Politics News

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


When the dust settles on this primary election cycle I think pundits and historians will mostly all agree that Bill Clinton was Hillary’s undoing. His game worked when it was him attacking them, when it was Bill versus the right wing conspiracy; however, when it is Bill versus “other Democrats” it is an abject failure. Democrats are now looking in the mirror and seeing the “Clinton myth” and it’s not a pretty picture at all. The latest Bill Clinton attack, as subtle as it was, didn’t go unnoticed!

What was the headline this past weekend from Bubba? “John McCain and Hillary Clinton love America. So wouldn’t it be great to see those two who love America vie for the presidential title? Surely you get the inference! And it is statements just like this that’s turning the Democratic party away from Hillary as much as for Obama- who is at least conciliatory in his comments.

Hillary is just barely holding on. To what?

Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.means the only way she wins is if Democratic super delegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency. Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote, which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle, and use that achievement to pressure super delegates (like Bill Richardson?), she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

The Clinton invincibility myth is dying a slow death, and with it the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.The real question is why so many people believing that she has a chance, other than pulling off some back-room shady deal? The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Meanwhile, Bubba’s latest comments are causing the Hillary Clinton campaign to bob and weave, saying the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posting a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.

Hey Bill. The fat lady is walking up the steps to take the microphone.

Rusty Ford asked:


You would think that two Democrats and one Republican Senator who are running for president would be on different sides of the issue of providing amnesty to illegal aliens. Especially since all votes in the Senate this year on this issue have had most of the Republicans on one side of the issue and most of the Democrats on the other. All three of these candidates voted consistently in support of amnesty to illegal aliens.

It is not the amnesty issue that makes me wonder why these three are not concerned for the security of our country but rather how far they are willing to take the issue. All three voted for YES on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in June 2007. This bill would have provided amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country. They also voted against an amendment to this bill that would have allowed amnesty to most illegal aliens but would have barred those who had committed major crimes while living in our country illegally. I just do not understand how anyone can think that a politician cares about the safety and security of the people they represent when they are willing to bless these criminals, who are here illegally, amnesty and a path to citizenship.

All three voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S. 1385. S 1385 was an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have given amnesty to illegal aliens. The Cornyn Amendment would have barred illegal aliens who committed the following crimes from receiving amnesty.

1. absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported)
2. aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists)
3. aliens who fail to register as sex offenders
4. aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses
5. aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders
6. alien gang members
7. aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.

I guess these three believe it is in the best interest of the security of our country and the safety of its citizens to give amnesty to people who come into this county illegally and commit major crimes. None of these candidates are mentioning this issue or their votes on this amendment on the campaign trail so I will proclaim it loud and clear for them so that there is not a mistake of where they stand.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been deemed for whatever reason to be security risks to our country.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the saftey of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been convicted of sexual crimes and refuse to register as sex offenders.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty people who are in this country illegally and who illegally carry weapons with them.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who commit crimes against children and who abuse their families.

We, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who are members of alien gangs. We do not think there is enough of a gang problem here in our country and are committed to seeing that gangs from other countries start up operations here.

And last but not least, we, being John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe it is in the best interest of our national security and the safety of the citizens of this country to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been arrested three times for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

I have searched for any indication given by any of these candidates as to why they voted this way and I have not been able to find any place where they explained why they voted against the security of our country and the safety of its citizens. I assume that this information is not out there because there simply is not justification for such a vote. They have played their hand and we now see how little they care for America’s safety. I know each of these candidates have good points and stand behind positions that many Americans agree with. But how cans any right-minded citizen who has been informed about their position on this issue, in good conscience vote for them.

S. asked:


I’m asking this question mainly to Democrats/liberals who say things like “McCain is just like Bush” and constantly try to talk about how different Obama and Hillary are.

I’m talking about POLICIES… how are Obama and Hillary’s policies on healthcare, taxes, foreign affairs, Iraq, social issues, etc different? And how are McCain and Bush’s views similar? In what ways?

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


We (consumers) make choices based on their reference points/anchor points. Or put it differently, we evaluate our choices as prospects given our own reference frame based on past experience and other information. Given a particular situation (prospect) with two potential but very different choices/options, two individuals may adopt the two different choices and both would be considered rational and reasonable by the individuals because their choices are consistent with their reference framework and experiences. Colloquially, sometimes we call this as “optics.”

