By Anthony Leone
The big breaking political news yesterday was that former presidential candidate John Edwards jumped on the Obama Bandwagon and offered his endorsement.
But what does this mean? Nothing really. It means that those who still support Edwards because they like what he stands for, even though he dropped out of the Democratic primary race at the end of January, will go to Sen. Barack Obama.
The Illinois senator’s main rival, Hillary Clinton, was hoping to have the former North Carolina senator’s support. Besides his issues, both Clinton and Obama would gain Edwards’ delegates and former donors. And ironically, North Carolina was the state that Obama won last week.
The need of Edwards has been so great that both of the political rivals courted Edwards in February with individual private meetings to talk about the issues, among other things.
And why did the New York senator want the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate’s support, besides the delegates? Edwards represents the old Democratic Party in a lot of ways. He’s one of the few candidates that talked about helping the lower class while others in both parties were falling over themselves to mention in every speech how they are going to help the middle class, just to gain their votes. Certainly, a high-profile former candidate like Edwards, whose soft image has warmed a lot of Americans, is what Hillary needs to show the public how in touch with them she is by having a humble man support her.
But ultimately, because most of Edwards’ policies and beliefs closely resemble Obama’s, he gave his support to the candidate with the most delegates. And because of that, and because they are alike in other ways, there was an alternative reason why Edwards threw his support to the leading Democratic political candidate and it’s because of that title that eluded him in the 2004 presidential election: Vice President.
Yes, it’s very possible and extremely likely that Edwards is setting himself up to become Obama’s right-hand man. After sacrificing his role as senator for the role as president four years ago and the failed Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004, this may be the only chance he has left of getting into the White House with some dignity, unlike Independent Ralph Nader, who has not won the presidential election in the last 16 years, but keeps running anyway.
Is it hypocritical of Edwards endorsing Obama and seemingly setting himself up as a vice presidential candidate while just a few months ago he criticized the Illinois senator for his inexperience? Sure it is, but that’s the game of politics. But whatever their rivalry was, it is nothing compared to Obama and Clinton’s. They drew a lot of blood and attacked each other. Having an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a little hard to swallow for some Democratic voters after the months of mudslinging between the two.
And Edwards may be a better choice than Clinton. Having a biracial black man may not set too well for many older Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the presumed GOP nominee John McCain. But having a woman like Hillary Clinton, who has been caught doing a few dirty tricks during this campaign and represents the far left of her party, will leave a bad taste in their mouths.
Granted, a ticket like that is what many middle-aged and young voters are hoping for. That would be a true symbol that the races and sexes are now equal. But still, it may be too much for some close-minded voters in both parties, who cannot look past a person’s skin color or reproductive organs.
So, besides sharing the same anatomy, Edwards and Obama do share the same philosophy, such as fighting special interests in Washington. They are very close on the issues and seem to be a far more believable match than Obama and Hillary. And with Hillary vowing to fight to the very end in this race, and may destroy the party in the process, Edwards might be a better choice of uniting the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.
Let’s not be too surprised that Obama shatters the predictions of many political analysts, who have been saying that Hillary maybe his VP, and chooses Edwards instead. After all, politics is a funny little game. You just never know what will happen sometimes.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
No Matter Who We Are …
By Anthony Leone
The recent news wires are reporting that more than 12,000 people have died as a result of China’s 7.9-magnitude earthquake, while 18,645 are buried under fallen buildings and debris.
Many more are missing and feared dead, especially school children caught in the destructive force that has shattered homes and destroyed families.
Just days ago, the people of Myanmar were caught in another of nature’s devastating forces in the form of a cyclone, which has left 34,273 dead and 27,838 missing.
Both of these cataclysms have resulted in children becoming orphans, wives into widowers and husbands losing their beloved spouses and parents who have become childless.
Too many times tragedies at this biblical scale have a way of making people realize how much the same we all are. Thousands of miles away, we can feel the sorrow and the pain of those caught in the destruction that has gripped China and Myanmar.
And despite political and cultural differences, generous people and nations look past these differences and see their fellow humans in need of great help and donate what they can.
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that if there was a huge threat to the Earth, her children would reunite and conquer the threat. Why do we have to wait for such a threat for us to come together once and for all when disasters like these should be doing this?
