RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Justices Decide 5-4 Future Elections Will Go to the Highest Bidder

25 Jul



One week ago today something truly sad happened to our republic. By a 5-4 vote justices in the supreme court decided that for profit corporations can spend as much much as they want on our elections. You can say America is no longer the same with this ruling. The floodgates of funds from the companies that most despise has opened. Exxon mobile, JP Morgan, and the likes have tightened the noose on our democracy.

Nobody can argue that Barack Obama did not have an advantage in the 2008 elections. He started the largest grassroots campaign in history for president of the United States. For that he was awarded small donations from 3.95 million individuals around the country. This is the way elections are supposed to be funded. By individual Americans. We the people elect the president. Not corporations or foreign entities.

That being said anyone who follows the election process knows how important having funds are. Hillary Clinton over spent during her campaign and ran out of money. This during her final months was a huge blow to her campaign and rightfully so. If you can convince individuals that you are the right person for the job they donate to your campaign. This gives you a larger national platform to speak from. What happens now that corporations enter this race? They will dwarf donations made by individuals. This means that whichever candidate is the friendliest to the largest corporations gets the most money.

This means that what you say about your opponent need not even be true. You must have to buy more air time on TV then them. If you repeatedly bash your message into voters head they will inevitably cave. Hearing something over and over again believing it is the truth. Based on this we must now accept that Barack Obama is palling around with terrorists. Or at least that’s what Sarah Palin would have you believe. Given enough money to blanket the airwaves I’m sure she could convince the majority of the country that this is indeed true. Or perhaps as some of have suggested that Obama is not a United States citizen. All obvious lies.

If you don’t believe me perhaps you should look at the poll numbers of the percentage of Americans that think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded them. Or the poll numbers of Americans who thought Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Oh yea and I forgot to mention Obama is a radical muslim from Indonesia. Or who could have forgotten the first claim that Obama does not put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance? All outright lies. But once pounded into our heads through media and other outlets in the future they will simply be accepted as truths.

I cannot agree more with justice Stevens who said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. For our political system in America has been turned upside down. Now all we can do is sit back and wait to see the billion dollar industries ravish our political system. It will simply be a bloodbath of honest politicians.

We must ask ourselves how did we get into this predicament. It’s easy, his name is George W. Bush. To add insult to injury after he destroyed our economy on the way out and appointed two lifetime judges to the supreme court. Samuel Alito and John Roberts. They now have the rest of their lives to overturn common sense laws and destroy our country with their right wing views. We can only sit and wonder what they will do next. The ruling in question was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv

 

What You Wear Matters

06 Mar



Over the last couple of weeks, millions of viewers have watched the Democrats and Republicans put on their best faces. Both parties have been successful in their own ways. Some were trying to portray themselves in a different light; others were trying to put their best qualities forward. However, did their visual energy serve them the right way? Did they reach the voters with the right message?

Energy was apparent in the choice of clothing by each of the speakers, male and female, but did the clothing wear them or did it in fact support their intent and their message?

In the field of Feng Shui, color and shape matters because it provides you either positive or negative energy. The male speakers at both conventions wore the typical dark suit and used color in their neckties. And while the color in the ties did make a statement, the female speakers were the ones communicating visually this year. They stepped right out creating drama and distinction with the color and style of their clothing. What follows in alphabetical order is a mini evaluation of the energy surrounding the primary female speakers.

Laura Bush, First Lady
Her high energy red suit exuded self confidence, poise and a presence of importance. Since she was on the platform officially representing the White House and introduced the satellite feed from the President. She needed the right color energy to make sure all eyes would be on her and lead to that satellite feed. And she did just that with such a high energy color but remained in-control with a traditionally cut and fitted two piece suit. The red further emphasized the patriotic theme of the enormous flag in the background plus the energy of good fortune.

