05 September 2008
03 September 2008
My Rant
I get SO tired of the "spin" that the McCain/Republican team is putting out. I'm especially disgusted with the swirl around Sarah Palin.
She's supposed to be about "ethics". Okay. Fine. But, then we find out that she's being investigated for abuse of power, she "flip-flopped" and wasn't entirely honest about the "bridge to nowhere" thing, her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and there were other questionable issues in her political and person background.
Many McCain/Republican surrogates are slamming CNN's Campbell Brown for trying to make Tucker Bounds, a McCain surrogate, stick to the questions that she asked concerning Palin's experience in being "commander-in-chief" of the Alaskan National Guard. Mr. Bounds tried the usual duck&cover tactics used by politicians, and Ms. Brown stuck to her guns. He, of course, couldn't give an adequate answer to the question, basically because Palin didn't have to make any decisions and has NO C-I-C experience.
I just really admire Ms. Brown for her journalistic dedication. She was doing her job, and was doing it well. We need more journalists like her.
I agree that the candidates' children should be "off limits". But, while McCain/Palin are declaring Palin's pregnant daughter "off limits," they don't hesitate to use photo ops of McCain with the daughter and her boyfriend for their own purposes. Disgusting. Double-standard. Typical Republican. Maybe, just maybe, if Palin had been more realistic about sex-education issues, instead of thinking that all we need to teach our children is "abstinence," her having a pregnant teen at home wouldn't be an issue for her right now.
The "bridge to nowhere"? Palin supported it while she was running for office. After she won the election, she became an opponent. She says she told Washington, "...thanks, but no thanks." Actually, she DID take the money, but she used the funds for something else!
Palin claims to be against lobbyists, but she hired one to work for her administration once she was in office.
Palin comes from a church that has a pastor who told his congregants that their eternal souls may have been in danger if they voted for John Kerry in the last election or if they were critical of George W. Bush. Palin has said that she believes America is on a mission from God in fighting the war in Iraq. Her pastor isn't much different that the jihadists who think it's okay to kill in the name of God! (Can you say "nutjob?" I knew you could.)
All this debate about a woman being able to hold the position of president or vice president... Of course a woman could do the job, but not just any woman. I've supported Barack Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race. Though I admire Hillary Clinton, I did not support her bid for the Democratic nomination for president. I DID think she could have been a good choice as Obama's VP. I thought she totally rocked the convention with her speech, and I strongly feel Barack Obama should not only employ Mrs. Clinton in a major role in his campaign, but also in his administration. It would be foolish of him to do otherwise.
That being said, I find it absurd that the Republicans think that all those who supported Mrs. Clinton would suddenly jump on board for Palin, simply because she's a woman. How stupid do they think women are? SARAH PALIN IS CERTAINLY NO HILLARY CLINTON!!! Palin is SO opposite of everything for which Mrs. Clinton stands! Mrs. Clinton has paid her dues; Ms. Palin has a long way to go on that front.
It will be such a relief to have this election over with so that we can just be looking forward to W. packing up and going back to his ranch, while we watch President Obama take the oath of office and get our nation back on track.
Oh, YES, WE CAN! And WILL!
She's supposed to be about "ethics". Okay. Fine. But, then we find out that she's being investigated for abuse of power, she "flip-flopped" and wasn't entirely honest about the "bridge to nowhere" thing, her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and there were other questionable issues in her political and person background.
Many McCain/Republican surrogates are slamming CNN's Campbell Brown for trying to make Tucker Bounds, a McCain surrogate, stick to the questions that she asked concerning Palin's experience in being "commander-in-chief" of the Alaskan National Guard. Mr. Bounds tried the usual duck&cover tactics used by politicians, and Ms. Brown stuck to her guns. He, of course, couldn't give an adequate answer to the question, basically because Palin didn't have to make any decisions and has NO C-I-C experience.
I just really admire Ms. Brown for her journalistic dedication. She was doing her job, and was doing it well. We need more journalists like her.