Two behavior psychologists (Kahneman and Tverskey, 1979) discussed this at length and proposed a general theory to explain choices made by human beings. Kalyanaram and Little (1994) demonstrated the application of this theory to marketing, particularly, to pricing.

The prospect theory is applicable to the current Democratic party presidential contest too. Both Senators Obama and Clinton earnestly believe that they have a reasonable path to party’s nomination. Using the formal expected utility theory, Clinton should not be so hopeful but she is because she is seeing the nomination road through a different frame than Obama is seeing. That’s why this is such a dogged race. Only when one of them — Clinton or Obama — perceives his/her prospect dimly will the race for the nomination end.

The report filed by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic (based on the conference call with the reporters by the two campaigns on May 1, 2008) clearly illustrates the different optics/frame employed by the two candidates.

“THE OBAMA UNIVERSE is governed by the reality that every night, when the Clinton campaign turns out the lights in Arlington, Clinton is not really any close to winning the nomination that when the first intern trudged in at the crack of dawn. The math hasn’t changed. Obama is 283 delegates away from declaring victory. Obama is winning two superdelegates for every one she wins; every additional superdelegate he receives equals at least 1.X more superdelegates that Clinton must pick up. Not a single pledged delegate has switched to Clinton — indeed, when was the last time a pledged delegate ever switched sides; not a single superdelegate has switched to Clinton; a few superdelegates who’ve counseled patience (like freshman Bruce Braley of Iowa) say they now support Obama. The progressive media establishment — the Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the world — are regularly inveighing against Clinton’s decision to stay in the race. Obama has way more money to spend, the support of the party’s most reliable constituencies, the ability to expand the map. His divorce with Rev. Wright takes a general election hot pot off the table. He is much more likeable and seen as much more honest than Clinton; Republicans and independents still have warmer feelings for him than they do with Clinton. Clinton’s embrace of a gas tax pause shows that her campaign isn’t serious about policy and voters perceive that. Oh, and voters in Indiana and North Carolina aren’t watching cable news and aren’t really paying attention to Rev. Wright. And besides, they’re tired of all of this: tired of the noise, tired of the distractions, tired of old politics, and ready for change. This long race is hurting the party; superdelegates know this, and the tipping point has been reached.

IN THE CLINTON UNIVERSE, Clinton has all the green cards. Victory, (enough) money, momentum in the national polls, the public acknowledgment of Republicans that she’d be the tougher candidate, the fact of undecided superdelegates, and the testicular fortitude that impresses white working class voters… A month of scrutiny has noticeably eroded reduced Obama’s standing with critical constituencies, and in many critical states, Clinton’s brand is a winner: according to three new telephone surveys by Quinnipiac, in Florida, Clinton leads McCain by eight points; Obama and McCain are tied. In Ohio, Clinton leads by ten points; Obama and McCain are tied. Both Clinton and Obama lead McCain in Pennsylvania; Clinton’s margin is twice that of Obama’s. Most of the remaining superdelegates represent white working class districts (about 75% of them, in the estimation of one Clinton strategist.) They haven’t come out for Obama when was winning; they surely won’t support him when he’s losing. They’ll wait for information to see who’ll beat John McCain, and right now, that evidence points to Clinton. After Indiana (and depending on the margin in North Carolina), it will point even more to Clinton. Obama has proven himself out of touch and unable to dent Clinton’s standing with a critical swing constituency; even if African American turnout exceeds 100 percent, Obama would not be able to win Ohio with a double-digit deficit among white, working class voters. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania precipitated a change in the fundamental dynamic of the race. Obama no longer appeals to independents; Clinton and Obama now have roughly the same appeal to independents. In a (near) recession, with expensive gas and good prices, with foreclosed homes and rising health care premiums, Clinton has the knowledge and leadership to turn this economy around, and that explains why she’s done so well. Finally, she’s an underdog, and Democrats root for the underdog. This long race is helping the party; Democrats are excited; Superdelegates perceive this, and the tipping point is coming soon.”

I1connect asked:

Rudy Giuliani charged yesterday, that former President, Bill Clinton, made a “big mistake” when he failed to see the first World Trade Center attack as an act of terror rather than a mere crime - one that set the stage for even bigger and bolder attacks culminating with 9/11.

“The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond,” Giuliani said, ticking off terrorist attacks that followed, including the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in 2000.” [Osama] bin Laden declared war on us. We didn’t hear it.”

Bill Clinton’s only response to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa was to launch several rockets to Afghanistan. Ironically, this was done the day after his Grand Jury testimony was released regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton launched no military attack against al-Qaeda and allowed the group to grow under his watch. According to Imperato, Clinton was “sleeping at the wheel.”

