and their chances are looking more and more like slim to none. John Edwards is a decent guy who has a slim chance. Very slim. For some strange, unknown reason, however, he apparently has limited appeal. May be something to do with the subconscious image of millionaire trial lawyers.

Mitt Romney? All his millions can't dispel the notion that he is merely acting out a well-practiced part. No one is quite ready to give him the White House trophy he covets.

Hillary? The agent for change - in her own mind - is the very personification of the status quo. A status that everybody has had more than enough of - and no obscene hundred million dollar war chest is going to change that. Hillary and Bill are yesterday. They're history. They did their damage and got away with it. Now is the time to move on. You're old news, Hillary. Bad news. Now go away.

Of all the candidates, Senator Obama best projects a vision of achievable hope - a convincing scenario that change is actually possible. But a word of caution in your consideration of Barack Obama. Consider - really consider - exactly what changes are promised and their likelihood of achievement. Consider their value - and their cost. Consider also the influence and advice he'll receive - and the likelihood of his following it.

I am particularly concerned about a speech Senator Obama gave at the AIPAC Policy Forum on March 2, 2007. Obama pledged his unquestioned support for Israel. That included total commitment to fully funded military assistance. A Pro Israel declaration of submissive obedience - no matter what the cost to America.

It is a well-known fact that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a very special interest group that exerts unbelievable control and unquestioned domination over the completely subservient government of America. Promises made to such a cabal can be expected to be enforced - no matter what the cost to real Americans.

But in consideration of Barack Obama's performance in seeking their suppport, I give the benefit of the doubt to any candidate's acceptance of the fact that undying support for Israel - no matter what - is an absolute requirement to the advancement of any political career.

Mr. Obama, at least on the surface, is as warlike as any other candidate - ready to destroy any country on receipt of direct orders from Tel Aviv. But I detect a difference. Nothing I can specifically identify, but I have an unmistakable feeling that the good Senator's primary concern is America - that promises to any other nation are made as a matter of expected compliance - a convenience leading to election, more than a declaration of servitude and expected surrender of independence.

I could be wrong. Time will tell. In the meantime, I am convinced just by the Iowa results that Barack Obama will be, at least, the democratic nominee. If not our next president.

The republican nominee? Unknown at this point. Latest polls here in New Hampshire show a surprising surge for John McCain. I can only say that it gets cold in New Hampshire. Very cold. Cold enough to freeze more than a few brain cells. There's no other logical explanation.

A McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush policies that have all but destroyed this country. If McCain becomes president, say goodbye to your kids. They'll be coming home in bits and pieces - if at all - from the next proxy war for Israel in the Mid East- guaranteed. Guaranteed!

Rumor has it that McCain would select Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Can you picture a McCain/Lieberman administration? We are already victims of a Republikud Party without knowing it. Such an administration can be expected to complete the absolute destruction of what's left of this country in short order.

Before you cast your vote for John McCain, do a little investigation. You'll find a master of disguise and a rabid Zionist. Don't fall for his magician's soft-spoken spell. He's capable of making George Bush look like a choir boy in comparison.

While you're considering which candidate, if any, deserves your vote, take a second look at John Edwards. Forget what I mentioned earlier about subconscious impressions. The more I see and listen to what he has to say, the more convinced I am that he would make one of our better presidents. Seriously.

A better choice still, would be the candidate who came in with just 10% at the Iowa Caucus. A candidate considered to be nothing less than the mortal enemy of our corporate, special-interest government. A candidate so feared by the establishment media that announcers are actually forbidden to mention his name.

When the combined forces of a Zionist government and media are forced to use every dirty trick in the book to try to ignore and discredit one candidate - and that candidate achieves 10% in the first serious contest - even beating out recent front runner Rudy Giuliani - they have more than a little to fear.

The candidate, of course, is Ron Paul - the only candidate that can save this country - by truly representing the interests of Americans, first, last and always. The only candidate that can't be bought. And you had better believe that imperial Amerika is more than a little fearful of such an incredible phenomenon.

Consider Mr. Paul when you consider how to cast your vote. His message is getting out, despite every effort to stop him. His support is increasing in unprecedented numbers as the truth of his message sinks in.

Consider this: A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to reclaim our Constitution and our country. A vote for almost any other candidate is a vote for perpetual war - and a notice to the world that we are as guilty as our government.

You may, of course, be of the growing contingent that believes their votes are wasted. You may be correct, and Mr. Diebold and his magic machines might very well have the last word. In which case, feel free to completely ignore everything you've read thus far.

Maybe it's all a dream after all, and we'll wake up any moment now to a bright, shiny tomorrow.

Lets just pretend that the American dollar is actually worth more than the paper it's printed on. That millions of Americans aren't about to lose their jobs and their homes in the housing fiasco. That we aren't heading into recession, but into a full-blown actual Depression.

Lets pretend that we don't torture people, in this country and all over the world - that we aren't under illegal surveillance - that we aren't treated like a conquered sub-species at our own airports.
That our elections are fair and aboveboard and guaranteed to give us leaders of whom we can be proud, rather than ashamed.

But you can't pretend reality away. We are an occupied country and the United States of America no longer exists. Democracy, which we seek to impose by gunpoint on the rest of the world, no longer exists here. Freedom, once our most precious asset, is little more than a fond, fading memory.

So go ahead and vote. Or not. Maybe it will make a difference. Chances are it won't. In my opinion, we have exactly one thin, almost nonexistent chance to change things - through the election of Ron Paul. It will happen, or it won't.

In the meantime, enjoy the entertainment - like a condemned man's last meal. Savor the taste. And be ready to pay the price. Whatever comes our way, we undoubtedly deserve it.

Otto King is a freelance writer, humorist and philosopher. His website 1984 News offers Real News from alternative and global sources, and chronicles our transformation into the totalitarian world of Orwell's 1984.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Otto_King
http://EzineArticles.com/?President-Barack-Obama-We-Salute-You&id=915609

Sweat and the 2008 Presidential Race

By Dan Bimrose

On the surface perspiration would seemingly have little to do with how one fares during a presidential race. The amount of sweating could be an indication of how one is actually doing. For example, Hillary Clinton is doing a lot more sweating now than she ever has. Apparently even riding her husbands coattails requires some effort.

The title of this article however is in reference to John Edwards. All of the candidates are going through a great deal of stress right now. This fact is undeniable. But John Edwards, in addition to running a campaign has had to deal with his wife's serious health issues.

During the New Hampshire debates this weekend while Barack Obama seemed complacent and Hillary Clinton seemed frustrated, John Edwards seemed impassioned and filled with purpose. While still an underdog to win, his comments on Hillary and the status quo were strong enough to cause her to lose her normal level of self control.

You might be surprised to discover that part of his pre-debate preparation included a jog. Yes, he went running. I assume Edwards like everyone else spent a great deal of time going over and over possible questions and the appropriate answers but he also included a little brainless exercise.

The importance of exercise in relieving stress is not fully appreciated by most people. It is a great way to clear your thoughts. Exercise with some strenuous component can release those "feel good" chemicals that our body produces naturally. We all have a tendency to think too much at times. The brain can become overloaded and then we start to stress and are not able to think clearly.

While many people may think it is time for a nap or a cup of coffee, taking a walk, a run, or a bike ride could be just what the doctor ordered.

It worked for John Edwards anyway. He appeared energized and focused for the debate. A fact that was good for him and his supporters and not so good for Mrs. Clinton.

Dan Bimrose is the creator of coffeeandprozac.com a website devoted to helping people help themselves. His "Attack Your Life" series aims to give people simple, easy to understand methods to profoundly change their lives. Help battling depression, anxiety and stress.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dan_Bimrose
http://EzineArticles.com/?Sweat-and-the-2008-Presidential-Race&id=914793

The Nation Endorses Kucinich

By Emma A Johnson

The editors of the leading political magazine explained their support for the Democratic presidential candidate by saying, "In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying the ideals of this magazine". Kucinich was chosen for this honor from amongst all the other Democratic candidates.

The magazine in its lead editorial said that a vote for Kucinich "would be a principled one". It continued, "He has been a forceful critic of the Bush administration, opposing the Patriot Act and spearheading the motion to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He is the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War in 2003 and has voted against funding it ever since."

The editorial further noted that only Kucinich, along with Bill Richardson, from amongst all the serious contenders in the race for president, had called for a full and immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. It also noted that only Kucinich had proposed funds for reparation.

The editorial also referred to the Kucinich's championing of causes such as reduction of the country's military budget, a stop to nuclear armament, reforms in campaign finances, a universal single-payer healthcare plan, gay marriage, and ending the death penalty and the war on drugs."