I agree that the candidates' children should be "off limits". But, while McCain/Palin are declaring Palin's pregnant daughter "off limits," they don't hesitate to use photo ops of McCain with the daughter and her boyfriend for their own purposes. Disgusting. Double-standard. Typical Republican. Maybe, just maybe, if Palin had been more realistic about sex-education issues, instead of thinking that all we need to teach our children is "abstinence," her having a pregnant teen at home wouldn't be an issue for her right now.
The "bridge to nowhere"? Palin supported it while she was running for office. After she won the election, she became an opponent. She says she told Washington, "...thanks, but no thanks." Actually, she DID take the money, but she used the funds for something else!
Palin claims to be against lobbyists, but she hired one to work for her administration once she was in office.
Palin comes from a church that has a pastor who told his congregants that their eternal souls may have been in danger if they voted for John Kerry in the last election or if they were critical of George W. Bush. Palin has said that she believes America is on a mission from God in fighting the war in Iraq. Her pastor isn't much different that the jihadists who think it's okay to kill in the name of God! (Can you say "nutjob?" I knew you could.)
All this debate about a woman being able to hold the position of president or vice president... Of course a woman could do the job, but not just any woman. I've supported Barack Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race. Though I admire Hillary Clinton, I did not support her bid for the Democratic nomination for president. I DID think she could have been a good choice as Obama's VP. I thought she totally rocked the convention with her speech, and I strongly feel Barack Obama should not only employ Mrs. Clinton in a major role in his campaign, but also in his administration. It would be foolish of him to do otherwise.
That being said, I find it absurd that the Republicans think that all those who supported Mrs. Clinton would suddenly jump on board for Palin, simply because she's a woman. How stupid do they think women are? SARAH PALIN IS CERTAINLY NO HILLARY CLINTON!!! Palin is SO opposite of everything for which Mrs. Clinton stands! Mrs. Clinton has paid her dues; Ms. Palin has a long way to go on that front.
It will be such a relief to have this election over with so that we can just be looking forward to W. packing up and going back to his ranch, while we watch President Obama take the oath of office and get our nation back on track.
Oh, YES, WE CAN! And WILL!
A Journalist Doing Her Job!
All she did was ask the guy a reasonable, pertainent question. He couldn't answer the question! Now, Campbell Brown is getting slammed by the Republican/McCain surrogates? What's wrong with this picture?
After all the complaints leveled at the media for being biased and for not digging into the issues, this is absolutely ridiculous. Ms. Brown was doing her job, and I applaud her for that.
After all the complaints leveled at the media for being biased and for not digging into the issues, this is absolutely ridiculous. Ms. Brown was doing her job, and I applaud her for that.
16 March 2008
I'm sure everyone has heard the controversial remarks made by Rev. Wright, the pastor of the church the Obama family attends. Senator Obama addressed those remarks, and we need to make sure everyone hears what he has to say also.
Please, watch the video and then do what our next President asks...pass this video on to ever person you know. Thanks.
WE ARE THE CHANGE! YES WE CAN!
07 March 2008
NAFTAgate New Information (Too late for Ohio)
Here's a new twist on a not-so-old theme:
Yesterday's edition of the Toronto Star reported new information on the "NAFTA-gate" story that Hillary Clinton used effectively to sway the opinion of voters in Ohio.
You recall Mrs. Clinton using the story to accuse that Barack Obama was "telling one story to Ohio" while "his campaign was telling a different story to Canada." John McCain, of course, jumped on Hillary's bandwagon, criticizing Senator Obama.
GUESS WHAT! The story in the Canadian Press now reveals that it was NOT the Obama team who was practicing double-speak. In fact, it was the Clinton campaign that was doing exactly what they had blamed on the Obama camp.
You can read the Toronto Star article here: How Harper's Aide Sparked NAFTA Flap.
Those of you familiar with my previous posts know how I felt about the attempts of Hillary supporter and Machinist's Union leader, Tom Buffenbarger, to dismiss and stereotype Obama's supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." Well, it didn't surprise me that Mr. Buffenbarger was back on the attack toward Senator Obama, saying, "Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate."