Hillary Clinton
She wore a bright, distinct, crisp orange pantsuit while delivering her speech. She wanted to maintain total control, be in charge of her moment and say to the world “here I am, and I am good.” While being somewhat maligned by the news anchors for wearing such a bright color instead of something dark and more business-like, she succeeded because her orange suit was not only a high energy, high visibility, in-charge color, but it also contrasted perfectly with the blue background. Blue and orange are complimentary colors, which cause high inter-active color energy and vibrancy.

Cindy McCain
When in the spotlight the last night delivering her message about her husband, as a potential First Lady, she knew she needed to make a statement but also be credible. Her choice was a fresh, stylish bright blue somewhat unstructured suit. It made the statement, “I am special, I am believable, authentic and trustworthy.” The calming blue, even though bright worked well for her giving the campaign a positive in-control but not dominating energy image.

Michele Obama
She looked absolutely stunning, wearing a beautiful jewel-tone blue dress representing herself well as a potential First Lady. Her dress was soft, although fitted, and in a very calming color. Blue can be calm to cool and even cold in the certain shades but she got the color just right. She would have succeeded even more had consideration been given to the background, which was also blue. If the intent was to make her melt into the background it worked perfectly. If the intent was to give her a strong but soft presence, a different color from the background would have served her better.

Sarah Palin
The night she was introduced, she wore a two-piece suit with a black skirt on the bottom, giving her strong grounding energy and a light colored jacketed top. While this was a less traditional suit (since the top and bottom didn’t match), once she stepped up to the microphone with a black background, the perfect yin/yang balance was struck. She succeeded in making herself be the “in control” focus of her presentation. All eyes were on her and not her clothing or the background.

In each of these examples the women chose bright or dramatic high energy colors to provide them the positive energy needed to accomplish their task at hand.

The choice of clothing, its color and shape can make or break what you are trying to accomplish on any given day. If you want to have a successful day whether at home gardening or in the office intensely focusing on accomplishing your goals for the day, wear clothing that provides you casual energy for the garden or that much needed energy boost for a busy office day.

The results of this year’s election are not in yet, but it’s clear that each of the women speaking at the recent conventions is self-confident and focused. Their clothing told its own story – speaking 1,000 words without making a sound.

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv

 

Barack Obama – The Social Media President

26 Jul



Barack Obama was not only the first Black American to become the president of United States, but also the first social media president. Anyone who has noticed the way he used the web to his advantage would agree with this statement. Is social media so powerful that it can take a person to the winning podium? Let’s answer the question here.

We all know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorite candidates for the presidential post. Before contesting the election, Barack Obama led an ordinary life as a citizen of the U.S, while Hillary Clinton had been the First Lady of America. She was a known face and had made her impression on a number of American citizens through public appearances as the First Lady. These aspects of her personality and her familiarity as a public figure among pubic was indeed a huge advantage and Obama was faced with the challenge of drawing public attention and winning their hearts. He used the web to do this and it was indeed a well received.

Apart from having an official website and canvassing online like other candidates did, he harnessed the power of social media and used it as a platform to share, communicate and connect to people. It not only gave him a wider scope to be visible, but also offered him a medium to connect to people and converse with the commoners. He used blogs, Twitter, MySpace and Facebook to propagate and reach out to people. This created trust in the minds of people and gave them a chance to learn the prospective development Obama as a president could make. Sure social media websites did back a great deal making Obama the president of America.

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv

 

The Hillary Clinton Stock Market and Economy – Three Areas to Consider

26 May

I would like to remind the reader of the last time in our country’s history when taxes, unemployment, and inflation were extraordinarily high: the late 1970′s during the Carter presidency. Inflation was raging and interest rates were in double digits. Many consumers in our economy today do not have vivid memories of that time.

Yet after the 1970′s inflationary spiral was broken, at the expense of a severe recession with extremely high unemployment – we have since enjoyed over twenty years of a fundamentally good stock market and economy.

But what if today’s relatively good stock market and jobs creating economy were to change? I must admit, I am of the opinion that the winds of inflation may be building a momentum again after all these years of disinflation. I agree with Alan Greenspan’s opinion in a CNBC interview that we no longer have the luxury of implementing easy monetary policy, as we did after the technology and stock price bubble deflated after 2000, when deflation was actually a threat.

