Why Obama Might Lose in 08' - and Why he Might Not

Barack Obama can’t help himself – he has perpetrated the cardinal sin in presidential campaign politics; he has thoughtfully spoken about policy instead of ambiguously speaking in packaged sound bites. There are several reasons why Obama might not win the Democratic nomination come 2008. For starters his message is all wrong, here is a guy who is speaking about hope, change and unifying the disenfranchised while this country stews in its own divisive partisanship, this is not what we need! His leading opponent, Hillary Clinton has got the right idea, for when the roads of opportunity and dilemma dissect she wastes no time in evoking President Bush, every democrat’s favorite punching bag. So instead of talking about policy and how she will salvage our countries last hope she trashes the other guy – Politics 101 when in doubt trash the guy your ideological base despises, it makes for a quick and rousing applause.

Secondly Barack really needs to get back to speaking in sound bites, nice, neat arbitrarily constructed 30 second, made for TV. sound bites. Like a cold shower, it will wake you up in the morning but the effects quickly ware off. Hillary is great at sound bites; she has perfected the 45 second debate answer, easily converted to sound bites. These days people don't have the time nor do they want a thoughtful, insightful answer. They don't want to be offended or be told something that they may need to spend more than 60 seconds thinking about. That's why Hillary has got the golden ticket, she turns these debates into packaged sound bites easily consumed by the cable pundits and American people. Word to the wise Barack, candidates aren't supposed to be onions, people don't like layers - thinking that hard makes most of them cry. Electable candidates are supposed to be layer less vegetable like, um...broccoli (bad analogy)

Thirdly Barack will lose, inevitably because of name recognition. He won’t lose because his name is Barack Obama, well he may lose in Kentucky because his name is Barack Obama, but overall he’ll lose because his opponents name is Clinton. A lot of people out there still adore Bill Clinton and a lot of people out there still support Bill Clinton, and Hillary has tapped into those resources like OPEC in Saudi Arabia (another bad analogy). Bill Clinton still enjoys an approval rating in the 50’s, women and African Americans will poor out in droves for Hillary because the idea of Bill back in the White House is too titillating to pass up.

There ya have it, message, sound bites and name – the downfall of Obama’s campaign

But who knows with Barack, after a strong showing in Wednesday’s debate, tons of money in the bank, close races both in Iowa and New Hampshire and a slew of young and independent supporters from Demoine to Concord maybe he can go the distance – maybe his message of hope and change and togetherness can resonate in a culture of 24 hour news shows and instant gratification. Maybe were not so cynical, we democrats have a tendency to latch on to the candidate who can best win in November, and most of the time out of spite for the other side instead of backing the candidate who is most able to lead this country. Maybe the idealist sect of the Democratic Party will win this time, where the McGovern and Bradley campaigns couldn't get the job done, the Barack campaign will, inspiring our youth like Bobby Kennedy, constantly thinking and searching for new solutions, like FDR.

Barack may just be the president we need, a president who has the audacity and humility to mend the wounds of polarizing politics that is suffocating our culture; a president who can once again speak to this country, inviting the people back into the arena of participation with honesty and heartfelt rhetoric, a president who will not wane from asking us to make the tough sacrifices or join in the just causes of our time.

Letter to the Editor

Below is my first letter to any editor of any news publication, ever. I recently read a post in the "letters to the editor" section of the York Daily Record which made my blood boil. Not because this individual was gay bashing - which annoys me to no end but I usually tolerate because I know in the end these people are more than likely going to hell anyway (joking). But because this particular gay basher was lying, and presented a deplorable misinterpretation of HB1400. Lying about legislation really gets my heart rate going. Ms. Gramley who is the president of the American Family Association of PA a.k.a the PA citizens for the White Preservation of Xenophobic and Intolerant Behavior stated that 1. homosexuality is a choice which was the basis for why she felt gender identity and sexual orientation should not be included in prohibiting discrimination in the workforce and 2. Interpreted the amending of the Human Relations Act of 1955, which is HB1400's purpose as creating a new law that would force businesses to hire homosexuals and bisexuals - One word - unbelievable and here are some more words.

"In regards to Ms. Gramley’s letter to the editor published on October 23rd, 2007 entitled “Not a civil rights issue for gays”. It should be noted that her interpretation of the Human Relations Act of 1955 is erroneous and misleading for two obvious reasons. One, HB1400 which will amend the Human Relations Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity with regards to employment, housing and public accommodations will not force businesses to hire homosexuals, like Ms. Gramley so ineptly claims, no more than the current Human Relations Act forces businesses to hire minorities, Christians or females. What it does do, if Ms. Gramley chose to actually read the bill rather than baking kitten pies all day, is that the bill makes sure that an employee, government entity or landlord cannot refuse hiring, fire, and refuse business or accommodation based on sexual orientation and gender ID. Section 1(b) clearly states that it is the intent of the state to foster (meaning to promote, not force) the employment of all individuals in accordance with their fullest capacities regardless of…you get the picture. There is no earthly way that this bill could be interpreted in a way that would establish a legal mandated mechanism that would force businesses to hire known homosexuals.

