Obama is sweating.

[IMAGE via coxandforkum.com]

Barack Obama has to win South Carolina in order to gain the needed momentum to pull him through "Super Tuesday" on February 5th.

The democratic debates in South Carolina were a heated argument between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama being on the defense most of the night. With only one win in Obama's pocket, it is easy to see why he is getting nervous.

Perhap's his immature attacks on Bill Clinton, and his defensive attitude towards the Clinton's in general, is infact a reaction to the idea that Hillary is now a threat. This isn't to forget that Hillary, herself, came out just as foolish during the debates. She certainly was the one to start the mud slinging. However, she has done this far more strategically than Obama has. She attacks Obama on his voting record in the senate, and on his lack of experience. Justafiable attacks, even gaining the suprise support of Edwards during the debates. Obama counter-attacks Hillary on her corporate ties and her husband. Well, the problem with that, her corporate ties were short lived (despite her lobbyist connections), and well made up for. While her husband, well every democrat loves him! Obama's biggest problem with Hillary is simple, that type of confidence and wit is the thing pulling her to a comfortable front of the race, and that just ain't right to him.

Click "read more" to continue...


Clinton has a much better chance in states such as New York and California, where she has been campaigning vigerously. This of course, leaving the January 26th South Carolina Primary for her Husband to do the work "on her behalf". She is practically giving the state to Obama, and maybe that type of kindness isn't what Obama needs. He needs to win against Hillary in order to gain momentum, not because she let him.

It may seem an unfair advantage for Bill and Hillary to be practically running as a duo, but everyone knows Hillary Clinton originally gained her fan base because of her husband. How many people planned to vote for her simply by assoctiation? Alot. Besides, there are no rules against it, and maybe Hillary needs it. America is ready to accept the first Black American President to the white house, but not the first female President. So if electing Hillary, a viable, and honorable candidate means getting Bill too, what undecided voter wouldn't realize this advantage and play along as well?

Well, the Obama voter thats who. Luckily for Obama most of the state of South Carolina is black, a major leg up for him, but a win could be just as much of a loss in the long run.

Bill Clinton recently accused Obama of playing the "race card" in his campaigning "on behalf of Hillary" in Nevada. Obama promtly dismissed his remarks as false, but his defensive attitude towards the Clinton's is making him look more guilty. With a win much needed in the Obama camp, and conveniently in a state mostly made up of black communities, how does this make him look? Well, it appears as though he is infact depending on black, and minority voters to lead him to the oval office. Even if that isn't exaclty true, the illusion is there.

Whether he is doing it or not, Bill and Hillary Clinton are brilliant politicians, and Obama is trapped in a corner.

A win in South Carolina could boast his numbers on February 5th, or it could hurt him, leaving the undecided to vote for Hillary. Why? Because they get two for the price of one, and because Obama got caught up in the dirty politics of some publically loveable, and viable people.


Written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008





For more visit:

Washingtonpost.com (article)

Read more!

Study PROVES Bush Administration Lied us into War

Yahoo News Reports:
"WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

Click "read more" to continue...

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said. "

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

commondreams.org article

Impeach Bush

Read more!

Thompson Drops Out of GOP Race

Republican Fred Thompson pulled out of the race for the white house Tuesday after disappointing turn-out in the previous months Primaries and Caucuses.

Thompson has been criticized for running a "lazy campaign" after skipping a Republican debate, and being short in campaign advertising. I personally don't remember ever hearing his name mentioned between his announced candidacy in September and now.

Now the only question is will he sponsor McCain? Well, he denounced his candidacy for President today, and has yet to announce plans to sponsor another candidate. A CNN analyst speculated that perhaps he is holding out to garner support for Romney. Either way, if he chooses to do so, he has till Feb. 5 or "Super Tuesday" to make up his mind.

Huckabee claims if Thompson would have pulled out of the race before South Carolina he would have garnered his votes to win over McCain. So, if this is true I am sure glad he stayed through South Carolina!

Huckabee is considering his options after coming in a surprise (at least to him) second in South Carolina to McCain and he is now facing money troubles. Apparently Jesus doesn't pay well.

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

MSNBC breaks the news:



CBS News
MSNBC
NY Times

END OF POST

Read more!

The Democratic Debates- Las Vegas

Image: Getty Images

The Democratic Debates
Las Vegas, NV
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Edwards won. Hillary regained her stand. Obama...Stuttered.

