The Stimulus package

I had been on vacation for the last two weeks, it will officially come to an end on the 14th. And so, I have been watching plenty of news especially where it concerns the stimulus package now before Congress. Latest on CNN, seems the House Democrats now want to delay the final vote in order to read thoroughly what's in the package. Now they do, since much of what they had originally voted on got stripped out. And hadn't before, re Lou Dobb's complaints in the last few days on CNN.

Getting on Face book, it has been more of a satisfying adventure than trying to Twitter. But, it took time to set it up almost to my satisfaction. I checked out Face book because Rick Sanchez could be Twittered, Face booked and Myspaced. I checked out doing a Twitter account and trying to Twitter to a Sanchez public board, I could never be sure that to be the case. But with Face book, especially after Sanchez accepted me as a "friend," I can post on my wall and it will also appear on his. One of the hot topics of the day was of course the stimulus package. The thing is, that you can expect the suddenly we remember to be fiscally responsible GOP among Sanchez' viewing audience to post to any of the above sites. One of the fellows posting suddenly decided to jam it in my teeth when I discussed the fact that what one dude called pork still produced jobs creation. He presumed that I was from the land of fruits and nuts... LOL!... meaning California and would of course swallow anything. So I duly informed the fellow where I was from and adviced him on the fact that our Republican governor wants people to spend more in taxes and fees to balance the budget and pay for infrastructure maintenance. I don't know that I got another reply to that comment, but Facebook provides a nice notification service. Better than Twitter. And those who set up Twitter claim that it is faster and better? I don't know about that, it looks pretty clunky to me. So excuse me if this is one of my more rambling blogs. But, beyond posting comments to local blogs such as at the Spokesman-Review.
I have never before really socially networked. The fact that some of the news anchors from CNN such as Sanchez and Don Lemon will socially network with their viewers, is I think a major plus.

Back to the hot topic of the stimulus package, I can appreciate the twittered concerns from viewers that CNN elected to show where they questioned whether the stimulus package would benefit them personally. Until such a bill does get passed and signed into law, that is hard to say. Until the money from the package begins to work its way through the U.S. as various forms of investments, that is really hard to say. Those are some legitimate causes for concern, as is any pork in the bill. Where one fellow mentioned pork, I figured I should inform him that the designing and building of a Coast Guard polar icebreaking ship was probably not pork if it put people to work in the ship building industry. For anyone who has a good bit of history as to the Coast Guard fleet, I don't believe they have the most modern of fleets and could in fact use some more modern ships, better ships. Why wouldn't that prove to be a worthwhile project and not "pork." Since if it came to a submarine being built in the same fellow's district, and a GOP Senator had sponsored it, he likely wouldn't have called it pork. Same difference. At this time, if I have a big concern about the U.S. Gvt's investment in America, I'd be more concerned about misdirected funds and businesses taking money and continuing to employ anyone other than American citizens.

Whiners in Chief

Having the day off but having to go to a dental appointment and then onto the downtown Sherman Avenue and 5^th Street Kootenai County Farmer's Market, I got in on some of CNN and did some planting out of the stuff I had to sell; and watched replays of former President Bill Clinton whining and attacking his fellow Democrats for a "cover up" concerning Senator Hillary Clinton's chances of getting into the White House. "She's winning the general election right now," he said. Uh huh, she lost more states than did her Democratic opponent, I do believe she lost a primary battle with Senator Obama in Idaho, and she is winning the general election right now? If you count the votes of rule breakers Michigan and Florida and dismiss the caucus states that Obama won, then you can claim that Senator Clinton is a victim of sexism and a cover up. But in those states that Senator Clinton did win, seems race was a factor and both he and she were prepared to play up the factors of race. Because Senator Obama stands in the way of an easy walk to the White House. But by the very fact that Senator Obama has weathered many a storm inclusive of Jeremiah Wright and come out of it fairly unscathed, and has gone on to win even more contests, there is no question that Obama is a credible presidential candidate in his own right. But that is no longer the argument that Senator Clinton can make not if her hubby stands in front of an audience and plays up the Senator as some kind of victim of the news media (she's asking for the job of President isn't she?) and the Dems who just don't want her to be president. O-kay. Only losers whine and attack like that. A following CNN poll in a hypothetical matchup between Obama v McCain, Obama leads with 2% against McCain. In a hypothetical matchup between Clinton and McCain, Clinton leads McCain by 2%. But the question of who is becoming the more popular candidate to the Democratic party, Obama now has a double digit lead over Clinton. I wonder why? To put it bluntly, I had considerable respect for both the Clintons, the key word—had. Since this race began, both Bill and Hillary have gone down the tubes in their capacity to be gracious and in his capacity to be a respected elder statesman. Apparently, being back in the White House is more important to them both than what they are currently doing to the Democratic party.