We have an important election in 2008 that may determine the course of the stock market and the economy in a manner not seen since the late 1970′s. Hillary Clinton is the current favorite to win the Democratic nomination – and she is running a liberal, progressive campaign. The Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be, may win the White House.

There are three areas to consider with respect to why the stock market could decline into a bear market should the economically liberal platform be enacted.

The first proposal of the Clinton campaign that would be anathema to the stock market is the planned redistribution of wealth. Giuliani, in a CNBC interview, actually called this plan an entitlement program for the middle class. This would be in the form of a tax-the-rich-and-give-the-funds-to-the-middle-class policy. This sounds good in theory, but this action would not create a penny of additional wealth or a single new job in our country. The policy simply takes away from one group to give to another more favored group of people. Such a policy could even lower the amount of wealth in our country, as those businesses that are creating jobs might make less money – especially small businesses that may have to lay off workers because their taxes are higher. The economy, and consequently the stock market, could suffer.

To give an example in industry of a possible redistribution policy, an obvious target of the Clinton campaign has been the almost universally hated oil and gas industry, which the Senator believes makes too much money. In fact, I saw an excerpt of a Clinton speech on TV that the senator wanted to “take that money” and I suppose give it to a more favored group of people or industry. This action would amount to an expropriation of assets and would reduce employment in the oil industry. The stock market could react badly to that.

I would like to point out that there have been times in the history of the oil and gas industry during which these companies have been in a depression – but they were not bailed out. But even such a hated industry as the oil and gas industry is capable of creative movement. Fortune magazine reports that Royal Dutch Petroleum has been investing heavily for years in scientific research to produce oil from shale in America. Fortune reports that there is a potential production of 300,000 barrels a day – and it would be profitable at $30 per barrel. They further report that Royal Dutch’s technology is supposed to be way ahead of their competitors, with the company holding some 200 patents.

Royal Dutch seems to think those years of heavy investment in research and development will pay off in the near-term horizon. They would also plan to build the first new refinery in the U.S. in decades. Heavy taxes on this industry could discourage new investments such as the Royal Dutch project. The end result would be more energy dependence.

The second idea of the Clinton campaign that would hurt the stock market and the economy is the re-regulation and regulation for the first time of major industries in our economy. If an unfettered industry is seen as making too much money, then it might be a target for being regulated, which inherently makes the industry less creative, vibrant, profitable and flexible (with concurrent less ability to withstand economic shocks and adapt to changing economic conditions).

Alan Greenspan, in a speech reported on CNBC, attributed the flexibility of our economy as one reason why we have not had such deep recessions in recent years. While one sector of the economy is under water, other sectors can pick up the slack and prevent a recession from becoming damaging. But, if employees are tied by regulation to industries that are no longer competitive, then the overall economy would be hurt – those workers would not be retrained for the emerging new industries of the future. The economy would be more rigid by definition and we might experience a declining standard of living as older regulated industries would not make it in the global economy and become obsolete. Like it or not, our capitalist economy works best as a self-correcting mechanism, with new industries supplanting the old.

An industry which could suffer a decline in employment and innovation because of regulation is also a target for criticism: the drug and medical devices companies. We all remember Senator Clinton’s early 1990′s health care plan, crafted behind the scenes, which really would have been “government run healthcare.” The Senator never apologized for that failed attempt at healthcare nationalization, but even now blames her former opposition. The healthcare sector in the stock market at that time fell out of bed while the Clinton plan was being propagated. If nationalized medicine were to become a threat again, that poor action in the stock market could be repeated. So far, the Senator’s “American Health Choices Plan,” as smoothly explained on the Clinton campaign website, seems on the surface pretty innocuous. But it also would be extremely expensive, perhaps tempting Clinton (if she were elected) to revive her previous ill-considered plan.

