Friday, November 19, 2004

I Miss Bill

So I'm watching the Clinton Library Dedication, and I just have to say it. I REALLY miss Bill, warts and all. I know, I know, he was like Professor Harold Hill in The Music Man, but didn't you really want to believe Harold Hill ???

I truly liked Kerry and still think he would have been a fine president. Hell, I think Al Sharpton would have done a better job than Bush has done. Did you hear the latest? Congress took another loan for $800 billion! Why that's almost as much as it costs to gas up a Hummer! The tax cuts Bush promised to the middle class will never come to pass, because he won't touch the cuts already given to the top 2 %. I know I have to get over the fact that I think those who voted for Bush must be morons, but they must OR maybe this is the biggest Reality Show ever put over on the public...half of us just got voted off the island.

Here is a cute quote that a friend sent from Illinois (another blue state!) Take heart Democrats..and think of this.

Not to worry.  With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, over 90% of our pineapple and lettuce, 93% of the artichoke production, 95% of America's export quality wines, 90% of all cheese production, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, CalTech and MIT.  We can live simply but well.

The Red States, on the other hand, now have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care cost spike), 92% of all US mosquitoes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100% of all Televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.  A high price to pay for controlling the presidency.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Barack Obama in 2008 !

Is 2008 too early to consider Barack Obama for President?

I know . . .he hasn’t even been sworn in as Illinois’ senator yet, but already many people see him as the fastest rising star within the Democratic party. He has even said, “I don’t even know where the restrooms are in the Senate and don’t even know how to work the telephone system, at least give me a chance to do the job I was elected to do.” The other day on “Meet the Press” he was able to sound conciliatory on the one hand, but fiercely determined on the other, to make sure this Congress does it’s job for the betterment of the country as a whole, not just a few lucky ones. Naïve? I think not !

Will necessity mandate that he run for President in 2008? Will the Democrats be so desperate to find a candidate who can reach across the “cultural divide” that they will draft Obama earlier than his time? He just turned 43, and has been very humble about his place within the upcoming Congress as the 99th senator listed out of 100. By 2008 he will be 47 and will have served 11 years in state and federal legislative positions, more than George W. Bush ever did.

Let’s think “inside the box” for a moment about who might be likely from the Democratic party to end up running for the biggest office in the land. Three years out is a long time to project, but right now the Democrats have Howard Dean, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and all the others who joined the early fray in 2004. Some say Kerry will run again, but history has not been kind to losing candidates running for the Office of the President and Kerry will likely be more effective in the Senate now that he has name recognition and more importantly, a better idea of what it’s like outside the beltway.

Each one of the above candidates would have tremendous problems overcoming the “negatives” that have built up over the years regarding their political biographies. More importantly however, none of them have the ability to bridge the “cultural gap” that keeps popping up all over the place as they are too heavily tied into their own demographic. Bill Clinton’s success as a two term President had as much to do with his human relations skills as his intelligence. Of the above list, Hillary is by far the most intelligent and driven of the lot, but her negatives are so high, she would have no chance of winning the number of states she would need to declare victory. I’m sorry but the bubbas just aren’t going to join in on that one and many conservative women voters would also be put off by Hillary’s candidacy.

Let’s look “outside the box” for a minute. There is Barack Obama from Illinois, former Senator Bob Kerry from Nebraska, Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, and perhaps someone lesser known who emerges during the next session of Congress. While all three of these men are very capable of leading our country, Obama by far is the most electrifying and personable one of the lot. In '04 he went into many areas of downstate Illinois that have been Republican strongholds for years and met face to face and door to door with the voters themselves, and ended up “sharing” 1 million votes with Bush in that part of the state. As you probably remember he trounced the carpetbagging, trash talking, ultra right-winger Alan Keyes by an astounding majority. He is the only one of the bunch who could win back those voters that Clinton and Reagan won over to put them on top.