Praising Kucinich's progressive vision, the editorial continued, "With Democrats running left and Republicans slouching right, we believe this election presents a historic opportunity to precipitate a progressive realignment. There is ferment in the air, a yearning for change and for a resuscitation of America's most inspired dreams of justice and equality. The kindling is in place, but the right spark has not yet been struck."

The magazine also discussed the other leading Democratic candidates. It noted Hillary Clinton's shift on the Iraq issue and said that the "presence of familiar and high-priced pollsters and lobbyists in the upper echelons of her campaign, as advisers and donors, is a worrisome sign." Both, Barack Obama and John Edwards, it conceded, were "reaching for new ground", but "also presented the risks - and promises - of unknown potential".

Referring to the Iowa caucus, the editorial wrote, "Simply put, many Iowans will soon face a question that the rest of us may have to answer later: if not Dennis, then who"?

Born on October 8, 1946, Democrat Dennis Kucinich represents the 10th District of Ohio in the United States House of Representatives.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Nation-Endorses-Kucinich&id=914540

Notes From the Couch - The Politics of Happiness & Defining Moments - Are You Ready for Change?

By Risa Mason

Throughout history, we have seen pivotal moments in American politics when the human spirit was fervently inspired. One such moment occurred during Barack Obama's Iowa victory speech when the Illinois senator passionately addressed our nation following the caucuses.

We are choosing hope over fear- in the face of impossible odds people who love this country can change it- years from now you will be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began- this was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long-this was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear and doubt and cynicism- the politics where we tear each other down instead of lift this country up- years from now you will look back and say that this was the moment- this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope- hope is not blind optimism- it is not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path- it is not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight- hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it (Barack Obama).

At the dawn of this New Year I invite you to apply Obama's words to the politics of your own life. Have you given up hope that something better awaits you? Years from now when you look back on your life, how do you wish to remember this time period? Are you ready to create a defining moment in your life? Are you blinded by fear and cynicism or invigorated by a wealth of possibilities? Are you hiding on the sidelines of life or flourishing in center stage?

Those who spend their lives looking behind or fearing what lies ahead miss what is right in front of them. The choices you make today directly influence your reality tomorrow. As Obama so aptly stated, hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and work for it and fight for it. What in your life is worth fighting for? Do you believe that something better awaits you, or have your resigned yourself to your current state of affairs?

Children and animals are blessed with the gift of mindfulness- carefree and exuberant; they are free from the constraints of mind identification and self consciousness. Can you even recall the last time you laughed from deep in your belly, followed impulse instead of reason, released your inhibitions and severed your attachment to the past and future? Happiness is in large part a function of the perspectives you chose to adopt. If you focus on past regrets or future concerns you will miss out on the present moment and pass through life in a self induced, anesthetized trance.

The majority of folks I see in my practice are struggling with emotional pain and inner turmoil related to situations, challenges or perceived losses that have already happened, or ones that have yet to occur. Believe it or not, there is never a moment in your entire life that is not right now. I am reminded of the recently divorced single mother who lies awake at night dreading the prospect of financial disaster, the middle aged mother of adult children who longs to return to the blissful days of early childhood, and the doctor's wife with chronic depression whose single days were spent searching for a mate, while her married life is filled with longing for her lost youth and missed opportunities. Once she finally reached her goal of a beautiful home, loving husband and healthy child, she found herself wrestling with a profound sense of spiritual alienation, discontent and emptiness.

I have been thinking deeply about the concepts of hope and change in recent months. In a Mercury column several months ago I stated: I feel like Rip Van Winkle emerging from a 20 year slumber and returning to his village, only to discover everything has changed and his wife and close friends are long gone. The village I must reclaim is that of my own soul. Like Rip Van Winkle, I face the reality that the past is gone and there is no turning back. However the only moment that ever truly matters is now. My analogy of Rip Van Winkle was intended to illustrate the disillusionment and emotional numbness we all experience when we allow the toxicity of fear, doubt, ambivalence and stagnation to poison our minds, hearts and souls. When we bust through the shackles of fear the word suddenly seems more vibrant and we feel more alive. It is never too late to begin this process.

Just as Obama stated, it is time to choose hope over fear-even in the face of impossible odds. If you learn to love and value yourself and celebrate the life you are living, you can create a defining moment in your life and unleash the power of change at any point in time. Would you like this moment to be your defining moment- the moment you charge through your self imposed barriers and fight for your dreams? The path to fulfillment will become clear once you release your fear and turn your focus away from obstacles and towards possibilities. If you focus on the enormity of the task at hand you will never recognize your dreams; if you visualize yourself at your final destination, your journey will progress with surprising ease.

A dear friend of mine lost one of his arms during early childhood as a result of a gunshot wound. Despite the fact that he is well beyond age 60, he continues to perform strenuous manual labor on a regular basis and he radiates love and tranquility. He is humble as the day is long, attends church on Sundays and derives pure joy from helping those less fortunate than himself. Without fail, my friend always greets me with a warm hug and a glowing smile. He sings while he works and rarely gripes or complains. Once, when I inquired about how he manages to perform grueling manual labor with only one arm, and he laughed and replied, "I have more strength in this arm than most people have in both arms combined." The story of my friend illuminates the power of perspective and the unlimited capacity inside each of us to shape the course of our own destiny.

Whatever your unique circumstances of adversity may be, why not make this the defining moment in your life? Wipe the canvas clean and begin to create your own unique portrait of faith, hope and optimism. Remember- the colors you choose today will be reflected in your life portrait years down the road. Close your eyes, breathe deep, and capture the beauty of the present moment. As Obama recently stated, years from now you will be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

Risa Mason is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Charleston, S.C. She specializes in coaching people towards inner peace and fulfillment by teaching them how to live, dream and thrive. You may contact her for individual or group coaching, or public speaking engagements at 843-769-0444.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Risa_Mason
http://EzineArticles.com/?Notes-From-the-Couch---The-Politics-of-Happiness-and-Defining-Moments---Are-You-Ready-for-Change?&id=912036

Ron Paul May Have Ignited A Political Movement

By James W Smith

Six months ago I glanced at the political campaign sign of this little known candidate on the corner of my street and thought he was running for the local school committee. A few weeks later I learned that the man is a doctor and military surgeon. He is 72 years old and a ten term Republican congressman from Texas running for President of the United States in the 2008 election.

As I look at the state of the Ron Paul campaign today, the fact is that his public opinion poll numbers represent no current threat to the hierarchy in either political party. By almost every measure he is a fringe candidate. Every measure that is except one. The campaign of Ron Paul has what every other campaign does not have. It has genuine grass roots support and passion.

His supporters believe in the man and his message. His campaign has been on fire on the Internet throughout 2007. Now, it looks like he has raised more campaign money than any candidate of either party in the fourth quarter of 2007. His campaign war chest grew by over 19 million dollars. In fact more than 130,000 contributors gave to the Ron Paul campaign during the fourth quarter of 2007, including more than 107,000 new donors. On December 17, 2007, his campaign raised a record six million dollars in a single day.

Meanwhile those public opinion polls continue to show Ron Paul's national base of support at just 7% (Rasmussen). So what is going on here? There are several possible explanations: The intensity of support behind the Ron Paul campaign may well indicate the beginning of a future political movement.

It also may be support for the only candidate that in 2008 stands for a real change of direction in Washington D.C.. Even though he is running in the Republican primary, Paul seems to be attracting a protest vote about the way government is being run by both political parties in the nation's capital.

With the damage to the Republican brand of smaller government, less taxes and less government intrusion, there does not seem to be a real important choice between the Republican and Democratic party candidates any more. Everything between the two major parties now seems to be a difference of degree not in policy distinction.

The message of the Ron Paul campaign fills the issue void of both major parties. It does not promote business as usual in Washington D.C. In fact, it is a platform that promotes radical change. In general, The campaign of Ron Paul promotes smaller government and individual civil liberties. It even has some different political positions that have appeal across the broad political spectrum with different ideologies.

The message of his campaign is a strong national defense that deals with our safety and our borders. Paul believes that the government, neglecting a Constitutional responsibility to protect its borders, has concentrated instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries. He is against the Iraq war and a foreign policy of nation building.

Ron Paul advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. Paul supports free trade and rejects membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization. (WTO). He supports both tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens.

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service. He wants to eliminate most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve. He prefers a much smaller federal government to be funded through excise taxes and tariffs, not through an income tax.

Paul has asserted education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal "No Child Left Behind Act" and voted against it in 2001. Instead, Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools.

Ron Paul will not be the next President of the United States. His campaign probably will never receive more than 10% of the national vote. At the age of 72 , he likely will never run for President again. However, his campaign has shown that there is a passion for a message of change that will only grow if it continues to be "business as usual" in Washington D.C.