I believe that there must be a way to insure the uninsured for hospital stays, doctor visits, pharmaceuticals, etc. without uprooting the entire system. I think one question that is not being discussed is whether a Clinton administration would propose to control drug prices. We have had experience with price controls under President Nixon, and it just produced shortages of goods. There could be shortages of essential medicines if price controls on drugs make it less profitable to invest in the research it takes to develop and produce them. A less profitable atmosphere for the drug industry means fewer drug companies and fewer drugs being invented. Why should entrepreneurs launch new drug companies pioneering new science when their prices are to be controlled and profits regulated?

The fact is that the pharmaceutical industry is not the problem – they are the solution. A pharmaceutical company might spend one billion dollars and two decades developing an important drug that can save lives and keep people from costly stays in the hospital. If artificial controls are placed on the drug’s price, then it actually may not be profitable for the company to develop new drugs in the future. They could fire researchers and other employees to cut costs. Since over 90% of all new pharmaceuticals are developed in the US, health care costs would likely go up as new cost saving cures would not be developed.

Drug companies have invented life saving medicines that have kept tens of millions of people out of costly hospital stays, and saved and extended many lives. I believe these drugs are an extremely cost-effective solution to illness and disease – and I do believe all private insurance should cover prescription drugs liberally.

The third area of a possible Clinton presidency about which one must be concerned if you are a stock market investor or simply a taxpayer, is free trade. An open trade system has allowed our country to prosper in the last two decades. Granted, currency manipulation on the part of a trading partner (such as China) is not free trade – but most of our trading partners and the newly emerging eastern European economies are adopting lower taxes and free market policies. It is a shame that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has not received that message and is indicating a path for this country that may bring our economy and our stock market back to the past economic policies of the 1970′s.

The outcome of the 2008 presidential election will do much to determine the outlook for the economy and the stock market in the next several years. Regardless of who wins, the second year of the presidential term is usually poor for the stock market, as the policy makers make the economy take its medicine early on in the term.

The Federal Reserve, in its current easing mode, should encourage the stock market until the months before the election, when it will be clearer who the victor will be. At that time, the stock market’s future direction will be determined by the degree of wisdom of the victor’s economic policies, and, of course, Federal Reserve policy.

I was first exposed to financial markets when I started reading the stock quotes out of the newspaper to my businessman grandfather, who was legally blind, when I was about ten. I remember Papa always told me: “Buy Triple A” (the best stocks). Later, I studied economics at both Vassar College and Columbia University, where I became intrigued by the link between psychology and economic theory. My current e-book, A Way to Wealth – the Art of Investing in Common Stocks, is available at my website, http://www.ReiznersWay.com.

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv

 

How Can The Democrats Win In 2008? (First of Two Parts)

30 Mar

I. VICTORY OUT WEST

If the Democrats are to seize control of the White House in 2008, they need to rally behind the party’s brightest star, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. If they again parade a spineless, lackluster nominee–a la Al Gore, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, “Hollerin’” Howard Dean, et al. They can expect another election day version of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. If the Democrats are humbled again, they have nothing to look forward to in 2012, unless the Republican President-elect makes a Gerald Ford-like gaffe or two.

For the Democrats once-promising candidate Gavin Newsome is already out of the running. His endorsement of gay marriage left him with the maverick label and knocked him out of contention. (Is he (the new “Governor Moonbeam?”) The name of Bob Graham pops up every year, but he is as faceless as they come. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards are two more young guns that might make a strong showing at future Democratic conventions. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has the same maverick label, but is seen as a fiscal conservative. Some mention the name of Obama Barack, but I don’t see that as a realistic option.

However, if a minority candidate from the Party is to make a strong push in the future, I’d bet on California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante or New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. If Bustamante is elected Governor in 2006, or 2010, he will be catapulted onto the national stage, especially if he can solve the state’s fiscal woes. He is intelligent, well-liked and the high Latino populations of California, New York, Florida and Texas offer a substantial voter base.

Richardson will also hold sway with Latinos and Demo party bigwigs. If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination and Richardson was her choice for Veep, they would create a formidable ticket.

