No More Incumbents Presidential Race

Barack Obama has been the subject of orchestrated attacks from right-wing media outlets over some comments he made regarding the political behavior of Pennsylvanian voters. Oh, wait, did I say right-wing media outlets? I really meant to say Hillary Clinton. Now, we are quite aware of the calculating nature and disingenuous posturing of Senator Clinton and how she’ll dissimulate her true political feelings on any given subject ( i.e., all the American idol contestants are winners) so as not to alienate a potential voter bloc (i.e., bitter bowlers). When she’s not gallantly dodging hostile Bosnian fire (no wonder 50 cent endorsed her), she’s fearlessly walking through fire to rescue sick puppies and orphans from being executed and devoured by Idi Amin. In short, Hillary will pretty much say anything to get elected.

However, I believe Hillary has reached a new level of a desperation or “computer glitch” in smearing her opponent as “elitist, divisive and out of touch with real Americans,” while she outdrinks Spuds McKenzie and reminisces about killing animals with her daddy.

In taking a page out of the Rovian handbook, Hillary is doing the job of every demagogic right-winger, and in doing so will only see her support wither should she magically secure the nomination. Her vitriolic reaction to Obama’s comments is reminiscent of when the chickenhawks excoriated John Kerry for his ‘getting bogged down in Iraq’ botched joke, although Obama was making a lucid political commentary and showed refreshing candor.

In an effort to plumb the depths of frustration on the part of people in small towns in particular, Obama said these folks often turn to religion, guns, and illegal immigrant bashing to vent their anger over economic uncertainty and fear. Sen. Hillary Clinton pounced on the man she’s been steadily losing ground to and denounced his comments as “elitist and condescending.” I only wonder if she crafted her responses while chugging decidedly blue-collar Crown Royal in one of her multi-million dollar mansions after taking a much needed rest from toiling over counting the $110 million that she and Bill made over the past seven years.

In an excellent show of political acumen, Obama was merely trying to explain why middle class Americans would vote against their own economic self-interest. If the economy is really the hot potato issue right behind celebrities in rehab, it is common sense that pretty much all middle-class small-town American would vote Democrats. After all, democrats want to lower taxes for the middle class, make health care and education more affordable, help solve the housing crisis, close tax loopholes for colossal MNCs and obscenely wealthy people to finance social services and finance social security and medicare, etc . . .

So then why do they vote for brain dead retards who pose as common brain dead retards all the while being an ivy league legacy elitist brain dead retard?

It’s because they know that the beltway is much too concerned with short termism and incrementalism in order to maintain incumbency. As Obama correctly stated, small-town middle-class American have seen their jobs going away for the last 25 years. Politicians have promised that these jobs would come back but they never have. Invariably, they all begin to think that Washington is ignoring them like a bill to ban strip clubs and is blatantly lying to them about economic issues. Consequently, they become some so overemotional that they turn to divisive social issues (guns, god , etc.).

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Before the Dithering Decider delivered his FINAL (can’t say that enough) dismemberment of the English language to an especially outraged nation, the person eclipsing his lameduckness showed up in strategic pairs. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Joe Biden (D-Del.) strode into together, chatting very amiably. Although Super “clusterfuck” Tuesday hasn’t arrived, I figured I’d keep in the tradition of fast tracking the process and speculate on Hillary’s winning VP . . . should she become the nominee. Hillary Clinton’s VP could be any of the following people for the following reasons:

1. New Mexico Governor and Pres. drop out Bill Richardson-Bill’s Hispanic. Pure and Simple. Indeed, the Governor’s Hispanic roots significantly outweigh his secretarial and ceremonial posts in Bill Clinton’s administration primarily because it’s a voter bloc that both parties have desperately wooed. Since Florida is a state that one of the parties will have to carry in order to cement a victory, the selection of a Hispanic in a state that is largely inhabitated by Hispanics would augur quite nicely. After all, Hillary is the personification of expediency

2. General Wesley Clark- It is important to note that Wesley Clark was the Clinton’s original choice back in 2004 when they openly endorsed him. A Clark VP would bring national security and war and peace credentials to the ticket, which is something that Hillary desperately needs in order to appeal to the general electorate as a legitimate Commander of the Armed Forces. Also, reports show that the general has been campaigning indefatigably for Hillary

3. Joe Biden- My Homeboy! Similar in respects to Clark, whom I enormously respect, Joe Biden would bring his flawless Iraq Partition plan and diplomatic prowess. This would serve Hillary quite well in the event that McCain, the man who believes that Iraq can be governed from the center, becomes the Republican nominee.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

So John Kerry endorses Barack Obama? Is it just me or do the Democrats always seem to find defeat in the jaws of victory? At any consolation, the ascendancy of Senator Obama shows they’ve come up with new and improved strategies of losing elections. The rapid rise of the first electable African American presidential candidate and the beguiling awe he brings each and every time he addresses throngs of diverse supporters is unquestionably a story book–with or without the approval of Oprah. Seriously, one would be amiss (*cough douchebag) to discount the greatness of this guy. The innumerable amount of Americans disenchanted with the ruinous state of the country, the naird image abroad, and the cynical Washington mentality are easily enthralled and seduced by Barack’s refreshingly straightforward rhetoric. Indeed, Senator Obama’s message does transcend partisan politics: his opponents on the republican side are now using change as their stated strategy, despite the fact that it’s more of an oxymoron than anarchy.com.