There is a growing audience and the foundation of a political platform here for a future charismatic presidential candidate to harness. Indeed, the 2007 Ron Paul campaign may well have ignited a political movement that may not go away any time soon.

James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. He has always been interested in writing and listening to different viewpoints on interesting topics.

Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_W_Smith
http://EzineArticles.com/?Ron-Paul-May-Have-Ignited-A-Political-Movement&id=913461

Matt Drudge & Ann Coulter Doom the Republicans

By Carey Masci

I was listening to Matt Drudge on the radio Sunday night. He blasted all Republican candidates and said they don't deserve to win, the next president will be Hillary Clinton even though she doesn't deserve it either.

Matt then went on to list the reasons why each Republican Candidate deserves to lose. Only two really upset me, those two were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Matt said that Mitt Romney running in a mostly Democrat state for senate and governor had to run to the left but still he has flip flopped. Matt Drudge just about gave Romney a free pass. Is that absurd thinking or what? A man abandons his principles, shows lack of character for not sticking to his values, wins the Governorship and instead of going back to his conservative roots promotes a very liberal lifestyle but now running for president he announces I am back to the right side. Are we suppose to believe him? Did he vote for gay marriage before he voted against it?

A person of strong convictions and character would never compromise his beliefs for anything. When Allen Keyes ran for the senate in Chicago it was the greatest election defeat in Illinois Senate history, he lost big time. BUT he never once abandoned his principles or backtracked on anything! He went to Illinois with a moral agenda and wasn't about to compromise just for victory. That is leadership and someone to look up to.

Are you following what I am saying? A person who switches sides either has changed his mind or does it strictly for personal gain. Which Mitt is the real Mitt?

Then Drudge went on to Mike Huckabee and what did he say? He read the entire article written by Ann Coulter. Why didn't Matt Drudge do his own homework or tell us something new about Huckabee? I'm sure after a 10 year record as governor there has to be more to him than just what Ann wrote about. Surely he could of found something.

As for Ann Coulters article, where she tries to connect dots but uses curved lines to do so, is so off track its silly. You need to read her article again slowly and you will find that it was written very slanted.

She is trying to convince you that a statement by a Governor, a statement, got that, a statement, one more time a statement Mike Huckabee made about a Supreme Court ruling, not a ruling he made but a Supreme Court ruling is far worse than than that of another Governor running on the far liberal side, making statements and laws that are homosexual friendly, in fact same sex marriage passed in his state. Is that to much? Why doesn't she compare Huckabee's record and or views on abortion, protection of marriage and other family issues to that of Mitt Romney's record? That would be by far a more accurate comparison than one statement he made.

Ann then tries to make an argument the Mike Huckabee is pro-gay marriage by making this absurd statement "How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are "probably" unconstitutional". Oh my! She is comparing a sex act to a product. What someone does in their home is their business. Are we suppose to have bed checks? But with cigarettes, they are sold in stores which can be accessible to anyone and just by being on the shelves for kids to see is promoting an unhealthy and dangerous product. Ann let me ask you, sodomy usually refers to a male using a certain part of his anatomy, have you ever went into a store and asked for soft or hard pack? You would get cigarettes not the male... Do you understand what I am getting at, I was trying to add humor to her ridiculousness.

In Mike Huckabee's own words: State governments have no business regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults but do have a role in defining marriage,... Striking laws "that prohibited private behavior among adults probably was appropriate because that's not something that would be easy or even possible to regulate. Not sure that government ought to be regulating that, If, however, advocates asked states to endorse the concept of same-sex unions, "we can say no to that," Huckabee said.

Isn't this a little different than Ann Coulter's closing remarks of "...... I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians. Where does she come up with that? Ann Coulter not only has lost her mind but her credibility.

Carey K. Masci

Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.

I write frequently for the Lake Gop, http://lakegop.blogspot.com/, I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.

The first step in expanding my horizons was attending a class held by Author Mark Barnes (The League and An Ordinary, Happy Man) who led me to this site. My style convers all areas, politics, human interest, sports, travel, to the absurd and funny.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carey_Masci
http://EzineArticles.com/?Matt-Drudge-and-Ann-Coulter-Doom-the-Republicans&id=906319

2008 Presidential Candidates and Gun Control - An Overview

By Roxanne Davenport

As the presidency of George W. Bush draws to a close, the candidates to fill his position are being examined ever more closely as Election Day draws nearer. One major issue for hunters, sportsmen, law enforcement, and just about everyone on some level, is the issue of gun control and 2nd Amendment rights. The common wisdom is that the more liberal the candidate, the more he or she will be for stricter gun control, whereas the more conservative, the more for gun ownership rights. Below is a look at some of the front runners and the stances they have taken on the issue.

Barack Obama, the Illinois senator, has a consistent record of working to increase restrictions on firearms. He supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. He is also in favor of increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and believes manufacturers should provide child-safety locks with all firearms. He also voted no on a bill that would have prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers (the bill would have still allowed lawsuits for such things as defective products).

Hillary Clinton attributes lower crime rates and gun violence in the 1990's to a combination of policies putting more police in communities and removing assault weapons from the streets. She has supported waiting periods for buying handguns, and also voted no on the bill prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. She supported legislation that would have required anyone purchasing a gun to obtain a "gun license", a state-issued photo identification. She spoke in favor of a national registry to record every new handgun sale and transfer. In 2000 she was quoted as saying, "I realize the NRA (National Rifle Association) is a formidable political group, but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them."

In 1995, Rudy Giuliani appeared on the Charlie Rose show and compared the NRA with "extremists". He stated that the anti-gun control policies of many Republicans are "terrible for states and cities...terrible for America." Giuliani put some blame on lax gun laws for a shooting that occurred from atop the Empire State Building in 1997, saying "It should be as difficult to get a gun in Florida as it is in New York City." He criticized southern states for their permissive gun sale laws. He has also intimated that urban settings should have stricter gun laws than rural or suburban; while he felt tough laws were needed in New York City, "in another place, more rural, more suburban...you have a different set of rules." As a Republican presidential candidate in 2007, he has moved away somewhat from his tough gun control stance, saying that states and cities should be allowed to make their own gun legislation locally.

Mitt Romney has stated his support for 2nd Amendment rights, but also supports an assault weapon ban. He supports the five-day waiting period for handgun purchase outlined in the Brady law. He is a member of the NRA, but has stated that he does not "see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue." In an interview with Tim Russert, he stated that he had the NRA's support in his campaign for governor, and would like to have it again now. He also supports background checks for weapons purchases.

Candidate Mike Huckabee has stated that his position on the 2nd Amendment is as clear for him as most journalists' towards the 1st Amendment. He describes himself as a hunter and sportsman and said that he proudly owns a variety of firearms. He supports laws that allow individuals to use necessary force to protect their homes, and for self-defense. He is in favor of allowing "conceal and carry" and has said he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon himself.

Making an informed decision at the voting booth can be challenging, with all the competing sources of information in the media and Internet. When researching a candidate on this and other issues, it's always wise to look for information from a variety of sources to get the best picture.

For information on equipment and supplies for law enforcement, hunters, sportsmen and others, visit http://www.professionalsuppliesforless.com

Roxanne Davenport is a freelance writer and experienced public safety official. For information about personal safety and security equipment visit http://www.professionalsuppliesforless.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Roxanne_Davenport
http://EzineArticles.com/?2008-Presidential-Candidates-and-Gun-Control----An-Overview&id=901633

Don't Let Apathy Win the 2008 Presidential Election

By Jeff Roney

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Undecided, or None of the Above. Whether you are pleased or enraged with the current administration. Whether you think your vote will count or not, now is not the time to back away from the campaign and election process. It is time to become involved, but this time it will be different.

The 2008 Presidential election will be the most important and different election we have ever seen in American history. Apart from the issues, promises, and scandals, a new reason has joined the candidates on the stump- its that thing you're surfing on - the internet.

In the past we have seen websites and maybe a Youtube advertisement or two, but in 2008, the election playing field includes social networking sites, video sharing sites, and blogs.

If you felt the only way to garner support for your particular candidate meant attending a rally with news coverage, may I suggest some new ways to help you spread the message of your chosen candidate:

1. Forums. It's not just for TV shows and rock bands anymore. Topix.com is a great website with a huge group of forums for everything regarding political parties and candidates. It is a great place to find up-to-the-minute information, as well as find like-minded posters to join in discussions.

2. Social Networking sites. Whether you're on MySpace, Facebook, or the multitude of other similar sites, it is becoming easier to find friends and groups that share your views. Show your support, and find support from others.