Democratic frontrunners Obama, Clinton, and Edwards took a more civil approach for their race to the oval office at the Democratic debates yesterday in Las Vegas, Nevada. The viewers were happily reminded that the democratic candidates "are all family in the Democratic party," as Hillary Clinton humbly stated, "We are so different from the Republican's on all of these issues." This statement was genuine and sincerely accepted by her fellow party competition, and greatly appreciated by a largely indecisive audience.

MSNBC aired the debate with light humored moderators Brian Williams, Tim Russert, and Natalie Morales, while viewers were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and questions to the hopeful candidates via the Internet.

click "read more!" to continue...

This debate revolved around hot topic issue including the economy, immigration, health care, the environment and Nevada's personal issue with Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste. All responses from each candidate seemed thought-out, important, and honest, although each contender at some point of the night resorted to old tactics despite the pleasant light-hearted tone of the debates.

Surprisingly Barack Obama, who has experienced media success since he was first announced to be running for President, including his win in Iowa doing nothing but boosting his fan base, seemed to be on the defense most of the night. His defeat to Hillary in New Hampshire must have jogged his natural smooth-talkin' self, because for the first time he seemed to be losing. What was his biggest mistake of the night? When asked what his biggest weakness was he responded, "my greatest weakness, I think, is when it comes to -- I'll give you a very good example. I ask my staff never to hand me paper until two seconds before I need it, because I will lose it. You know. The -- you know. And my desk in my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial." Although I'm sure it was intended to be a joke it still seems a little uneasy to me that this candidate doesn't even believe that he himself can manage something as simple as organization. Clinton used his answer as a way to attack him in a later question. She very brutally compared his lack of managerial skills to that of the Bush administration, a cold slap to the face indeed, but a correct one at that. Of course, though, Obama being the media favorite did not get much negative press from his response and no matter how terrible it was it will be forgotten tomorrow the same way Edward's is forgotten even when he's on the top of his game.

Hillary was talking heavy, and was the only candidate to express her same old ideas in new and interesting ways. This debate made me want to tell Edwards to keep the message but get some new sob stories, and to tell Obama to explain what "bringing people together means" and to find a synonym for the word change (EDIT: after looking up the synonyms I can see why this is the only suitable word to use, but still he should find a new approach to his ideas). Rethinking Hillary's win in New Hampshire, I'm starting to think that perhaps it was deserved, despite the incident that "humanized" her.

Edward's seemed to be the winner of the debate, yet still, somehow, does not receive the media attention he has deserved for over a year. A viewer from San Diego asked Edwards a vital question concerning many voters, "the policy differences among the remaining candidates is so slight that we appear to be choosing on the basis of personality and life story. That being said, why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate?" When it comes to Edwards campaign I think this is the most important question to be asked. Edwards did his best to respond, reminding us of his poverty stricken past, and relating that to his fight for the middle-class, health care, unions, and the struggle of the American people. One thing he said that differs him from his fellow candidates is how he believes "the system in Washington is broken." Claiming he is a candidate that can bring the change that the democratic party has promised, because of his passion, and personal connection to the average American needs. With this beautifully construed answer I still don't logically understand why he continues to be to be third in this race.

Clinton remained cordial and verbally considerate, making me like her the way I did before the race became a chicken fight. However, her earnest side that she discovered right before New Hampshire came alive when she revised her opportunity to drill a fellow candidate with a question, and instead asked Obama to buddy up with her to help stop our current president from invading Iran. She did so, mind you, beginning with a long rant leaving me to wonder if she understood what she was asked to do. Although a courageous effort to end her aggressive campaign against Obama, and to bring up a vital issue regarding our current administration, I still don't understand why Edward's wasn't asked to party up with them as well. Also, why that had to be done at that moment? I wanted to hear real questions, from each of them, but instead it became a publicity stunt. I found myself rolling my eyes just like I did when she was eating that meal, and answering that question with "something in her eye" in New Hampshire.

Despite each candidates represented mistakes, this is the first time that I felt in a while that I was actually getting my questions answered with real answers. No one was selling me hope, slamming their competition, or making me vote out of guilt. All three of these candidates are advocates for change, and I wish that they could all be in apart of the future 2009 administration, but, in the end, only one can sit in that chair, and only one can change the damages created in the past seven years.

written by: Jessica Erven (c) 2008

For more information visit:

OFFICIAL DEBATES TRANSCRIPT

Read more!