Paul Loeb, on the Huffington Post, states that these attacks, without question, made a difference in the outcome of the votes in Ohio. You can read his whole take on the situation here: Did Clinton Win Ohio On A Lie?
So, it would seem that Obama lost Ohio by taking the blame for what Clinton actually did, and, in part because Ohio Machinist's Union head Tom Buffenbarger ran ads disrespecting Obama supporters and furthering the dishonesty of Clinton campaign.
Please join us in showing we are not stereotypes and that we are not going to fall for the Clinton lies, by joining The Obama Baby Club Group and posting YOUR "beverage-transport-shoe-livelihood description."
Any "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" are more than welcome, and so are the rest of us. Donations are appreciated, but not manditory. (Remember, Hillary is the one with the "mandate.")
There's a tough battle ahead in Pennsylvania, and it's going to take all of our determination, dedication and generosity to keep this grassroots movement going ahead. We know what's at stake, and this is just one more example of the reasons we must send Barack Obama to the White House for the next 4, better yet, 8 years.
YES WE CAN!
Always,
Verna from Waynesburg, PA (a.k.a. "Code Red Mt. Dew-drinking, old Volvo-driving, tennis shoe on one foot/brace on the other 'cause I broke the ankle a month ago-wearing, got to get back to driving the bus 'cause there's no trust fund" Obama Baby!)
Yesterday's edition of the Toronto Star reported new information on the "NAFTA-gate" story that Hillary Clinton used effectively to sway the opinion of voters in Ohio.
You recall Mrs. Clinton using the story to accuse that Barack Obama was "telling one story to Ohio" while "his campaign was telling a different story to Canada." John McCain, of course, jumped on Hillary's bandwagon, criticizing Senator Obama.
GUESS WHAT! The story in the Canadian Press now reveals that it was NOT the Obama team who was practicing double-speak. In fact, it was the Clinton campaign that was doing exactly what they had blamed on the Obama camp.
You can read the Toronto Star article here: How Harper's Aide Sparked NAFTA Flap.
Those of you familiar with my previous posts know how I felt about the attempts of Hillary supporter and Machinist's Union leader, Tom Buffenbarger, to dismiss and stereotype Obama's supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." Well, it didn't surprise me that Mr. Buffenbarger was back on the attack toward Senator Obama, saying, "Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate."
Paul Loeb, on the Huffington Post, states that these attacks, without question, made a difference in the outcome of the votes in Ohio. You can read his whole take on the situation here: Did Clinton Win Ohio On A Lie?
So, it would seem that Obama lost Ohio by taking the blame for what Clinton actually did, and, in part because Ohio Machinist's Union head Tom Buffenbarger ran ads disrespecting Obama supporters and furthering the dishonesty of Clinton campaign.
Please join us in showing we are not stereotypes and that we are not going to fall for the Clinton lies, by joining The Obama Baby Club Group and posting YOUR "beverage-transport-shoe-livelihood description."
Any "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" are more than welcome, and so are the rest of us. Donations are appreciated, but not manditory. (Remember, Hillary is the one with the "mandate.")
There's a tough battle ahead in Pennsylvania, and it's going to take all of our determination, dedication and generosity to keep this grassroots movement going ahead. We know what's at stake, and this is just one more example of the reasons we must send Barack Obama to the White House for the next 4, better yet, 8 years.
YES WE CAN!
Always,
Verna from Waynesburg, PA (a.k.a. "Code Red Mt. Dew-drinking, old Volvo-driving, tennis shoe on one foot/brace on the other 'cause I broke the ankle a month ago-wearing, got to get back to driving the bus 'cause there's no trust fund" Obama Baby!)
24 February 2008
Views of a "Code Red-drinking, Volvo-driving, tennis shoe-wearing, working-to-make-a-living/there's-no-trust fund baby
In the debate last Thursday night, our next President, Barack Obama, touched on a subject that I take personally: specifically, HRC's "get real" comments, and the statements of some of her supporters that I and my fellow Obama supporters are somehow "delusional". I'd like to share the views of a "Code Red-drinking, Volvo-driving, tennis shoe-wearing, working-to-make-a-living/there's-no-trust fund baby."