3. Interactive podcasts. Talkshoe.com is a web 2.0 interactive podcast solution that marries a conference call with live, on-screen text chat and a communal way to express yourself and hear from others as well. So check it out, and interact.

4. Create you own podcast about your candidate. Everyone's doing it, why not you? Podcast411.com is a great way to get started. In a few steps, you can get your voice heard with the best of them in the podcasting world.

5. Email signature line. It's where you probably put that funny quote next to your name on emails, but it has many other uses. All email accounts (Gmail, hotmail, etc) have a place for you to add a signature line for every outgoing email. Type in your favorite candidate's website url, special dates for events, and share it with people you communicate with.

6. Electronically invite others to vote with you. Many people have excuses why they don't vote, but you can help your candidate by being a voting chauffeur. Evite.com is a fantastic way to gather people for parties and events, but why not use it for a Decision 2008 voting party? On voting day offer to drive yourself and like-minded friends to the polling place. Heck, you can even make it a "Vote and Pick up Lunch Day", if you like.

7. Leave your thoughts behind. Youtube and other video sharing sites are being used by candidates, so why not leave your feedback for them and others to read. Let your chosen candidate know you care, and you were there.

and finally-

8. Do something. Whether its one of these ideas, or others, don't slip into apathy. There is still time to get involved with promoting your chosen candidate or issue. Start now, and use the Internet and new technology to help you.

Jeff Roney, founder and president of RoneyZone Productions. We create award-winning online shows and productions, and assist in helping others with New Media and Marketing. http://www.roneyzone.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jeff_Roney
http://EzineArticles.com/?Dont-Let-Apathy-Win-the-2008-Presidential-Election&id=903939

Can Ron Paul Win the 2008 Elections?

By Emma A Johnson

According to online polls, Ron Paul's popularity is on the rise. His supporters claim that Paul is a man of integrity who never votes to support legislation not authorized by the constitution. Paul is a maverick politician, whose beliefs and ideological stands are not always in line with those of his party, the GOP. He has, after all, opposed the Iraq war right from the beginning. He continues to press for bringing troops in Iraq-as also on other US military bases-safely home. He has also advocated abolishing the IRS and, getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

Paul is a libertarian, who has always supported political views based on his assessment of their merit, irrespective of which politician or political 'camp' they belong to. Thus, he has readily extended support to Democrat leaders such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John Edwards.

Opinions regarding Paul are divided. His radical views cause many to dismiss him as crazy and eccentric, as one who does not completely understand the ideas he proposes. Many Republicans have even questioned Paul's decision to run in the elections, conceding that he is not likely to win the nomination for President.

At the same time, it cannot be disputed that Paul seems to be enjoying growing support. His campaign received 4.5 million dollars for campaign funds in a single day, which is a record. The fact is that many Americans, fed up with the Bush administration, are looking for something new. And Paul, seems to be hinging his hopes on this desire for change in the electorate. Already, support for his libertarian views and call for limiting government control over citizens' lives is growing to assume an almost cult like status. As Paul himself has stated, "This is a revolution in America and the support is growing". Whether this support will translate into the majority vote by 2008 still remains to be seen.

The Presidential Election 2008 is a burning issue of USA. With lots of strong and weak issues in his campaign will href="http://www.electionspeak.com/Presidential-Candidates/Ron-Paul/">Ron Paul get success to make American's mind in his favor.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Can-Ron-Paul-Win-the-2008-Elections?&id=907997

The Upcoming 2008 Presidential Race

by Merjoem32

A few days ago, I realized that the US presidential election is fast approaching. You see, I was watching the news a few nights ago and I saw a political ad endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton. I also saw the results of the results of the recent election 2008 polls on the news. It dawned upon me that the election will be held next year. This event is clearly very important because it will determine the direction of our country. It will also affect the whole world as the newly elected president will make decisions regarding foreign policies.

Of course, the next thing that entered my mind was the possible candidates who will be competing for the presidency. I also realized that I know very little about the election so I need to do some reading about the election and the candidates so that I can make a wise decision. I decided to hop o my PC and some online research about the 2008 presidential race and the candidates.

Thanks to modern technology and the World-Wide-Web, gathering information about a certain subject has become easy and convenient. You don’t have to go to a library to delve into a topic nowadays. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection and you can get your hands on all the information you need. The best thing is that you can do it all at the comforts of your own home.

Anyway, I found a lot of information about the 2008 presidential race on the Internet. For instance, I found out that the upcoming election will be the first election without incumbents in 80 years. The vice president is normally the leading candidate and nominee to succeed an American President that is about to leave his office. However, there is no incumbent president seeking re-election and no incumbent vice-president attempting to win office on the upcoming election. This is significant because the incumbent Vice President has immediately thereafter run for President in the three most recent presidential administrations featuring an outgoing, two-term president.

As you probably know, Dick Cheney, the current Vice President of the United States, announced that he would never run for president in 2001. This means that the 2008 presidential race, will apparently be a non-incumbent or "open seat" election in which neither the sitting President nor the sitting Vice President will be a candidate. The last non-incumbent or "open seat" election happened in 1928.

I also found out in the course of my research that, six candidates has achieved "front runner" status. These are John McCain of Arizona, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Rudy Giuliani of New York on the Republican side; and John Edwards of North Carolina, Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York on the Democratic party. These candidates are currently leading on the recent election 2008 polls but the figures may change as we move closer to the election.

Are you also interested in the upcoming election? If you are, then all you have to do is hop on your PC or Mac. You can easily check out the latest news, polls, and information on the candidates and the progress of the election on the web. You can even visit the campaign websites of the candidates to offer your support and give donations to the candidate of your choice.

Merjoem32 writes to encourage people to participate in the 2008 presidential race. He hopes that his work will create awareness and participation in the election through articles that feature election news, recent election 2008 polls, and other information about the presidential race and its candidates.

Article Directory: Article Dashboard

The Perfect Political Storm For Mike Huckabee

by James William Smith

In the last two weeks the race for the Republican Party nomination in election 2008 has seen the first signs of political movement in months. Until November, the race had seen Giuliani as the clear front runner. However, conservative Republicans remain wary of his personal background and positions on social issues. Since Fred Thompson entered the race he has held the number two position in the polls. John McCain has badly trailed the leaders since his campaign imploded over the summer. Mitt Romney continues to have problems with the Republican base because of his Mormon religion. Everyone else in the campaign was under ten percent of the total vote in the public opinion polls and they were marginally viable.

So what has changed in the last couple of weeks? Several developments which may combine to make the actual primary voting in the Republican party interesting to say the least. Mike Huckabee is moving up in the polls and the campaign of Fred Thompson is imploding. Republican Mitt Romney is putting some of his sizable fortune to work buying television spots in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Rudy Giuliani has yet to convince Republican voters that his nomination is inevitable.

Let's first start with the campaign of Fred Thompson. His campaign speeches have so lacked passion that he is now asking his Iowa audiences for a round of applause for himself. (The YouTube video of Thompson asking for applause is all over the Internet.) Next, when Thompson went on Fox News for an interview, Carl Cameron of Fox News trying to encourage his studio to hurry up so the interview could start, said into his microphone: "The next president of the United States has a schedule to keep." Standing beside him, a stoic Mr. Thompson interjected: "And so do I." Thompson's campaign is imploding with staff defections and a candidate that has no real energy for the campaign trail since he is only campaigning a couple of days per week. Thompson's poll numbers are dropping and he is down to 16% of the national vote. He is well behind in the early primary voting states. Thompson is representing the conservative vote of the party. Soon this vote will be looking elsewhere for a candidate.

Meanwhile, the opposite is happening in the campaign of Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has moved above 10 % of the vote nationally. The more impressive poll numbers for him have just been released in the first voting state of Iowa. Huckabee has surged into second place and is only 5% behind Mitt Romney for the lead in the Iowa Caucuses.

Mitt Romney still has a sizeable lead in the earliest voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Romney is using his multimillion dollar fortune to buy advertising spots for his campaign in these states. He is hoping three early primary victories will erode Giuliani's substantial lead nationally.

Rudy Giuliani looks like he will lose the three earliest primary voting states. This is sure to make him look vulnerable and is a risky strategy for his campaign. He needs to hold on to his large nationwide lead despite the early favorable publicity that Romney will enjoy from the media.

These are the dynamics of the Republican Presidential election in mid November 2007. There are contrary indicators everywhere. Giuliani has the nationwide lead in the polls and name recognition but has not "sealed the deal" with primary voters. Romney leads in the earliest primaries, but does not have the support of the base of the party. Thompson's campaign is a disaster and Mike Huckabee 's campaign is surging.