Since the Dems have no southern strategy, their hopes lie out west. This is essential, since in 2004 George W. Bush won four states with Democratic Governors (New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming and Arizona). These states, along with Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Nevada want to vote as a bloc. They form an aggregate of 53 electoral votes–almost as many as California’s 55–which is solidly Democratic. Add this 108-vote bloc to New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania–which have all gone Democratic in each election since 1992 (73 electoral votes total), and the Dems would be 2/3 of the way to the White House.

Whoever garners the nomination must sleep with two conflicting entities–labor and big business. Labor has been a long-time Demo stronghold. On the other hand, the presidency is financed and thus, partially owned by business conglomerates that will contribute the majority of the 450 million dollars needed to run a successful campaign. There are other factors to be considered: Gasoline prices, which will have a profound impact on inflation; unemployment and interest rate levels. The ost important factor may be whether or not our military is engaged in conflict with any number of countries–including North Korea, Iran, Iraq and in Southeast Asia–and to what extent.

II. CAN LATINO POWER RESUSCITATE THE DEMOCRATS?

If the Dems focus their strategy out west they would be wise to seek the ever-growing Hispanic vote. Not only are Bustamante and Richardson well-known, but Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has a rising popularity. The question will be whether or not he is seasoned enough. However, Bustamante and Richardson will be invaluable in selling the Dems platform in their heavily-Hispanic states, as will former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros.

Arizona’s population is 25 percent Hispanic. New Mexico’s is 42. California, Florida, Texas and New York also have sizable Latino populations. These six states account for 162 electoral votes, 60% of the total needed to win. The dramatic increase in the number of Latino citizens in the 1990s has created a powerful voting bloc that both Democrats and Republicans are wooing. Statistics show that between 1984 and 1996, the GOP’s share of the Hispanic vote in presidential elections dropped from 37 to 21 percent, while the voter registration for this group increased by nearly 30%.

Washington Post reporter Terry M. Neal writes, “The GOP has long been accused by critics on the left of seeking electoral advantage by using race as a subtext–on issues from welfare, busing, affirmative action, immigration and crime–to drive a wedge to court white voters.” Bush’s approval rate among black voters is 2%, which is why the GOP would be wise to woo this resource. Though blacks shun the Republican party, their votes have failed to put the last two Democratic candidates over the top. This is why the Dems must expand their base. Strangely, Black American Political Action Committee (BAMPAC) showed that Condoleezza Rice had an approval rating (41%) just over half of that of Jesse Jackson and Colin Powell. However, “Rice experienced the largest surge in name recognition and approval rating. Fifty-nine percent of the black registered voters polled recognized Rice’s name in 2002, compared with 38 percent last year; and her favorable rating rose to 41 percent this year from 17 percent in 2001.”

The ever-growing clout of Latinos is most evident in California, where they comprise about 30 percent of the population. This political weight has enabled Latinos to combat anti-immigration sentiment, including denial of social services to legal immigrants.

California’s Lieutenant Governor, Cruz M. Bustamante is expected to launch another Gubernatorial bid in 2006. Early polling shows him defeating current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 46-42% in a two-man race. Bustamante’s chances are improving as Schwarzenegger’s popularity is dwindling even among fellow Republicans. Furthermore, during the November elections four Schwarzenegger-backed ballot initiatives were defeated, making him vulnerable come June.

Bustamante sought the State’s top job during the 2003 recall vote of Gray Davis. State Democratic leaders had urged prominent party members not to run, hopeful it would increase Davis’s chances of holding onto the seat. Bustamante denounced the recall but ran anyway, losing by 1.3 million votes. Subsequently, many Dems considered him disloyal. Bustamante also alienated some blacks when he “accidentally” used the word “nigger” in a speech.