Two, Ms. Gramley reinforces her argument against sexual orientation and gender ID being added to the list of innate rights in this bill based on the fact that in her opinion, homosexuality is not innate. Of course that way of thinking is her prerogative, but she is irresponsible in her contradiction of the facts. Ms. Gramley has a problem with homosexuality being added yet she has no problem with "religious creed" being protected. Ms. Gramley I was not born a Catholic, nor was anyone else, most individuals choose their religious affiliations. You said homosexuality is a choice, well in many cases so is religion and by your twisted logic religious creed should not warrant protection under the current definition of the Human Relations Act since it is not a choice. This would then open myself and millions of other faith abiding people to the very same acts of discrimination and ignorance that my gay and transgender friends are forced to bare witness to every single day.

Your right Ms. Gramley sexual orientation is not comparable to skin color but we in Pennsylvania do not hand out rights base on degrees of discrimination, being prevented from renting an apartment or keeping a job based on sexual orientation when no laws or protocol have been violated is wrong, innately wrong"

No Child Left Behind - Except When It Comes to Health Care

This Thursday the United States Congress will hold a vote to override President Bush’s veto of the ever popular and ever effective children’s health insurance program, otherwise known as SCHIP. Recently President Bush seems to of found his sense of fiscal responsibility amidst of the Democrats reclaiming control of both houses of Congress. And he has deemed it his executive responsibility to preserve this countries prudent, conservative spending practices by vetoing a 35 billion dollar bill spread over 5 years that would help to insure some 9 million children. He instead demanded from congress more than 180 billion dollars in supplemental war funding for his botched war in Iraq, without a plan to pay for it, and they say we Democrats don’t know how to spend money wisely.

The democrats also had a plan to help pay for the 35 billions dollars, for shame on them. First they wanted to help revive this countries failing health care system by expanding coverage to poor minority children (I guess Kanye West was right, George Bush does hate black people), then they wanted to actually pay for it with a tax increase on tobacco, double for shame, what is the world coming to? The democrats had a plan to fix a problem and a way to pay for it – that’s not how we run our country, not in America! No we let a problem fester and frustrate, but if we do decide to challenge the status quo we don’t pay for it, no we merely barrow more money from the Chinese and pass on that insurmountable debt to our children and grand children in the form of a 9 trillion dollar national black hole we comically call a debt.

Political and policy contradiction abound makes my face cringe to the point of discomfort when this President invokes fiscal responsibility to score political points for his side of the isle. He has no problem signing into law a transportation bill in 2006 that was comprised of 2,000 plus earmarks for bridges and civic centers, firehouses and memorial statues. But with the Democrats in control suddenly 8 out of the 12 appropriation bills for this fiscal year have too much pork to even consider signing into law, 22 billion dollars worth of pork to be exact. Twenty Two billion dollars is what separates the democrat’s plan from the republican’s plan, 22 billion, if the map of the United States was this years fiscal budget the portion that separates the R’s from the D’s would comfortably fit inside Rhode Island.

This president refuses to leave any child behind when it comes to their education, but when providing subsidized health insurance (through private insurers) apparently 9 million is quite all right. The professionals all say this vote is going to come up short on its attempt to override, but let’s hope that in this case the persuasion of politics does win and enough Republicans and Democrats choose to do what is right out of fear for the coming November elections in 2008.

Baby's Can Do It Better

Here we go again, it seems the media cannot help themselves from squandering the public’s air waves by ga gaing over Britney Spears and the ship wreck she calls a life, while simultaneously exploiting her misfortunes as a dreadful parent. It’s everywhere CNN, MSNBC, even FOX news has been reporting for the past week over the ever revolving Britney Spears child custody dispute. This post merely adds to perpetuate the absurd, and for that I am deeply ashamed of myself, and I apologize.

The story: Who will gain custody and screw up their child’s life more, K-fed or Britney? I don’t know, and I don’t care! I know, it’s a market economy based on supply and demand, these news outlets wouldn’t be reporting on frivolous stories unless we as a consumption society craved them. Still can’t we at least acknowledge that 7 days of coverage is just a bit too much when the United States has herself engaged in the most significant international conflict since WWII? A battle with which in the balance holds the future security of our country and America’s ability to effectively engage on the world stage.

Here is my solution all be it insensitive and oddly blithe. First force Princess Britney to work as a social worker in a child welfare office. Wait, or better yet have her live on the corner of Princess and Pershing in center city York, make her obtain a job, give her a physical handicap, instill a fear of crime, drugs and throw in a societal stigma of apathy, and make her do it without the father. Let her see how difficult it is to raise a child the right way, the hardest way in the real world (it can be done, I’ve seen it).

Take K-Fed and force him to legally change his name to something that is less annoying and less likely to be ridiculed in nickname format, if I have to hear the media acknowledge him as K-Fed one more time I’m going to puke. Then force him to dance for his livelihood in Times Square, which will put his fancy dancing skills to the test

Finally we take the two harmless children, so full of hope and potential, who have been unfairly subjected to this mess and we create a new baby reality show, put it on VH1 or MTv, those stations have no scruples they’ll do it for the doe, we’ll call it “Baby’s Can Do It Better” – kind of catchy right? We team them with other celebrity babies whose parents are screw ups and put them through a series of social experiments and humiliating challenges, sort of like CBS’s Kid Nation but more retarded and on crack. The winner gets to be adopted by a gay couple living in Greenwich Village or the Valley – hey at least the kids will have a fighting chance at normalcy. The poor children that lose…well, who cares they’ll most likely end up on the next episode of E True Hollywood story – Rupert Murdoch, I’ll give Fox the first offer.