With these dynamics in mind, is there a scenario where little known candidate Mike Huckabee could win the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008? It would take a perfect political storm for him. It's a real long shot, but it's possible. Consider the following scenario: Huckabee wins Iowa or comes in a very close second. The media response is that he is the surprise candidate and they give him the favorable publicity. Romney wins New Hampshire and Michigan. Thompson drops out of the race and Giuliani is seen as vulnerable. The voters currently backing Thompson move to Huckabee since he is considered a Christian conservative. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney battle it out until the convention where anyone could win.

Of course, currently Huckabee does not have the money that Romney and Giuliani have to contest every state. He also would have to withstand a heightened scrutiny of his record while governor of Arkansas. As the details of his record come out, voters may not like what they see. As far as electability, it is interesting to note that the latest Rasmussen poll has Huckabee statistically tied with Hillary Clinton in a general election match up. Another advantage for Huckabee is that this may be a year that the voters want change and a new face in Washington, D.C.

For Huckabee to win the nomination, everything must fall perfectly into place. His campaign needs to continue to surge in Iowa. Romney needs to win some early primaries to stop Giuliani and Thompson needs to withdraw from the race. Then the Thompson vote needs to rally around Huckabee.

This is an election year in which the Republican party nomination is far from settled with the start of primary voting now only six weeks away. Mike Huckabee's campaign is the only one currently surging with momentum. It may well be that the current temperature of the Republican primary indicates that a storm is brewing. However, it remains to be seen if this is the perfect political storm necessary to propel the candidacy of Mike Huckabee.

James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com

Article Directory: Article Dashboard

Obama's Campaign Of Hope Now Has A Prayer

by James William Smith

Hillary Clinton had run a disciplined, mistake-free campaign for the first nine months of 2007. She had been able to portray herself as an experienced candidate for change. By contrast, the Obama campaign had an anemic nine months on the campaign trail without a clear message or momentum. Mrs. Clinton had Obama in a tough political spot.

To remain competitive in the race, Barack Obama needed to attack Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. The attack ads and negative campaigning would have left Obama open to criticism of abandoning his campaign's primary theme of hope. It would challenge his assertion that he was a different kind of politician and it would appear to the voting public as a cynical attempt by him to get back in the race. Obama would look desperate and Hillary Clinton's candidacy for the Democratic nomination would be inevitable.

However, Obama never had to go "negative" because Mrs. Clinton started making a series of unforced mistakes. Her political mistakes from late September through early December have allowed the Obama campaign to surge into the lead in the first voting state of Iowa. In addition Obama has moved back into contention in the state primary in New Hampshire.

Clinton started her parade of mistakes in the debate of September 26, 2007 Her handling of a hypothetical question on terrorist torture from moderator Tim Russert was inconsistent with answers she has given on that same question posed to her in the past.

The mistakes continued for Hillary in the Democratic debate of October 30, 2007. Her answer to a debate question concerning granting illegal aliens drivers licenses was incoherent. She appeared to take a position on both sides of the issue within about sixty seconds. Her performance validated her Democratic opponent's claim that she was trying to parse her position on issues and have it both ways.

Next, Bill Clinton showed up stumping for votes for Hillary in Iowa to remind us how slick and parsing he can be. In Iowa, it was all about Bill and little about Hillary on the campaign trail. Bill even tried to convince us that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, which is clearly not true. It sounded like Bill Clinton was running again and reminded the voting public about the fact that in electing Hillary, we would get Team Clinton back for President in the White House. This back to the future Clinton reminder to the voting public did not go over well.

Then, the voters got to see a Hillary Clinton interview with Katie Couric. This interview should have been a positive thing for Hillary. However, her poll numbers continued to drop after her appearance. In this interview, Hillary told Katie Couric that she has never contemplated losing this election. That she had not even considered the possibility that she would lose. The manner which she handle that question appeared presumptious to many voters. In fact, it fed into the negative image many people have of Hillary's need and hunger for power. It was a continuation of the impression that she would say anything to win.

These mistakes from the Hillary Clinton campaign have helped to tighten the Democratic race for the 2008 Presidential nomination just weeks before the first vote is to be cast in Iowa. Barrack Obama clearly has the momentum in the race. Now it will be Hillary Clinton who will have to go negative to try and slow his campaign down.

For Obama to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, he must win Iowa in a decisive fashion. He also must win in New Hampshire or Hillary Clinton will absorb the Iowa defeat and move on. If Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton would be reeling and John Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards vote would probably move to Obama and he would have a chance to defeat Clinton, one-on-one in the subsequent primaries. Democratic voters would certainly be questioning Hillary’s prospects as a candidate against the Republican Presidential nominee in the general election in 2008. A primary election battle between Clinton and Obama could go unresolved for weeks since Obama has the campaign war chest to contest Clinton in every primary state.

An Obama victory against Hillary Clinton is still a long shot. However, a series of unforced Hillary Clinton mistakes since September 26, 2007 have allowed Obama to remain competitive. Indeed, the result of her political mistakes have, at the very least, given Barack Obama's campaign of hope a prayer.


James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com


Article Directory: Article Dashboard

Democratic Debate: Hillary Clinton "Pile On" And "Waffle"

by James William Smith

John Edwards' campaign slogan is that there are two America's. The reality for John Edwards is that there are two Democratic parties, the party of Hillary Clinton and everyone else. Unfortunately forJohn Edwards, his campaign was running well behind Hillary Clinton in all the public opinion polls.

Barack Obama is running the campaign of hope. He was suppose to be the candidate of change. Somehow throughout 2007, Obama has allowed Hillary Clinton to be the candidate with the most political experience and the candidate that best represented change in Washington D.C. This failed strategy, were it to continue, would offer no hope for the Obama campaign.

This was the desperate state of the Edwards and Obama campaigns as both trailed far behind Hillary Clinton in public opinion polls as they entered the debate of Tuesday, October 30, 2007. With two months until the first primary vote is cast, it had become now or never for the Edwards and Obama campaigns.

Indeed, it turned out to be open season on the frontrunner in the debate. Hillary Clinton withstood attacks from the six men on the debate podium for over an hour. She would later refer to the experience as "pile on". She is the first major party female candidate for President. Therefore, it is unknown how the image of six men verbally attacking one woman on stage relentlessly will be considered by the electorate. However, Mrs. Clinton should certainly be helped among female voters where she is currently drawing much of her strength.

Late in the debate, Mrs. Clinton made the first significant mistakes of her campaign. She has been parsing her position on some issues for months. In this debate, her issue waffling caught up with her on the prospect of giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. She was asked about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Clinton tried to demonstrate empathy for the governor's predicament, but did not specifically endorse his position. She seemed to be trying to have it both ways. Of course, Hillary Clinton is aware of the public opinion polls which show that giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is very unpopular with American public.

As with the question concerning torture for terrorists in the September debate, her less than clear debate answer on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants put her in conflict with an answer she gave in a newspaper interview. She is on record as clearly endorsing the Spitzer position in an interview with the New York Times on 10/18/2007.

Edwards and Obama jumped on her unclear answer as proof of the kind of double talk they'd been accusing her of all night. "America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them," Mr. Edwards said.

Her next mistake occurred when Tim Russert asked Clinton about whether she would expedite the release of her records from her husband's Presidential term in office, and she gave a long, pondering, and frustrating answer about the slow archival process. She was intimating that the slow, pondering, bureaucracy was the problem until Tim Russert pointed out that her husband signed a letter to withhold release of the documents until 2012.

Obama seized the moment to continue the assault on her candor. "Not releasing ... these records at the same time, Hillary, as you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again. And that means being open and transparent to the American people." He noted that Republicans are "very comfortable" with renewing the partisan fights of the past decades. "And what we don't need," he said, "is another eight years of bickering."

The issue of the release of Hillary Clinton's White House records is an issue both Obama and Edwards can use effectively in the campaign in the next two months. We have not heard the last of this issue. The drivers licenses for illegal immigrants issue is sure to trouble the Clinton campaign in the 2008 Presidential election against the Republican candidate.

The Democratic campaign has entered it final two months before an accelerated state primary voting calendar begins. Edwards and Obama have now shown that they are not just in a race to be Hillary Clinton's Vice Presidential choice. Both are still campaigning to win the nomination. The Democrats' primary election campaign over the next two months should be interesting to watch.

Was this debate a "pile on" by the Democrats as stated by Hillary Clinton or a Clinton "waffle" on several issues as stated both by Barack Obama and John Edwards? The answer is clear. It was both.

