ALL:
Being an INDEPENDENT thinker and VOTER, I've followed, with a RANGE of thoughts and emotions, this year's political process. I'm about to blog about Senator Hillary Clinton but I first want to note, that I have NOT decided which of the '3' remaining, potential candidates I WILL VOTE for in the November, 2008 elections.
I'm still hoping for a JIMMY STEWART-esque (Mr. Smith Goes To Washington movie) type candidate to appear. Wishful thinking, as the saying goes.
Dear Senator Mrs. Clinton:
Hello. As a prospective voter this November, I have not yet decided WHO I will VOTE for. Time is an ally in this case. I feel NO need to HURRY for either YOU or the other '2' candidates still in the running.
I've always said that YOU wore the PANTS in the Clinton family. Lately, you've proved that assumption accurate. Beneath those ''ASBESTOS PANTSUITS'' you wear (YOUR words, not mine) you have BIG CAJONES. To those who MIGHT not get that reference, Cajones compare to the word in MEN, ''Testicles''.
First, you claim you won the BIG states. Yes, you have. However, Mr. Obama has won about TWICE as many states in number. And, last time I looked, Mr. Obama was leading in pledged, VOTER chosen delegates at the time of this writing. He was about 139 delegates AHEAD of you at this writing.
All the NUMBERS folks from BOTH sides of the political aisle I watch on television, ALL say that they fully expect this number to be about the same when all the primaries are said and done. At a MINIMUM, they ALL figure Mr. Obama will have +100-140 pledged, VOTER delegates AHEAD of your pledged, VOTER delegates totals.
As an impersonal observer, I seem to recall the Presidential elections of 2000 (Bush wins vs. Gore) and 2004 (Bush wins second time vs. Kerry).
I remember Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry winning most of the BIG states, also. I further remember watching the 'maps' on election nights being 'colored' either RED or BLUE on the maps as results of who won each state came in.
My memory is that in EACH election, Mr. Bush won MORE states by FAR and thus, WON both elections. Tight as EACH were. Because elections are won or lost by ELECTORAL votes or DELEGATES. NOT by who wins BIG states, necessarily.
I remember that the t.v. map was MOSTLY RED and not much BLUE over the entire map shown.
I also recall that Mr. Gore WON the POPULAR TOTAL national VOTE and still LOST the 'electoral' college totals.
I also further noticed that almost ANY DEMOCRAT will win New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California. The BIG states you refer to.
Just like I further notice that almost ANY REPUBLICAN will win a TEXAS state type.
So, in MY simpleton thinkings, the TRUE BATTLEGROUNDS that will DECIDE elections are those states that BARELY went either RED or BLUE before.
Whichever candidate can 'steal' a few of those from either side, will most probably be the WINNER.
To DUMB old ME, THAT's where the REAL debate IS and SHOULD be. SIMPLE as that, MATHEMATICALLY. What's that old saying? "Figures don't lie but liars figure?"
To be fair, I think that YOU and Mr. OBAMA have certain 'strengths' in certain states. However, I think you BOTH also have certain 'weaknesses' in certain states. The SAME I see applying, also, to Senator McCain.
I am a MICHIGAN resident, btw. OUR primary last January was ruled NO VOTE COUNTS ''PRIOR'' to it by the DNC/Democratic National Committee folks!
You and Dennis Kucinich were the ONLY DEMS even listed ON the Michigan Primary ballots. Yet, in spite of that, you WON(?) a NON-contested election with 55% against 40% UNCOMMITTED.
MANY folks in my area, having been TOLD that NO VOTES count, STAYED HOME and DID NOT VOTE in the primary.
Recent POLLS show IF a primary was a RE-DO in Michigan, you and Mr. Obama TIE in the polls at this point in time. So, if "I" was YOUR campaign advisor, I would NOT want a RE-DO primary election in MICHIGAN. Math 101 basics.
You keep saying, as do ALL politicians running for office, that If one "PLAYS BY THE RULES" they should be OK. Well, Senator Clinton, will YOU PLAY by THE RULES? Or is the assumption that you WILL do ANYTHING to get elected at ANY cost is accurate?
Btw: A MAILING vote RE-DO is being SUGGESTED. But, I've heard it would ONLY APPLY to those who VOTED IN the primary? What about those who ARE REGISTERED voters in Michigan and who did NOT vote in the Michigan primary because they were TOLD their votes would NOT count? Are they to be NOT included in ANY RE-DO? From MY viewpoint, ALL REGISTERED voters MUST be included.
*** Now, to the CAJONES part of this post: ***
In your stump speeches, debates and ADS, you attack Mr. Obama claiming he's NOT presidential material, especially at 3.a.m. when the phone might ring in a crisis.
You even stated, and I'll paraphrase, "I have a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience and Mr. Obama has a SPEECH he gave".
First, I find this statement false on the merits, alone. Second, I never thought I'd EVER hear a candidate from ANY party putting their OPPONENT from the OTHER PARTY on a HIGHER ranking than THEIR own party candidate?
How MUCH 'experience' ANY of the '3' of you HAVE IS and SHOULD BE debateable. However, what also should be debateable from MY view, is what are EACH of you calling 'EXPERIENCE'?
What KIND of 'experience'(s) do EACH of you CLAIM to have that the OTHERS do NOT have or have in the SAME amounts?
LARRY KING, he of Talk Show fame, has SEVEN past wives. Some would say HE has ''MARRIAGE experience'', also?