To put it simply, THIS IS AS REAL AS IT GETS!!!
I'm not good with numbers, so I don't spend a lot of time looking at the statistics of who is or is not voting for a particular candidate. The one statistic that I do find interesting is that, as was the case with the last presidential election, the higher the educational level of the individual, the more likely he/she is to vote for Barack Obama.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people with more education are any smarter or more intelligent than those who may not have had the opportunity to continue into higher levels of education. What I am saying is that people who have had that opportunity are more likely to look at any given situation more closely, have been exposed to a wider range of views, and have had the chance to explore the world a bit more deeply. They are also more likely to look at a broader range of sources before making a decision, and are less likely to just simply take somebody else's word for something.
I don't have a college degree, but I do have education beyond high school. My work history includes being the administrative secretary for a local ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens), volunteer work for the American Cancer Society (office worker) and the local Hospice (phone solicitations), office staff and residential monitor for a half-way house for women in early recovery from drugs and alcohol, and currently, driving a motor coach/tour bus for a national carrier.
My husband is a historian, his area of expertise being the American Civil War. He has taught me a great deal. My family background includes many nationalities. Some of my ancestors were here to welcome others of my family tree to the New World. I have a thirst for knowledge and information, and having a personal history of having made some really "bone-headed" decisions in my past, I've tried to learn to get all of the information I can on any given subject before making a final decision.
I don't like "labels" that some try to put on other people, but accept that this has become a part of our society. I have been labeled "liberal," and our Greene County for Obama group's member, Birdalone, covered that topic quite eloquently in an earlier post. I consider myself to be a "moderate" since I shy away from extremists of any sort, and believe that there are AT LEAST two sides to every issue. I suppose I would classify myself as an "optimistic skeptic" in most areas, though I prefer the term "realist." I don't take any one's word for anything!
In the time leading up to this campaign, having had a chance to get to know John Edwards in the previous presidential election, he was my first choice this time around. I had still paid attention to the other candidates. I listened to HRC change her tune and tone on her stance on the War in Iraq. Since she listed her time as first lady in her resume as "experience" that qualifies her for becoming president, I took a look at what she did. I wasn't impressed, though I respect her strength. I had to take into consideration the target that she and President Clinton (who I believe was a very good president) presented to the Republican Machine, and while I don't think they deserved all the criticism they got, they certainly did give their critics a ton of ammunition.
Before his keynote speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004, I didn't know anything about Barack Obama. I set out to learn about him, and have no hesitation in saying that I have discovered him to be everything he presents himself to be. He's REAL. There's nothing fake about him, that I can find. He works toward the goals he believes in, and he believes in as I do, the promise of what our great nation can be. He is NOT just words. He puts his ideas into action, to the best of his ability. He turned out to be exactly what he first appeared to me to be.
HOPE. Despite my education and life-experience, I am puzzled by one thing. Could someone please explain to me what Hillary and her supporters seem to have against "hope"? I suspect that they wouldn't think it was such a bad thing if HRC was the one who had the ability to inspire that intangible quality in others. She doesn't have it. Yes, she has been involved in politics longer than Obama, but what does that offer? Change? Progress? Hope? I'm sorry, but that's not what I see when I look at the evidence.
I choose to make an informed decision. I choose to look at the history and the evidence for myself. I choose to cast my vote for the person who is best able to lead our country in the direction that it has been diverted from by the current administration and those who have used their power to allow them to do so. I choose the person who will bring our men and women in uniform out of Bush's bastard war, and refocus our attention on bringing to justice those who attacked our nation in 2001. I choose the person who will be a true leader and begin to work with the leaders of our neighbors in the world community, from a position of mutual respect, instead of a position of bull-headed obstinacy. I choose the person who will make affordable health care available to ALL of our citizens, without using a stick to force us into compliance. I choose the candidate who knows how to unite people in a movement to get things accomplished, without having to sell out to special interests and big business.
I choose HOPE. I choose Barack Obama.
Thanks for letting me share.