James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com

Article Directory: Article Dashboard

The Democratic Debate Of September 26, 2007

by James William Smith

President George Bush has declared her the eventual Democratic Party nominee in the 2008 Presidential Election. The public opinion polls in New Hampshire have her leading the rest of the Democratic Party field by twenty percentage points in the State. She has not experienced any further fallout from her campaign’s strange involvement with Norman Hsu. She still leads all Democrats nationwide by eighteen points according to the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll.

So what did desperate Democratic candidates do to prepare for an event like the debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire on September 26, 2007? The only thing that they could do to stay alive in a race that still has three months before the first vote is cast. They joined forces on the clear leader in the polls, Hillary Clinton, and attacked. After months of question and answer sessions that pass for debates in the Democratic party, the debate last evening was the first real live evidence of what the polls have been indicating for months. The rest of the field of Democratic candidates is getting desperate in their attempt to stop Hillary Clinton from claiming the 2008 Presidential election nomination of the Democratic Party. Time is beginning to run out for them, and her large lead in the polls has been very consistent throughout 2007.

The debate did nothing to change the overall trend in the campaign, but it did cause the Hillary Clinton campaign some problems. The biggest problem seemed to be a question that moderator, Tim Russert, asked the Senator from New York. He asked whether there should be a presidential exception to allow the torture of a terror leader if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn’t know where it was. Mrs. Clinton replied about torture “ It cannot be American policy, period.” Russert revealed that ex President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent “Meet the Press” appearance. Mrs. Clinton replied “Well, I’ll talk to him later”. The problem for Mrs. Clinton is her interview last fall with the Daily News: In the interview when asked the same question, she said, "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable." Her campaign has not yet responded to questions about that contradiction.

The Democrats were also aware of a new Lake Research Poll which found that Republican Rudy Giuliani leads Mrs. Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts in a 2008 Presidential Election match-up. The poll also found that Mrs. Clinton, in particular, could damage the chances of congressional Democratic candidates on the ballot. The Senator and former First Lady continues to try to walk a fine line. She has to strike a delicate balance between being liberal enough to continue to appeal to the anti-war Democratic primary voter, with the need to be moderate enough for the consideration of the independent voter on which a general election will turn.

With the new polling data in mind, Democratic candidates were questioning whether Hillary Clinton was too polarizing to build national consensus on issues. Her proposed healthcare system overhaul in 1993, which ended in failure, was a topic throughout the evening. She also was attacked by Democratic candidates for voting for a U.S. Senate Resolution urging the State Department to deem part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization. John Edwards tied this to her vote to authorize the Iraq war.

The debate showed the desperation of the field of Democratic candidates. They know that they are badly trailing Hillary Clinton in the race for the party’s nomination. Hillary Clinton’s performance was not one of her best. However, it appears that this debate will not significantly change the minds of many voters.


James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com


Article Directory: Article Dashboard

Obama, Patriot or Political Grandstander?

by Patrick Gunning

After Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s “National Anthem snub” the question that many are asking is “Is Obama a patriot or a political grandstander?”

By now most people have heard about Obama’s “Sometimes He Does, Sometimes He Doesn’t” as explained by an Obama spokesperson.

They further explained on Inside Edition, "In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." That’s his campaign’s reasoning for him not holding his hand over his heart at Senator Tom Harkin's Steak Fry event on September 16 in Indianola, Iowa.

A minor debate has ensued that his failure perform the traditional etiquette constitutes evidence that Barack Obama is unpatriotic and therefore unfit to hold the office of president. This is based on the idea that the gesture of dissent was intentional.

In all fairness since the definition of patriotism is in question here let’s allow for clarification. According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

PATRIOTISM - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. [Origin: 1720–30; PATRIOT + -ISM ]

So the question remains does Obama’s position support that definition? Is he a Patriot?

This isn’t Obama’s first protest though! In an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Barack Obama states that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he explained in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

His campaign issued a statement: "We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It's about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war."

And Bill Maher ( the man who characterized the 911 terrorists as courageous) says, "...when I see the little flag right here, the first thing I think is, you voted for, and still like, George Bush...". Most have already concluded that Maher is truly a man who was born to be an idiot!

Here, in an excerpt from a letter written by Obama he explains further:

“Thank you for inquiring about the false accusation that I have refused to sing the National Anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance. I knew when I decided to run for President that I would not be immune from the "anything goes" form of attack politics that has been so prominent in our elections in recent years. And this outrageous charge is just another example of the kind of mean spirited, "shock" politics I will move beyond as President.”

He later calls it as a “baseless and particularly hurtful political attack”.

So let me see if I get this right. Obama believes that by telling us what he believes makes this country great and by taking a political stand for the veterans and the war that “that alone” qualifies him as a patriot!

Further anyone who questions his patriotism is practicing mean spirited, "shock" politics, a painful political attack, an argument, by the way, popularized and mastered by the Clintons.

Let’s break this down:

The “National Anthem” and the “Pledge of Allegiance” have become an accepted form of reverence for our country and our overall form of government as well as a sign of respect for those who are currently fighting, have fought for and have died for our country and our free way of life.

It became popular in the 60’s and has had a rebirth today to characterize those who show this form of patriotism as jingo’s*! They were once labeled as old fashioned or having blind loyalty.

*Jingo(Jingoism) - a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist.

So rather than attack the ideas he chooses to use a retro protest tactic to gain attention to his position. In the process he has insulted all current and former service personnel, yes those very people whom he wants to lead.

Additionally after his own indiscretion he wants to deflect blame to those who protest against his protest by portraying himself the victim of their mean spirited politics. Let’s turn it into a Democrat vs. Republican issue. A petty argument!

Looking more like the Clintons everyday!

Obama has made a tactical error in decorum. Rather than emulate the controlled and respectful qualities of a leader he has resorted to a childish protest in order to gain attention to a political stand that he likely feels is not being taken seriously. He has provided us with a demonstration that is in the true spirit of the juvenile “Shock Tactic” style of the Generation X crowd where “Anything Goes”.

So… is Obama a Patriot or a Political Grandstander?

Both, but certainly not a qualified leader!


Patrick Gunning & Georgina Sprenkle Own PG Media helping people with their information needs online since 1998. http://www.searchnetdetective.com provides access the largest compilation of public records of its kind Background Checks, Criminal Records, Credit Reports, Personal Searches, Reverse Phone & much more!


http://www.textingcheatsheet.com gives parents free & fee resources to help in protecting their loved ones from the dangers online.


Their Just for fun site is http://www.CelebrityOMG.com


Article Directory: Article Dashboard

The Strange Case Of Norman Hsu

by James William Smith

In the aftermath of the 1996 political campaign that reelected Bill Clinton to the White House, there was a slew of illegal fundraising cases which would involve ties to Chinese intelligence, money laundering at a Buddhist Temple, and Commerce Department waivers in exchange for cash.

Congressional hearings were held to investigate whether the illegal fundraising was done to influence the 1996 Presidential elections. John Huang, Johnny Chung, and Charlie Trie were major Democratic party fund raisers who had direct access to the Clinton White House. They would all eventually plead guilty to illegal fundraising activities. As part of his plea bargain, Johnny Chung would tell investigators some very strange stories. Here are some of the headlines of these stories from1997 through 1999.

The New York Times on May 15, 1998, reported that Johnny Chung told investigators that a large part of the almost $100,000 he gave Democrats in the summer of 1996 came from Liu Chaoying, who works on defense modernization for China’s People’s Liberation Army.

The Los Angeles Times on April 4, 1999 reported, "The chief of China’s military intelligence secretly directed funds from Beijing to help re-elect President Clinton in 1996, former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung has told federal investigators." Reporters William Rempel, Henry Weinstein, and Alan Miller reported: "Chung says he met three times with the intelligence official, Gen. Ji Shengde, who ordered $300,000 deposited into the Torrance businessman’s bank account to subsidize campaign donations intended for Clinton."

The Los Angeles Times on May 7, 1999, reported a preliminary outline of what Johnny Chung would tell the House Government Reform panel about his knowledge of the Chinese attempts to influence U.S. policy through contributions:

First, "He was told by an associate of Beijing’s military intelligence leader that China had funneled $500,000 to an international trading firm established by a former Clinton White House aide." Second, "A Beijing banker told Chung that a former Arkansas restaurateur (Charlie Trie), who was a longtime friend of President Clinton, approached the Chinese government sometime prior to February 1996 asking for $1 million to help support Clinton and the Democratic Party." Third, "Chung escorted the wife and son of the Chinese military intelligence chief to a political fundraiser in Los Angeles in 1996 at which Democratic officials insisted on a $25,000 campaign contribution for the opportunity to introduce his guests to the President.