I find it VERY troubling that you would not have said something like, instead, "I believe that "I" have the MOST and the BEST experience to be your next president over the other two candidates running".
Yet, you now bandy about the IDEA that YOU would TAKE Mr. Obama as YOUR Vice President? Now THAT's some BIG CAJONES, Senator Clinton. Given the FACT, that at THIS point in time, YOU are the one BEHIND in delegate counts and pledged voter's votes.
Being an INDEPENDENT observer of all this, I thank you for giving me the biggest SMILE I've had in some time by offering Mr. Obama this 'token' of your 'appreciation'.
Maybe the next time we go to WAR with another dictator or country and we are WINNING, we should expect the ''losing'' dictator or country to INVITE US to JOIN him/them?
Are you truly now stating that the Vice President, ONE heartbeat away from becoming PRESIDENT, as in Mr. Obama, is NOW OK in THAT job? Would you actually nominate ANY person for the office of Vice President that YOU felt was NOT 'presidential or commander in chief material'? I would HOPE NOT.
Finally, on this EXPERIENCE debate: MY 'experience' in the past year or so is this, Mrs. Clinton.
An UNKNOWN man in America has SEEMED to MANAGE HIS campaign VERY well. In fact, he's BEATING you at this point. He's NOT had to LOAN himself FIVE MILLION bucks. He's not had to shake up his staff NUMEROUS times.
To simpleton ME, that shows me that Mr. Obama CAN RUN an organization of MANY old and NEW folks and get them to WORK TOGETHER. Not bad, I MUST say, Senator Clinton, for someone whom you say has "NO EXPERIENCE" other than a speech.
For, IF it IS true, that this INEXPERIENCED person is doing either EQUAL OR BETTER than YOU with ALL of YOUR LIFETIME of EXPERIENCE (not to mention a former, TWO TERM popular president with the party machine behind them), then WHAT does that say about YOU?
For the record: MY simpleton take on this "COMMANDER IN CHIEF" qualification thing --
IF it was TRUE that ONLY MILITARY men or GENERALS were such, our American history would be FULL and REPLETE with MANY such GENERAL presidents. When, in fact, we've had FEW in total.
A true 'warrior' type would be an asset, indeed, in times of WAR. However, a 'warrior' type MENTALITY could also LEAD to MORE war. ANY good general with his/her salt, will publicly state that WAR is HELL and should ALWAYS be the LAST resort when ALL OTHER options are gone or not sane to do.
It is also MY belief that ANY candidate, from ANY party, who knows and who has TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL law in past years, would at LEAST have an UNDERSTANDING to begin with, on American LAWS and PRINCIPLES. As they say in my old, ''business'' world, "A GOOD RESUME Building Block".
From MY view, no matter WHO would have been PRESIDENT on 9-11 after the two Twin Towers were attacked and fell, THAT president after finding out WHO did such an attack, would RESPOND in FULL and in KIND to those who would attack America. They might even stay THERE in FULL FORCE to FINISH the job once started.
When PEARL HARBOR was attacked, FDR was president. HE responded in kind. MY contention is simply that ANYONE in the office of PRESIDENT upon SUCH an act of aggression would RESPOND in KIND.
For, in simple fact, they would HAVE to do such. Even IF they did not WANT to do such. For, the AMERICAN PUBLIC would IMPEACH ANY president in THOSE circumstances who WOULD NOT do such! Simple as that!
Why, even OUR BELOVED CONGRESS would AGREE for the FIRST time in MY lifetime ON SOMETHING other than THEIR own agendas and DEMAND such!
*** IF "I" was Howard Dean, the HEAD of the DNC, I would invite you and Mr. Obama to a PRIVATE meeting. Just the THREE of US.
I would have a HIDDEN camera with SOUND on that you BOTH would NOT know about.
Next, I would ASK you BOTH, "For the GOOD of AMERICA and for the GOOD of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, which ONE of you will STOP your campaign?"
Then, to the FIRST person of EITHER of you BOTH, who would say, "I WILL", I would put MY SUPPORT behind and TELL the NEWSPAPERS and PUBLIC what I had just did and WHO was TRULY the MOST worthy of being OUR presidential candidate.
Kinda' SOLOMON-Esque? (And they said Old, GRUMPY, TallPockets NEVER had a GOOD idea!?). ***
Finally, I leave with this analogy:
I coached sports teams. One was a fastpitch softball team. Games were '7' innings.
I remember one game vividly. WE played the BEST team in the area. They had HOMERUN hitters and we had SINGLES and DOUBLES hitters. We also played GOOD DEFENSE and HIT AND RUN and STOLE bases, etc. well.
The BEST team hit '3' HOME RUNS. All in DIFFERENT innings and ALL were SOLO or ONE RUN home runs, only. Thus, they ended up with '3' total runs after '7' innings.
OUR team hit 10 singles and 4 doubles and we scored 5 total runs over those same '7' innings. Most had ONE run in MOST innings scored.
The END SCORE/RESULT, however, was that WE won, 5-3. Even though, THEY had the BIG hits.
When all else fails, revert to the proverbial SCOREBOARD, I always say.
(Which is WHY I just LOVE sports and MOST of the times HATE "POLITICS").
Btw: MY favorite time in AMERICAN history was when we 'little' and pesky, wannabe, future Americans fought those BIG, nasty, BRITISH REDCOATS.
Remember who WON that battle of BIG vs. little? WINK.
Respectfully,
TallPockets.
|