Always, Verna C.
To put it simply, THIS IS AS REAL AS IT GETS!!!
I'm not good with numbers, so I don't spend a lot of time looking at the statistics of who is or is not voting for a particular candidate. The one statistic that I do find interesting is that, as was the case with the last presidential election, the higher the educational level of the individual, the more likely he/she is to vote for Barack Obama.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people with more education are any smarter or more intelligent than those who may not have had the opportunity to continue into higher levels of education. What I am saying is that people who have had that opportunity are more likely to look at any given situation more closely, have been exposed to a wider range of views, and have had the chance to explore the world a bit more deeply. They are also more likely to look at a broader range of sources before making a decision, and are less likely to just simply take somebody else's word for something.
I don't have a college degree, but I do have education beyond high school. My work history includes being the administrative secretary for a local ARC (Association for Retarded Citizens), volunteer work for the American Cancer Society (office worker) and the local Hospice (phone solicitations), office staff and residential monitor for a half-way house for women in early recovery from drugs and alcohol, and currently, driving a motor coach/tour bus for a national carrier.
My husband is a historian, his area of expertise being the American Civil War. He has taught me a great deal. My family background includes many nationalities. Some of my ancestors were here to welcome others of my family tree to the New World. I have a thirst for knowledge and information, and having a personal history of having made some really "bone-headed" decisions in my past, I've tried to learn to get all of the information I can on any given subject before making a final decision.
I don't like "labels" that some try to put on other people, but accept that this has become a part of our society. I have been labeled "liberal," and our Greene County for Obama group's member, Birdalone, covered that topic quite eloquently in an earlier post. I consider myself to be a "moderate" since I shy away from extremists of any sort, and believe that there are AT LEAST two sides to every issue. I suppose I would classify myself as an "optimistic skeptic" in most areas, though I prefer the term "realist." I don't take any one's word for anything!
In the time leading up to this campaign, having had a chance to get to know John Edwards in the previous presidential election, he was my first choice this time around. I had still paid attention to the other candidates. I listened to HRC change her tune and tone on her stance on the War in Iraq. Since she listed her time as first lady in her resume as "experience" that qualifies her for becoming president, I took a look at what she did. I wasn't impressed, though I respect her strength. I had to take into consideration the target that she and President Clinton (who I believe was a very good president) presented to the Republican Machine, and while I don't think they deserved all the criticism they got, they certainly did give their critics a ton of ammunition.
Before his keynote speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004, I didn't know anything about Barack Obama. I set out to learn about him, and have no hesitation in saying that I have discovered him to be everything he presents himself to be. He's REAL. There's nothing fake about him, that I can find. He works toward the goals he believes in, and he believes in as I do, the promise of what our great nation can be. He is NOT just words. He puts his ideas into action, to the best of his ability. He turned out to be exactly what he first appeared to me to be.
HOPE. Despite my education and life-experience, I am puzzled by one thing. Could someone please explain to me what Hillary and her supporters seem to have against "hope"? I suspect that they wouldn't think it was such a bad thing if HRC was the one who had the ability to inspire that intangible quality in others. She doesn't have it. Yes, she has been involved in politics longer than Obama, but what does that offer? Change? Progress? Hope? I'm sorry, but that's not what I see when I look at the evidence.
I choose to make an informed decision. I choose to look at the history and the evidence for myself. I choose to cast my vote for the person who is best able to lead our country in the direction that it has been diverted from by the current administration and those who have used their power to allow them to do so. I choose the person who will bring our men and women in uniform out of Bush's bastard war, and refocus our attention on bringing to justice those who attacked our nation in 2001. I choose the person who will be a true leader and begin to work with the leaders of our neighbors in the world community, from a position of mutual respect, instead of a position of bull-headed obstinacy. I choose the person who will make affordable health care available to ALL of our citizens, without using a stick to force us into compliance. I choose the candidate who knows how to unite people in a movement to get things accomplished, without having to sell out to special interests and big business.
I choose HOPE. I choose Barack Obama.
Thanks for letting me share.
Always, Verna C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