In the summer of 1997, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee took up the matter which focused on the illegal foreign campaign contributions. The panel was chaired by the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson. Thompson would later be criticized by members of his own party for not being aggressive enough on the Democrats. The Clinton Justice department handled the matter during Clinton’s second term and would later be criticized in an Inspector General’s audit for not handling the matter properly. Basically, everyone involved either pled guilty or left the country with millions of dollars of illegal election campaign money being returned after the election. The Congressional hearings were held for political purposes and the Clinton Department Of Justice did not properly follow up on the case. The result of all of this was that the matter after a few years just disappeared.

Based on what happened in the financing of Bill Clinton’s 1996 election campaign, the stories of the last week concerning Hong Kong apparel manufacturer, Norman Hsu and the 2008 Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign are strange indeed.

Norman Hsu is linked to 1.8 million dollars in donations ( Wall Street Journal ) to Democrats since 2004. He is credited with raising $850,000 for the Hillary Clinton election campaign. He is one of the Democratic Party’s leading fund raisers. The problem for the Democrats is that Hsu was convicted in a 1991 fraud case of grand theft for failing to repay investors in a Chinese latex glove deal. He was scheduled to be sentenced in 1992, but fled prior to the hearing. Hsu was a fugitive from justice for the last fifteen years. He turned himself in on August 31, 2007, only to become a fugitive once again when he failed to appear at a bail hearing. He was arrested on September 6, 2007 after being seen partially clothed and disoriented on an Amtrak train. In addition to the conviction of grand theft, Hsu has had multiple business lawsuits filed against him dating back to1985. He filed for bankruptcy in 1990, and was a defendant in two 1991 California court matters listed as possible criminal cases.

At this point, there is no evidence that Hsu is associated with the Chinese government or the campaign finance issues of the Clinton‘s last campaign in any way. Hillary Clinton is returning the $850,000 that her campaign received from Hsu. However, it is amazing that both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign were not able to identify Hsu as a person of dubious character based on an examination of his personal background long before this.

The Fred Thompson campaign has begun to make this a campaign issue by mentioning Charlie Trie and referring to the Clinton's 1996 campaign finance scandals.

We will see if the strange case of Norman Hsu has any impact either on the Hillary Clinton Primary Election Campaign or on the 2008 Presidential Election in the weeks and months ahead.


James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com


Article Directory: Article Dashboard

Best Reason Why Hillary Shouldn't Be Elected

By Robert Flessas

She's bright, experienced and articulate. She possesses all of the tools that one would expect in a qualified presidential candidate.

But there's one factor that she can't ignore or control- an issue that is barely raised in the media and I don't believe ever in the debates. It's the perils associated with a dynasty.

There are more than 300 million citizens residing in this country, and there are probably hundreds that are qualified to be the chief executive of this nation.

But there are only 2 families that have controlled the White House for the past 3 decades, and you know them well because you've been under the spell of George H.W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush for almost 20 years.

Two families have controlled the pulse of this country since 1988. Tell me, is that good or bad, or do you even care?

Should we proliferate the dynasty by allowing Hillary Rodham Clinton to take the oath of the highest office in this country, even if she's qualified to be president?

The dynamic of the Bush/Clinton dynasties works so well for each family, that George H.W. Bush has become good friends with Bill Clinton. They even raise money together.
Why not befriend an opponent that subscribes to mutually beneficial baton passing?

A dynasty sets a dangerous precedent, and since our government won't prohibit it, voters should summarily reject it.

What would happen if the story-manufacturing media started to loudly pound the drum on this issue? Would the public cling to it and disqualify Hillary? It'll never happen due to apathy and a dilution of the fundamental concept of principle by the uneducated majority.

I can tell you that even though I voted Republican- twice- I had reservations about voting for "W" in 2000 because of the "D" word. Democrats, in their quest to take the presidency coupled with their propensity to erode morality, will vote for Hillary as their best chance to defeat Republicans.

Unfortunately, Republicans won't be able to make an issue of it, as they will be accused of supporting the Bush dynasty. That arduous task belongs to voters.

What should be the most interesting political topic in 2008 is Hillary's reasoning justifying another dynasty. But, that will only occur if the media and bloggers insist on putting the question before the public.

Robert Flessas is an attorney, writer and editor of the blog http://www.publictrough.com To visit his blog, click here.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Flessas
http://EzineArticles.com/?Best-Reason-Why-Hillary-Shouldnt-Be-Elected&id=884177

Who Won The YouTube Republican Debate?

By Carey Masci

The YouTube Republican debate on CNN should of been named the Romney show. About midway point I got frustrated with all the questions going to Mitt so at 9:05 I took out my pen and kept tracked of how many questions were asked each candidate. I may of missed a few tallies but this is real close to accurate.

The tally is:
Romney 13
Giuliani 9
McCain 7
Thomas and Huckabee 6
Paul 5
Hunter and Tancredo 3

Do we see a slight slant here???? It was probably even more slanted as I didn't keep track 'till midway.

Now - the winners, hard to choose. But the losers were Mitt and Rudy. Mitt stuttered. It was sad to see him do a Hillary, though not as good. The Clinton's are still the gods of sidestepping. He stuttered about homosexuals in the military, about the Bible and on a few other questions. The best question asked to Mitt was what should be done about Black on Black crime. His answer was a good one. We need more Moms and Dads, he said that twice. Is this the same guy that said he would do more for homosexuals than Teddy Kennedy? Doesn't he come from a state that allows same sex marriage? Now you know why he stuttered, can you say contradiction?

In the opening round Mitt & Rudy eliminated each other with friendly fire. After taking turns hitting each other over illegal aliens while the others watched till they wore themselves out, the real debate started. Mitt and Ruddy would of been better off on a playground on a teeter totter, up and down, up and down.....

Another time Romney fumbled the ball was when the question was raised about the Confederate flag. Is it racist, symbol of the south, should be allowed or shouldn't. Mitt didn't think the question really merited a response, I did. Some times you need to look deeper than face value at a question. The reason it was important is because of personal freedom that seems to be constantly eroded by the government. Want to fly the flag, display a manger scene, go ahead, that's how it should of been answered.

But I came away from this debate feeling good. The candidates answered the questions, and no mud was thrown at the Dem's besides a chuckle from Mike Huckabee. After watching this one and the Democrats debate these candidates are presidential. There was good answers and solutions unlike the Liberal Kucinich Party debates who spend more time bashing Bush, mud slinging at Republicans and social engineering then anything else.

The one person who gets lost in the shuffle and has no exposure is Duncan Hunter. He has never once said anything I can disagree with. Every other candidate I find at least once thing I don't agree with. Duncan's campaign should be titled, COMMON SENSE, whether he speaks about building the fence to keep illegals out or our military, he shows a lot of it.

I was very disturbed by that so called Brigadier General Kerr. Who invited him? I immediately thought he has to be a plant. With so many critical issues facing America why do these homosexuals have to interrupt things just to get their immoral agenda in the forefront? Isn't concerns like national security for more important? Afterward on CNN as they we giving their take on who won, someone said exactly what I did and said Kerr had to be placed there from the Hillary camp. He was annoying, why they didn't cut his mic is beyond me. Wonder how the Democrats would feel if the Conservative Right placed a plant in their debate and spoke up about the right to pray or to protect unborn life?

The Brigadiers question was about homosexuals in the military. Duncan Hunter spoke out loudly about it which he is against. Again common sense.

The most memorable line of the night and almost Reaganesque was from Mike Huckabee. When asked about space exploration and going to Mars he answered with yes we need to keep the space programs going and the exploration to Mars, I think that the first rocket to Mars should have Hillary on it. You just got to love the man!! Morally, he's solid. The man is on the rise. I would love to see him square off against Clinton.

But the question of the night was posed to Ron Paul. The guy who asked it said it almost sarcastically like Ron was a nut. Do you really believe in the North American Union theory? Ron Paul said YES! Europe already has the European Union. Land has already been taken by eminent domain to build a super highway that connects Mexico, America and Canada. He said the Trilateral Commission as well as the Council of Foreign Relations is real! It was one of the few times during the debate the place got quiet and NO ONE rebutted. That is scary and something you really need to heed and ask yourself who is the most dedicated to stopping this, ending NAFTA and dependence on China? To me this is even a bigger issues than Iraq, saving our sovereignty.

In summary Thompson looked good, so did McCain. Tancredo makes sense. Republicans have nothing to worry about with this group. Compared to the Democrat offerings, come Nov '08 America and the GOP will be celebrating.

Carey K. Masci

Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.

I write frequently for the Lake Gop, http://lakegop.blogspot.com/, I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.