When we can place ourselves in the situations that these tragedy-stricken people have found themselves in and feel their anguish and despair, then that should be the first step towards unity.
The recent news wires are reporting that more than 12,000 people have died as a result of China’s 7.9-magnitude earthquake, while 18,645 are buried under fallen buildings and debris.
Many more are missing and feared dead, especially school children caught in the destructive force that has shattered homes and destroyed families.
Just days ago, the people of Myanmar were caught in another of nature’s devastating forces in the form of a cyclone, which has left 34,273 dead and 27,838 missing.
Both of these cataclysms have resulted in children becoming orphans, wives into widowers and husbands losing their beloved spouses and parents who have become childless.
Too many times tragedies at this biblical scale have a way of making people realize how much the same we all are. Thousands of miles away, we can feel the sorrow and the pain of those caught in the destruction that has gripped China and Myanmar.
And despite political and cultural differences, generous people and nations look past these differences and see their fellow humans in need of great help and donate what they can.
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that if there was a huge threat to the Earth, her children would reunite and conquer the threat. Why do we have to wait for such a threat for us to come together once and for all when disasters like these should be doing this?
When we can place ourselves in the situations that these tragedy-stricken people have found themselves in and feel their anguish and despair, then that should be the first step towards unity.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama’s Arrogance, Bill’s Stupidity
By Anthony Leone
It hasn’t been a good week for either of the two Democratic presidential juggernauts.
Just Friday it was reported that Sen. Barack Obama basically called small-town Pennsylvanians uneducated rednecks because they don’t know how to express their frustrations with the government, so they hold religion and guns close while shunning away immigrants.
And later this week, former President Bill Clinton decided to “help” his wife by reopening the old Bosnia wound. If that wasn’t enough, he even got the facts wrong and he admitted to the public that Hillary told him to shut up about it. Talk about a henpecked husband, which only further portrays the female presidential candidate as an ice queen.
But getting back to the more important issue, what is really interesting is that earlier this month Obama was trying to woo over gun owners by waving the constitutional rights flag, but not telling them his misfiring voting record. But then he tells some rich donors in
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said, as reported by The Huffington Post.
Now, this is wrong on many levels. One, it’s hypocritical of him to even mention how people seek religion for guidance, considering the controversy between himself and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And Obama is still dusting himself off from that political debacle.
But two, Obama is stereotyping these Pennsylvanians, which is supposed to be a huge no-no for liberals and Democrats, unless that’s stereotyping too.
In addition, he’s basically describing these Pennsylvanians as single-minded people who don’t understand the issues that this country is facing.
The Illinois senator has not only made a hole for himself with Pennsylvania voters that he is trying to win over, but has opened himself up for attacks by Hillary and the likely Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.
Courting the gun vote should be one of the huge priorities for any Democratic presidential candidate if he or she hopes to win any political race. After all, in recent years Democrats are viewed as being against the Second Amendment.
And respecting how one embraces religion should be a cake walk for even a first year politician. But insulting one’s way of life will reasonably make that voter get down on his knees and take aim at Obama.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Who Says There’s No Smoking Gun Between Saddam, al-Qaeda?
By Anthony Leone
Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.
“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.
For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.
“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.
And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.
So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.
At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.
Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate.
But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.
To read the complete report, please click here.
Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.
“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.
For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.
“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.
And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.
So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.
At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.
Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate.
But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.
To read the complete report, please click here.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary ‘Misspoke’ About Being Shot At?
By Anthony Leone
Much like her husband, who didn’t know the meaning of “is,” it appears that Hillary Clinton doesn’t know the meaning of “misspoke.”
While trying to beef up her dismal experience as First Lady, the Democratic presidential candidate, who is currently in second place, told an audience at
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base,” she told the audience.
Now, to help Hillary, I’m going to tell her what a “lie” is and what “misspeaking” really means. First, the “lie.”
As her campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson has said, Hillary has written about and spoke about her exit out of the plane before and now she misspoke. Well, the fact is, in the past, Hillary did tell the truth about the landing. There were snipers in the area but not where her plane landed. In fact, funnyman Sinbad, who was with Hillary and her daughter Chelsea, stated it was a relaxing trip.
A CBS report at the time doesn’t mention Hillary running for her life at all and that report can be found on YouTube.