In a previous i1connect article, “i1connect news: Imperato on Hillary, Obama, and Giuliani”, Imperato stated the following:

“While Giuliani was mayor, and Bill Clinton was President, they swept the first WTC attack under the carpet, and nothing was done to protect our country from allowing more terrorists into New York City to study the World Trade Center Towers, and eventually kill over 3,000 innocent Americans,” stated Imperato.

Since 2005, Imperato has pointed out that the 9/11 attackers came in under the watch of Bill Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani.

When asked about Giuliani’s current criticism about Bill Clinton, Imperato responded, “Giuliani criticizing Clinton is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact is, Giuliani let the terrorists come into New York City; he allowed the terrorists to study the structural details of the World Trade Center Towers, and he allowed the attacks to happen.”

Imperato then went on to challenge Giuliani on his views on 9/11.

He stated, “If Giuliani wants to talk tough about 9/11, then I would like to see him do so against me in a public debate. The fact is that the media has been too soft on him, and has not asked him the right questions pertaining to his involvement or lack thereof in helping to secure New York City pre 9/11.”

Imperato has previously called for a debate with Giuliani. To date, the Imperato camp has not received any response.

The past week has been difficult for Giuliani, as his South Carolina campaign chairman was indicted on drug charges. He was questioned about Newsday’s story that he was forced out of the Iraq Study Group and reports revived about his employing a priest who was suspended on charges of sexually abusing students.

In terms of poll numbers, Giuliani has been underperforming, and is no longer the clear frontrunner he once was. In addition, since the announcement of Michael Bloomberg’s departure from the Republican Party, more and more Americans are now open to electing an independent to the White House.

America’s leading independent candidate for the White House in 2008, Daniel Imperato, on the other hand has been seeing support grow with key campaign visits in New Hampshire, Alabama, Massachusetts, Texas, and New York.

Giuliani’s attacks on Bill Clinton were largely seen as an attack on fellow Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has been leading most polls amongst Democratic candidates.

Previously, Clinton has come under fire from many critics, including Imperato, for not being able to manage her household.

“If she couldn’t manage her home, then how is she supposed to manage our country? The fact is that Bill didn’t like what they served at home, so he went out to eat,” stated Imperato in a 2005 release.

Although not covered by the mainstream media, these types of concerns could resurface and raise questions among American voters about Hillary Clinton’s ability to lead our nation.

*** This release has been created by i1connect, an independent news agency.***

About i1connect:

I1 Connect (www.i1connect.com) is the new online leader in global public relations and advertising. With a diversified set of offerings ranging from Public Relations, Press Releases Distribution, Advertising, Marketing, Website Development, to Investor Relations services, i1connect.com has positioned itself for a long term growth utilizing the latest in telecommunications technology.

For Interviews and Media Inquiries Contact

Press Department

I1connect

info@i1connect.com

www.i1connect.com

(561) 515-6177

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Is the Hillary Clinton campaign machine in the last throes of life? There is no mistaking a certain flailing, a lashing-out, as Hillary Clinton has become angry, mocking, and offensive in the last few days leading up to today’s Ohio debate- the 20th such debate and the LAST! Tonight is D-Day for the Hillary express. A kick off or the boot?

One such indicator of a failing campaign is the denial of any sense of reality. Harold Ickes as an example, gave the following description of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects, “We’re on the way to locking this nomination down,” he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction. Locking it down? Get real!

The Austin Texas debate did not help Hillary. Will Ohio tonight?

Ickes added, while played the good cop role also said, “We think we are on the verge of our next up cycle,” he reported, even suggesting the apparent impossibility that Clinton “may be running even” with Obama when all the contests are over. “This race is very close,” he judged. “This is tight as a tick.”

Someone get that man a cup of coffee and wake him up!

In case the Clinton camp missed something, Obama has won ELEVEN election contests in a row, is ahead in teh pledged delegate count, the total delegate count, and the popular vote. Granted, we have four primaries coming up next week with 400+ delegates at stake, but it’s doubtful those four will change much of the current trend if anything at all.

The Obama tsunami rolls on!

Christopher II asked:


Politically talking?
And i miss another guy…Hugo Chavez!

jesswzmn asked:


Either you think the country is on the right path and that you support the policies of Bush, or you think the country is not on the right path and you think we need to go away from the policies of Bush?

Which do you support? McCain and Bush? or Obama?