He has a very unique ability to talk to people as if he’s known them his whole life. His life experiences are very similar to most blue collar, middle class families; families who are struggling to put food on the table and provide health care for their children. He considers basic needs a “moral” issue. He was raised by his mother and had to be very self sufficient as a child, but never lost his positiveness to help others and to see the needs of society as a whole. He is the antithesis to the Bush regime. He calmly persuades and respectfully listens to other viewpoints, then makes his decisions after considering all sides of an issue. Once he decides, he is commited to an idea, but would have no trouble “tweaking” it if necessary to work with the realities of the situation, unlike Bush. He would truly be most happy if everyone was actually the recipient of the greater good, unlike the present group who is so exclusive of those unlike themselves. He has a high moral fiber, yet doesn’t use it in immoral ways to get what he wants. He appeals to the good and positive in people, he does not rely on fear to cajole or scare voters to “see things his way.”

My feeling with Obama is, the worry about voting irregularities would be lessened. He would win enough of a majority that everyone would in effect, be a “proxy pollwatcher” and if the dirty tricksters dared partake of more funny business, they would be appropriately exposed and humiliated. Plus, I think by 2008 many voting kinks will be worked out. Hey, how bout everyone votes absentee? Think about it. It could resolve a lot of problems.

Would there be those who would work against him? Of course, the bigoted, narrow-minded, small-brained contingent present during every election would try to do whatever damage they could to him, but it would be to no avail as his record would be too clean and his motives too high, his support too strong.

There will be many Republican candidates declaring themselves as candidates for the 2008 nomination, but all of them have the same problem as the Democrats (except for Obama) mentioned above. High negatives. For example, Rudy Guilani had the highest negatives of any mayor in New York history, then 9/11 came and he sprang into action (doing quite a remarkable job) and completely changed his public image. New Yorkers either forgot or forgave the obnoxious attitude that Guilani possessed before 9/11 with quite a few examples of publicly embarrassing episodes that often made the daily headlines in NYC, but he did a great job of making himself a jerk again during the 2004 campaign, joining in with the Bush crowd by lying, deceiving, and misrepresenting Democratic positions. He would self-destruct.

George Pataki, governor of New York State, may also be interested in running, but remember, Northeasterners don’t usually get elected President, even Republicans. The last Northeasterner to be President was JFK in 1960, winning the electoral vote, but losing the popular vote to Richard Nixon.

Other possible Republican candidates are John McCain, Jeb Bush, now governor of Florida (in spite of what he says he’d LOVE to run), Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition blah, blah, blah. No, Arnold will not run because the Constitution would have to be changed, and it won’t be for that. Bush is going to burn all his energy trying to get an anti gay marriage act constitutionalized. That will fail too by the way.

I would love to see the dirty tricksters find themselves up against Barack Obama. He would be able to cut through them like warm butter because there is no defense against a superior opponent, especially one who always takes the high road. Keep your ear to the track on this young, exciting upstart; he could just be our answer in 2008.

a couple of links about him are:
Barack 1

Barack 2

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Bush Joke

What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?

Bush had an exit strategy for the Vietnam War.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

A Final Take on Election Fraud
For Now!

Ok, ok you might be rolling your eyes right now, thinking that I'm going a little overboard on this "stolen election" stuff. Maybe it's that I can't really believe my fellow Americans are really this stupid, or maybe it is just that I don't want to believe it.

Actually, I am not convinced, I follow more along the lines of this David Corn article in The Nation . . . I think in an election where a lot of things could go wrong, where so much was at stake, and exit polls so were so different from the results, that we are owed at least a look into what happened.

So two more people doing something about it are:

NY Rep Jerrold Nadler who is requesting that the Government Accountability Office investigate voting irregularities. Which is basically all I ask.

And blogger Mark Crispin Miller has dedicated his blog to looking into these issues.

And now THIS blog has done it's part to track these issues. Much more, DIFFERENT issues to be discussed from now on, unless something really breaking on this first issue appears. And that's a promise!