So, she clearly lied about her exiting situation and certainly didn’t misspeak. Misspeaking is saying that she landed on a Tuesday instead of a Monday. Calling her daughter
And here’s another lie: “… there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady.”
Well, I’m sure it’s very tongue-and-cheek because it sounds like it but with Hillary “Ran With Our Heads Down”
So, why lie about risking her life at all? Maybe the fact that she’s losing so badly to Sen. Barack Obama and she wanted to really strengthen her weak foreign policy experience. Because let’s face facts: Hillary has only held an electable title of
And this is not some oversight on Hillary’s part or even an exaggeration that many politicians seem to enjoy doing. This was an out-and-out lie and a desperate attempt to show the delegates that she has more experience than Obama.
All politicians lie to make themselves look better and Hillary is no different. However, lying about being in danger with your own daughter in tow should leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. And if she’s doing this to a fellow Democrat, then we better start wearing a raincoat if she does get her party’s nomination, because then the mud will really start to fly.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Spectre Of Spitzer
By Michael Quaranta
The recent scandal that has enmeshed former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer in a web of prostitution and evident corruption has led many to wonder how could one so promising, so intelligent, make such a monumental blunder.
Spitzer coasted to power on a platform of reform. With a crusader’s mantra, he targeted and destroyed many of Wall Street’s elite. It was on the heels of these “victories” that Spitzer catapulted to the governorship of the State of New York.
Now, after having been accused of moving money in order to solicit the services of a high-end, global prostitution ring, Eliot Spitzer has become, in the eyes of the public, what he long claimed to be fighting against. Spitzer has been accused of spending as much as $80,000 on prostitutes over a 10 year period, according to various news sources. This is rather ironic, since as attorney general for New York State, he was well known for prosecuting and breaking up prostitution rings.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen; so the saying goes.
It did not help Spitzer that he handled most of his cases in a high-handed, almost brutal fashion. His quote to New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco (“Listen, I am a f****** steamroller and I’ll roll over you and anybody else”) was just a glimpse as to the volatility of his demeanor.
The fall of Eliot Spitzer was long over due in coming. After the State Trooper scandal in July of 2007, where his staff ordered the State Police to keep special records of Republican Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno’s whereabouts, to his executive order to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens, which was hotly contested, along with his arrogant view on how politics should work, all contributed to the universal condemnation of this fallen star of the Democratic Party.
Eliot Spitzer brought nothing new to the scene of New York politics. He created nothing; contributed nothing.
At best, his most memorable contribution to politics was a greater appreciation as to how hypocritical and mean-spirited the game can be. In the end, Eliot Spitzer will be remembered; not for his failures in office, but for the ironic way in which he failed his constituents.
Karma really does exist after all.
The recent scandal that has enmeshed former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer in a web of prostitution and evident corruption has led many to wonder how could one so promising, so intelligent, make such a monumental blunder.
Spitzer coasted to power on a platform of reform. With a crusader’s mantra, he targeted and destroyed many of Wall Street’s elite. It was on the heels of these “victories” that Spitzer catapulted to the governorship of the State of New York.
Now, after having been accused of moving money in order to solicit the services of a high-end, global prostitution ring, Eliot Spitzer has become, in the eyes of the public, what he long claimed to be fighting against. Spitzer has been accused of spending as much as $80,000 on prostitutes over a 10 year period, according to various news sources. This is rather ironic, since as attorney general for New York State, he was well known for prosecuting and breaking up prostitution rings.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen; so the saying goes.
It did not help Spitzer that he handled most of his cases in a high-handed, almost brutal fashion. His quote to New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco (“Listen, I am a f****** steamroller and I’ll roll over you and anybody else”) was just a glimpse as to the volatility of his demeanor.
The fall of Eliot Spitzer was long over due in coming. After the State Trooper scandal in July of 2007, where his staff ordered the State Police to keep special records of Republican Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno’s whereabouts, to his executive order to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens, which was hotly contested, along with his arrogant view on how politics should work, all contributed to the universal condemnation of this fallen star of the Democratic Party.
Eliot Spitzer brought nothing new to the scene of New York politics. He created nothing; contributed nothing.
At best, his most memorable contribution to politics was a greater appreciation as to how hypocritical and mean-spirited the game can be. In the end, Eliot Spitzer will be remembered; not for his failures in office, but for the ironic way in which he failed his constituents.
Karma really does exist after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