The first step in expanding my horizons was attending a class held by Author Mark Barnes (The League and An Ordinary, Happy Man) who led me to this site. My style covers all areas, politics, human interest, sports, travel, to the absurd and funny.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carey_Masci
http://EzineArticles.com/?Who-Won-The-YouTube-Republican-Debate?&id=856777

Pure Censorship

By Carey Masci

I am quite alarmed at what I am sensing is pure censorship. Maybe censorship is not the correct word but what do you call it when the media and political parties won't include opposing views, especially when those opposing views are coming from viable candidates running for President of a supposedly free country named America? How can we encourage other countries to allow democracy and a free election process when we ourselves are not allowing candidates to participate in debates or giving equal coverage?

Whether you agree with these candidates or not is NOT the issue, the issue IS whom is choosing who can be in the debates? Our freedom is in jeopardy when this happens.

In a recent Republican debate in Michigan Allen Keyes was excluded. Why? He has as much of a right as any to make a case why he should be the next President. Shouldn't the people decide not the media or controlling interests? Isn't that what communist countries have done for years, silence the opposition or vilify them? This is happening here quite frequently, usually as an election nears, someone is always exposing a supposed scandal.

Has the media in America become so slanted we should no longer trust or believe what they say or write? For instance an article from the AP about the Republican presidential hopefuls meeting on Mackinac Island, Michigan on September 22, 2007, mentioned Romney, Thomas, Giuliani, and McCain and then went on to say two underdog GOP candidates addressed the group; three others were absent. WHAT? Two underdog candidates! Is that fair reporting not to at least give the names of the others present? Who are they to say months before the primary opens and campaigning still in its early stages that anyone is an underdog? What makes an underdog? Lack of money, personal connections or is it deeper?

Then in the October 11, 2007 edition of Time they had a voters guide for the 2008 election. The last line of the short introductory story before they showed the candidates was, Here we present the top-tier finalists for the job. Top-tier finalists for the job? Finalists? How can there then be any finalists? Was any preliminary primary held that we are left with the finalists? What about Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee? Even with very limited coverage, where the average person is still not familiar or has little knowledge of Huckabee or Paul, they have been drawing support. Recently Ron Paul raised $4.2 million in a 24 hour period! Whats even more incredible is that the donations being raised come from individuals ONLY not corporations which Ron Paul will not accept. As for Mike Huckabee he has steadily risen in the polls and is currently battling Romney for the top spot in Iowa. Can you imagine where both of those candidates would be in the standings if they were given equal coverage?

Furthering this argument, there was another debate few people know about and I believe wasn't aired on any of the channels, cable or non cable. I had to view it on the Internet. It was the Value Voters debate held in Florida in September of this year. Who didn't attend? The big four of the Republican Party, McCain, Giuliani, Thompson and Romney and of course NO Democrats. Both parties have abandoned the conservative right. Doesn't this alone make you question what is going on here? Is the top tier candidates, as the media likes to call them, closer in their ideology then is let on? Do some research on the Council of Foreign Relations which the top candidates of both parties belong to along with many major corporations. Could this be part of the globalist agenda?

But it does seem people are finally starting to realize what is going on and looking closer at the other candidates not being mentioned or very little. In Iowa for instance where Romney has already spent $4 million in advertising is barely ahead of Mike Huckabee who's war chest is so small he has placed very few if any ads.

Let hope this trend continues where people are researching for themselves who the candidates are and where they stand. Lets also hope America speaks loud and clear that they will not allow the media, party elites or money to pick the winners in any race. America has been fooled to many times in the past with the media portraying a candidate other than what he really is, maybe this time it will change.

Carey K. Masci

Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.

I write frequently for the Lake Gop, http://lakegop.blogspot.com/, I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.

The first step in expanding my horizons was attending a class held by Author Mark Barnes (The League and An Ordinary, Happy Man) who led me to this site. My style covers all areas, politics, human interest, sports, travel, to the absurd and funny.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carey_Masci
http://EzineArticles.com/?Pure-Censorship&id=850962

Rudy Giuliani Rides the 9-11 Horse

By Emma A Johnson

Rudy Giuliani seems to be the Republican frontrunner in the race for presidentship of the United States of America. The former mayor from New York City won praise for his deft handling of the emergency during the September 11 attacks. Certainly, in frequent radio and television appearances, Giuliani was often shown to be in the thick of the smoke and debris on Ground Zero, personally supervising rescue and evacuation work. His statements, echoing the sentiments of shock and anger, also reassured shaken New Yorkers, who saw in his resolute refusal to cow down before the horrific attacks, a heroic display of "strength through leadership".

September 11 remains Giuliani's trump card. Regardless of what he may say, it remains the center point of the candidacy of the man who has been popularly dubbed as "America's Mayor". References to 9/11 and the leadership role he played during the crisis, figures prominently in his campaign speeches.

However, controversy has erupted regarding some of the claims made by Rudy Giuliani. For instance, Giuliani's claim that he was on the Ground Zero site, " as often, if not more" than the rescue workers, and that he was exposed to the same dangers as they were, has drawn opposition. But Giuliani's appointment logs, six days from the day of the tragedy, confirm his presence at the site for a mere twenty-nine hours over a period of three months.

Jim Riches, Deputy Fire Chief of the New York City Fire Department, has termed Giuliani's campaign as "horrible" and "disgusting". He says Giuliani is distorting the truth and misleading voters. Speaking about Giuliani, Riches says, "He didn't prepare the first responders for a terrorist attack. The Office of Emergency Management was a joke that day. There was a lack of communication. People died unnecessarily."

The 2008 Presidential Elections is a burning issue of USA. Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani's leadership qualities are questionable because of his changing opinions on matters like gun control and 9/11 horse issues.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Emma_A_Johnson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Rudy-Giuliani-Rides-the-9-11-Horse&id=903528

I Am Outraged, What Has Happened To Our Media?

By Carey Masci

I have been trying to tell you people to shut of those bloated bags of wind. This proves it. Turn off FOX and any other slanted media now! My inbox has been filled with "Did you read what Ann Coulter said about Huckabee"? Ann Coulter has the brains and physique of an upside down broom! Yes, quote me on that! Wrap it up and send it to her with love from Carey. What does Ann have to do with this, nothing other than she is an insider ruining the cause of Conservatism like the news channel Fox - fair and balanced, yeah right!

Lets start with Ann, she has been badgering Huckabee for a few statements he made about a decision by the Supreme Court, he said:
"Let me be very clear - what people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "Don't want to know; don't need to know......

If, however, advocates asked states to endorse the concept of same-sex unions, "we can say no to that," Huckabee said. "If you ask for survivor benefits to be paid to a same-sex survivor, I think we have a right to say no to that."

She has been all over him, are those words so damning? I don't think so especially when you consider he supported the marriage amendment in Arkansas and led the covenant marriage movement in his state. So who does Ann think would make a fine president? Mitt, the man that had gay events, said he would do more for the gay agenda then Teddy Kennedy, oh may I also add he is delusional by saying I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. But Ann Likes him and said he would make a fine president! Maybe she should join Rudy and Mitt in a Gay parade and hold the baton.

The dumb blond has also attacked Huckabee on school issues but does she know that as Governor he appointed the first home school mother ever to the state school board? Or is she informed enough when she attacks him on the illegal alien issue that Huckabee has been endorsed by the Minutemen? Someone throw cold water on Ann to wake her up she needs to read this!

As for Fox, I am outraged with them also! Even if you don't like Ron Paul this is America, he has a right to speak at the New Hampshire debate. Why are they silencing him? Since when do you keep out a candidate that has garnered as much support as he has? I am frustrated to say the least! I hope everyone is as ticked off as I am and calls Fox and the rest who are doing all they can to hand Mitt and Hillary the nomination and say enough! Face it people, they have pushed their agenda on us, they want Mitt and Hillary, well are you going to let them have their way?

Carey K. Masci

Mom would get so mad and reprimand me as a child when I would talk back to her. She would say.... you have all the answers. My reply.. of course I do otherwise you wouldn't ask. This has carried on in my adult life as I have an opinion about everything. At times I tend to miss the mark in trying to relay my thoughts verbally but in writing, which is a passion, I seldom miss the mark of what I am trying to convey.

I write frequently for the Lake Gop, http://lakegop.blogspot.com/, I am also in the process of adding a blog to my website, http://www.gogobus.cc which showcases my travels. I have contributed small articles to The Lake County News Herald. People have asked if I would write bio's for their on line sites. I have folders filled with short stories I have written that someday will be edited into book form.

The first step in expanding my horizons was attending a class held by Author Mark Barnes (The League and An Ordinary, Happy Man) who led me to this site. My style covers all areas, politics, human interest, sports, travel, to the absurd and funny.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Carey_Masci
http://EzineArticles.com/?I-Am-Outraged,-What-Has-Happened-To-Our-Media?&id=902431