Monday, November 08, 2004

Stolen Election Part 2?

As a continuation of the earlier post, a poster on the put it this way: "To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe: That the exit polls were wrong; that Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning Ohio and Florida were wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that Harris' last-minute polling for Kerry was wrong (he was exactly right in his 2000 final poll); that incumbent rule #1 - undecideds break for the challenger - was wrong; That the 50% rule - an incumbent doesn't do better than his final polling - was wrong; That the approval rating rule - an incumbent with less than 50% approval will most likely lose the election - was wrong; that it was just a coincidence that the exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail; that the surge in new young voters had no positive effect for Kerry; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost the support of scores of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000; that voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were not tampered with in this election."

Seems pretty fishy when put that way huh?

More info on this is also on

And finally someone in the mainstream media had picked this up a little, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC stated "Thus the majority of the media has yet to touch the other stories of Ohio (the amazing Bush Times Ten voting machine in Gahanna) or the sagas of Ohio South: huge margins for Bush in Florida counties in which registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2-1, places where the optical scanning of precinct totals seems to have turned results from perfect matches for the pro-Kerry exit poll data, to Bush sweeps. " in his article "It's Not Over Yet . . ."

That's all for now on this . . . I'll keep ya posted.

Friday, November 05, 2004

I'm Not a Conspiracy Theorist . . .
But Did He Really WIN?

Now that things have calmed down, some new questions have begun to circulate about the legitimacy of this election. Let's think about this for a minute . . . the Right KNEW that last time the fact that W got put in office by a squeaker, which was later investigated and basically proved to be illegitimate, WHY would they allow even the taint of it being close again? With all of the buildup coverage of drawn out legal battles expected by the American public, the Right, one step ahead as always decides to go for a relatively big win.

I think almost all Democrats were stunned, especially since we had had so much to hope for from the exit polls earlier that day. I remember being shocked just because Bush vs. Gore had been SO close, and that was with Gore hardly trying and Bush not yet screwing up so royally . . . so I thought in 2004 with the increased turnout, unified Democratic party, less of a Nader factor, and new voters that it would pretty much have to be even closer. Having it be further in Bush's favor and attributed soley to the "Values Voters" seemed a little fishy . . . had I really "misunderestimate" how many of these people there are? Really? The discrepancy between the Exit Polling and the real votes was quickly written off as "the exit polls were wrong," but let's think about this a bit more here. Exit polls are real people telling other real people who they voted for. And voting is . . . well, it isn't always as reliable as it should be. The most damning thing I've come across is this Exit Polls vs. Machine and Electronic Votes Graphic which shows how close the Exit Polls were to the actual vote in the states where there was a paper ballot. It was fully in areas that used electronic voting where the Exit Polls didn't match up with the results of the vote. Kawinkydink?

Thankfully, Ralph Nader is finally getting back to what he does best, and challenging the Electronic Voting results . . . unfortunately, he is doing it in New Hampshire. Hopefully, he will move onto some of the other states.

As for the media looking into this, there are small issues that the news is actually covering, such as Machine glitch gave Bush extra Ohio votes but to cover this agressively gives the "Liberal" news media the bad juju of being "pathetic losers willing to cling to anything" to find out if we really were robbed, again.

So that leaves blogs and other alternative news sources to bring these questions up, so far. Here are some of these sources:

Kerry Won

Votergate Film About Electronic Voting

Sour grapes? Maybe. Worth taking a critical look at anyway? Most definitely.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Welcome to WatchingW

So, election 2004 was a bust. What can we do about it? Make sure we never forget why we wanted him out of office so badly. Things happen quickly in this media environment and even with the best of intentions you can forget things. So please, if you find an article, notice a trend, hear a true story of that reminds you why W and his cabinet are so bad, post it here. We'll start now and use it as ammo in 2008.