On Jan. 3, corn fondlers chose Barack Obama, the feel good candidate of the year who talks of hope and change but whose specific goals upon being elected are narrowly limited to pulling out of Iraq with little regard to the repercussions to the Iraqis we devastated. For my part, Iowa’s voice is similar to that of a teenager who was just grounded on prom; they’ll do anything just to piss off their parents. Hillary Clinton of course is the parent. I think it’s great that Iowa debunked Hillary’s campaign–a campaign seen as a shoe in from when she announced it . . . in the womb. And while I realize that Joe Biden was essentially campaigning to become Hillary or Barack’s Secretary of State (hopefully VP), I’m still livid that flowery rhetoric can trump seasoned experience in both domestic and foreign affairs. Begging the question, are all Americans this dumb or just Iowans? Moreover, are we electing an Ipod or a president? Adding comity to our otherwise vitriolic public discourse and combating voter apathy, although noble and righteous, is by no means a consideration in a dangerous, ever-changing global environment

In all fairness to Senator Obama, because of the current lummox-in-chief, the standards are lower than Keith Richards’s blood count. Assuming Senator Obama can continue to ride this wave of change through the primaries, I hope that he chooses a Biden or a Richardson as his runningmate.

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org

Illegal immigration is a deeply divisive issue in the United States. For the past two years, Congress under Republican and now Democratic control, has been emphatically (albeit unavailingly) trying to carry out a comprehensive overhaul of immigration law.

Reform efforts stalled last year against a background of protests by pro-immigration groups and calls by opponents for a toughening of the rules. Renewed attempts this year to pass legislation have so far failed.

How pressing is the problem?

There are thought to be about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and each year some 500,000 to a million more enter the country, mostly through the 2,000-mile porous border with Mexico. In the time it took me to write that, America just gained 1 million more illegal immigrants.Many of these people are poorly educated, unskilled workers, yet in their thousands they fill the sort of jobs that most native-born Americans will not take, at least not for the same price. Much of California’s agriculture relies on migrant labor, for example. But some argue these jobs could be filled even without illegal immigrants.

Why is the debate so contentious?

Polls suggest that a majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a serious problem for the US. However, many immigrants already in the country, both legally and illegally, have voiced opposition to moves to restrict immigrants’ rights or prevent a “path to citizenship”. Strength of feeling on the issue was illustrated in 2006, when more than a million people boycotted work and turned out at May Day protest rallies across the country. This year’s rallies attracted fewer people, which organizers said was partly because recent crackdowns on illegal immigrants had made some people wary of taking part. Opposition to illegal immigration has been reflected in the emergence of Minutemen groups - citizens who have taken it upon themselves to patrol the US borders and to confront illegal workers in cities around the US.

The issue is also particularly politically awkward for President George W Bush’s Republican party, because it brings into direct conflict two of its core constituencies - social conservatives and the business lobby. It has also exposed rifts within Democratic ranks with some arguing along with their trade union allies that guest worker programmes would depress wages and threaten American employees and those that believe it creates a permanent underclass of exploitable labor. Several players in the immigration debate are contenders for the White House in 2008. Neither political party wants to alienate the growing Latino electorate, or at least the more serious contenders don’t.

The political debate over immigration reform is crystallised around several key issues. These include the enforcement of the country’s land borders and existing laws on immigration, changes in the law to deal with people already in the country illegally, and how to offer a regulated route into the US for what the business community says are much-needed workers. Some advocate greatly expanding physical barriers, like fencing, that already exist along some 100 miles of the US-Mexican border near cities - and bringing in tougher penalties for businesses caught employing illegal migrants.

In 2006, Mr Bush signed into law plans for a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border despite strong objections from the Mexican government. Plans for various guest worker programmes, and provisions allowing the millions of illegal immigrants already in the US to remain legally, have been the subject of hot debate.

What does it all mean?

If it can survive rigorous debate, immigration reform should provide an industrious people with the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us, while simultaneously punishing those who perennially skirt the law. Whatever is left off in the Congress will surely be picked up in the presidential race. Each and every candidate vying for the highest office in the land owes it not only to him or herself to address this problem with the utmost sensitivity, but also to the millions of Americans lacking clarity and understanding of the issue.       

Don't Take Our Word For it, For More Information Google Search is Available

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.nomoreincumbents.org