It is Richardson who has the more impressive credentials. He was nominated as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In 1998, he was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Secretary of Energy. He was elected Governor of “The Land of Enchantment” in 2002. He has also negotiated with Saddam Hussein and the government of the Sudan to free prisoners and his work addressing human rights abuses earned him a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, 1997, 2000 and 2001. He also assisted in the arms negotiations with North Korean delegates.

During Richardson’s fifteen years representing New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District, “He sponsored and passed a bill to retain and improve health care for rural New Mexicans as well as a bill to increase the amount of nurses in the state. He traveled to Missouri and convinced milk producers to open a dairy factory in eastern New Mexico, creating jobs and bringing economic development to the state.”

Richardson understands the power of the Hispanic voting bloc, saying “These are changing political times…We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans – we have to network better. We have to be more politically minded, we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past.”

Latinos are concerned about laws that would restrict immigration. Richardson however, has no clear position on the issue. He declared four counties along the New Mexico border as disaster areas and stepped up border patrols; at one time he called for an amnesty program; another time he was against building a fence along the border, calling it “easily porous.” In 2003 he signed a bill allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses.

What Richardson does believe in is strong alliances between the U.S. and Mexico, saying, “Now is the time to increase our economic cooperation, our trade, our educational exchanges.” Further, Richardson is praised by New Mexico’s conservatives for cutting state taxes.

Cisneros, who is also the former Mayor of San Antonio has a scandal-ridden past (An affair, divorce and a convicted of making false statements to federal officials), but he still holds sway among Latinos. In Texas, such support will be crucial. (Cisneros guilty plea was negotiated and he received a $10,000 fine, but was later pardoned by President Clinton).

He believes that Latinos can make a difference in states representing 214 electoral votes adding, “We have just now begun to achieve critical mass with enough votes to make a difference,” Cisneros said. “We have within our reach the ability to influence the outcome.”

A non-Hispanic candidate the Dems may consider is fifty-year old Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He is not quite through his first year in office, however, and has already sparked controversy by first choosing Republican State Senator John Bohlinger his running mate and by once suggesting the return of Montana National Guard troops from Iraq to help battle wildfires across the state.

Schweitzer is a rancher and holds an undergraduate degree in international agronomy from Colorado State University and a Master’s Degree in soil science from Montana State. He was also appointed by President Clinton to the United States Department of Agriculture. In 2000 he ran unsuccessfully for a U.S. Senate seat.

As a last resort the Democrats could always emulate George W. Bush and add a wizened member of the party to their ticket. In this case they could opt for Florida Senator Bob Graham. The 69-year old Graham is considered a moderate. Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post says of Graham, “The Almanac of American Politics had described him as ‘careful, methodical, thorough,hardworking, reliable’–it might as well have added ‘zzzzzzz’.” This means he won’t outshine the top of the ticket, expected to be Hillary Clinton. Plus, he hails from a state that has 27 electoral votes, which would be important if the GOP nominee is current Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Michael Grunwald writes, “Graham differs from President Bush on several fronts. Graham supports tax cuts, but ones aimed more at low- and middle-income workers. But he is most effective at dismantling the Bush record when it comes to fighting terrorism. Graham says that the administration had Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda ‘on the ropes’ after Afghanistan but let them get away by focusing on going to war against Saddam Hussein…He is running for the nomination as a centrist.or, as he would say, from the ‘electable wing of the Democratic Party’.”

Health considers might hinder his chances as he has had open-heart surgery and would be nearly 70 when the campaign begins. Graham is convinced had he rather than Joe Lieberman been on the ticket in 2000, Gore would have won the Presidency.

III. THE COST OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

The next presidential election is a mere three years away, but candidates have made fund raising a non-stop affair. Before the last ballot from the 2004 election was counted, both political parties were gearing up for 2008, a campaign expected to cost between 450 and 500 million dollars. During the 2004 campaign President Bush and Senator Kerry raised $693,664,838. Each candidate also received 74.6 million in government funding for the general election.