---

So it came as some hilarity for David Broder of Washington Post fame to look way back into the Carter administration and offer a series of cautions about what President Barack Obama would do well not to repeat concerning the Carter years. Nor is it what I would call a "timely" republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial. Given what CNN had only yesterday, 28 May 2008 concerning Obama and his popularity v Clinton and hers. Seems to me that President Obama would have far less fragmenting of the Dem party than Broder assumes. But, there have been plenty of punditry excitements and pressure on the idea that "to heal the party" (a la the Carter years) Clinton should be put on the ticket as VP. Given what I have seen during this primary season, neither Clinton, Bill or Hillary would ever stand for being in second place. They'd be more than happy to politically shove President Obama out of the picture as they took central stage and demanded the lime light. That would not just fracture the party but also the nation. My own caution for Senator Obama, don't please the Clintons, get your own running mate. (♥)

You would have sworn...

Reading David Broder's latest republished column in the Spokesman-Review, he gave Senator Hillary Clinton the most personal and even personable review of a candidate that I had seen to date. A sharp contrast to the shrill and dare I say "bitchy" type of woman who turns me off every time she opens her mouth. If you actually paid attention only to Broder's column, there would be cause to vote for the lady. But listen to her on the campaign trail, and in fact you don't hear a good reason to actually vote for her. So which Hillary should enter office if hypothetically, she were indeed the Dem nominee. The person that Mr. Broder, discussed in almost loving terms or the power hungry gal in pants who lashes out at her Dem opponent, Senator Obama on the most petty of issues.

Yes, during the Dem debate in Ohio, Senator Obama admitted to not attending certain subcommittee meetings, because as Senator Clinton shrilly declared, he was out campaigning for president. From my perspective, that sounds like a "how dare anyone challenge my right to become president by 2009." Not even Bill had ever suffered that kind of arrogance. Quite the putdown from a lady who also happens to be out campaigning for president. But did anyone bother to ask, what committee or subcommittee meetings did she not attend while out campaigning for president. What votes did she not make on important bills while out on the campaign trail. Seems the best political team on CNN's "Ballot Bowl" weren't quite ready to discuss anything like that. Even as they were a little too willing to hammer on Obama just because both Hillary and McCain had done so. Yeah, Obama is the front runner, he got there by good hard work. Unlike Senator Clinton, he made no presumptions about anything. Had Hillary engaged in the organizing work that Obama is already skillful at, then yes, not only would she be the front runner today but also the presumptive nominee. So now, her comments on the campaign trail are both flailing and nasty.

I am also going to discuss the ads that Ms. Clinton aired in Texas. They are remniscient of the "Daisy ads" of the 1960s. Your children are safely asleep, but in the White House a phone is ringing, somewhere in the world something is happening. Senator Clinton no doubt exploits her years in the Children's Defense Fund to politically make use of kids in an ad of that sort. But, anti-abortion Senator McCain can make use of the "fetus was never safe" ads when railing against what Bill didn't sign in laws to prohibit late term abortions that were continually being passed by the religious activist Congress in the 1990s. The children as wedge issue that can come back to haunt Senator Clinton as presidential nominee. And only because she aired these ads first.

At least CNN got one thing right, those who support, vote for or even endorse any specific presidential candidate can and should have doubts about what their favorite candidate is even capable of delivering. Without question, some of what Barack H. Obama has said is pie in the sky. Without question, President Obama would have a hard time pushing through a recalcitrant Congress any of his truly pie in the sky programs. What CNN discounts however, and perhaps to that 24/7 news media channel's peril, is that a movement inspired by pie in the sky rhetoric, may indeed start making solid changes to the American political landscape from the bottom up. After all, this country has long had a bottom up revolution in political changes. I believe that is why it is called a democracy. And the political candidate who can best capitalize on the latest in the long history of revolutions in this country, is the one who becomes president.

Abraham Lincoln capitalized on abolition. Franklin Delano Roosevelt capitalized on people being sick and tired of being poor. Ronald Reagan capitalized on people being sick and tired of what they determined were an absence of values.

Can Senator Clinton capitalize on people being sick and tired of Bush? Or is Obama the better man for the job?