Even the campaign “reform” laws fail to keep the Presidency out of the grasp of corporate America. These laws were enacted to prevent political parties from collecting money from corporations and unions. The parties were allowed to solicit donations from wealthy individuals (i.e., corporate CEOs and the lot), but such donations were capped. “527 groups”–a reference to a section of the aforementioned law–are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money for advertising, usually in the form of attack ads. As in the case of John Kerry, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched successful ads against him during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Congress should enact legislation that eliminates donations from so-called “Political Action Committees” and all but individual campaign contributions (with a cap). The government could issue each candidate 75 million dollars. Each would have to spend wisely, but more important the Presidency would no longer be for sale to corporations and the officeholder would no longer be tied to special interest money.

Astronomical financing costs keep third party candidates out of the loop, unless the ticket is headed by a billionaire who can finance his own campaign, or has a personality so outlandish that the mere announcement of “contemplating” a run nets them 19 points in the polls. (Read Trump, Donald). Even a third party ticket with well-known candidates (H. Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan) stands little chance of raising enough money to be competitive, let alone get a significant number of votes. This means no hope for America First (Buchananites who split with the Reform Party), Green Party (Nader), Independence (Jesse “The Body” Ventura), Libertarians–with more than 400 elected officials nationwide–including members of school board committees, etc. (even dogcatcher, perhaps), Peace & Freedom, Reform Party (formerly Perot’s boys and temporarily commandeered by Bo Gritz) and the Socialist Party.

Unless Bill Gates bankrolls a celebrity-loaded ticket (such as Oprah and Warren Beatty) third party candidates won’t even garner much media attention. Personalities have won major elections before with nothing more than clever sound bites, most recently Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. (Some might argue this about Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he defeated a bumbling Jimmy Carter). This wiill leave the political limelight shining on the Democrats and GOP, which means we will see more of the personal attacks and distortions waged in every election since 1988, when George H.W. Bush slammed Michael Dukakis with the infamous “Willie Horton” ads.

While the Democrat strategy of working through the Internet has reaped rewards, it will take more than cyber-leeching and campaign spending to regain the White House. It will take a clear, coherent message from the center. The ticket will more than likely have star power at the top of the ticket, but it’s the Vice-presidential slot that will be key. The central issue will be “What does the number two man bring to the ticket?” But right behind that will be, “How much (cash) can he bring to the ticket?”

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv

 

Understanding the Obama Effect

20 Feb



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.” A rule of competition is to make it personal, if you cannot beat the platform.

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 doesn’t the media say Obama’s historic white bid for presidency? Does it serve the competition to refer to Obama as the first black presidential contender? What about Carol Moseley Braun and Reverend Al Sharpton?To dally in these details is to miss the Obama Effect.

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.

Do the crowds of people imagine a country run with intelligence and morality when Barack speaks? Sanity in the White House 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 Clinton’s strengths help to make the choice complicated for blue voters.

The one word that is making a difference is not “change” even though contenders scramble to mention change repeatedly in their speeches. America is suffering and she has years more of pain ahead. Even if we could begin today to change, a domino effect will continue for some time with foreclosures, loss of jobs, denial of pleasures, huge medical bills, and most importantly, loss of life from war and illnesses. Nor is it “experience,” because there is a wealth of experience in the Congress to consult in addition to a carefully selected Cabinet staff – assuming that you really listen to your advisors. The word “leader” is not what we are missing because America certainly blindly followed the Rove driven B-C administration. Can it be “wisdom” is what we desperately seek, that overreaching vision that encompasses cause and effect benefits for mankind with an occasional serendipity of hope?

No matter whom we elect, he or she must work with the stodgy Senate and massive House to accomplish one small move at a time to tackle our country’s overwhelming tasks ahead. Change is slow and laborious when the people wait for politicians to act. Maybe all that lessens the tears and anguish is hope.

The Barack Effect, like his grin, sometimes resembles the sun breaking out from behind clouded skies. Ultimately, America will be saved as she has been in the past by the hard work and shared sacrifice of American families. The Obama Effect may hold no instant miracles, but it could give us a gentle nudge in the wise direction.

 
No Comments

Posted in aids & hiv