President Obama is doing a great job in moving swiftly to fix the weak economy. He deserves a pat on the back for getting his economic stimulus package passed in the House of Representatives.  With some minor changes it will pass in the Senate.  We should have an economic stimulus plan in place by mid February. This gives the President a huge win within his first few weeks on the job.

Unfortunately, I have a tough time believing the most wasteful group in America, the government, is suddenly going to become frugal and efficient with its money.  This is not a critique of President Obama. The US government has never in our history created more value than the market place.  If it did, we would be the wealthiest nation on Earth. But instead we are the greatest debtor nation on Earth.

The President’s plan has good intent.  FDR brought us out of a depression with big government spending. Obama’s plan is to do the same thing spending on public projects like energy efficient government buildings, laying electric lines and infrastructure. This will create jobs.  The problem with this approach is the plan creates jobs geared towards lower skilled workers and machines.  This worked in the 1930’s because we had an abundance of people qualified to assume the newly created jobs and technology was limited by today’s standards.

Companies today are cutting knowledge workers like bankers, computer programmers, financial analysts, and engineers.  If the President’s plan creates the 4 million jobs proposed over the next two years, which it will, we must ask ourselves will we want these jobs.  The plan creates the need for skilled workers like brick layers, construction workers and pipe fitters. Critics say many people will deem themselves not a good fit for these newly created jobs.

We need an economic stimulus plan that creates jobs, but they must be the right kind of jobs.  More importantly, the people who are good at creating jobs should be creating the jobs not the government. We need knowledge based jobs created by entrepreneurs.

Let’s put job creation in the hands of entrepreneurs.   This is what they do best. Entrepreneurs create new jobs when their businesses grow. So the goal should be business growth fueled with retained earnings instead of debt.

So how can the government stimulate small business growth using retained earnings?

Here’s my plan.

1.       Repeal the Regan tax cuts for higher income individuals. Wealthy people know that we pay taxes on income, not wealth. So smart business owners will keep their realized incomes as low as possible leaving more money in their business.

2.       Allow a 1% tax credit for businesses. We will base the tax credit on gross revenue.  In the case of a $1M business, $10,000 new dollars would drop to the bottom line in retained earnings. However, they can only take this credit if they use it for investment. This could be in the form of re-investment back into the business or investment into a new venture.

3.       Suspend “No Child Left Behind” (because they are all behind already) and divert those resources into science, technology, financial literacy, and entrepreneurship education at the grade school level. India made the decision in the 70’s to raise a generation of technology savvy engineers. America should raise a generation of money smart entrepreneurs.

Sadly, I don’t think a plan like this would get much support as it would require a fundamental shift in thinking. It would assume that the people are smarter than the politicians and the market is more efficient than the government.

President Obama’s plan is well intentioned and has a historic precedent. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The road to help is paved with correct intentions.

Just my 20 cents.

It is only days from the election. According to a recent Gallup presidential poll of registered voters, Senator Barack Obama has an 8-point lead over Senator John McCain. (51% to 43% w/3% margin of error) Some would say that Obama is home free. He has led by as many as 11 points over the past few weeks.

However, folks who follow these things closely, although the polls suggest Obama will win, still are not too quick to hand it over to Obama. How much ground can McCain realistically make up over the next 3 days. If McCain goes into Election Day trailing by 5 – 6, points he is in good shape according to some experts. They and McCain’s team are factoring in “The Bradley Effect”. 

What is “The Bradley Effect”?

“The Bradley Effect”, less commonly called “The Wilder Effect”, is an explanation for differences between voter opinion polls and election results when a white candidate runs against a non-white candidate. 

It is named for Former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley. Bradley, who ran for Governor of California in 1982, lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Ironically, Bradley was ahead in some voter polls by as much as 11 points. He even led in exit polls. Therefore, on election night everything pointed in Bradley’s favor. However, at the end of the day he actually lost.

What happened? It’s Simple. Many white voters lied. They said they would vote for a Black candidate, but in the end, could not overcome their own racial biases. According to experts the Bradley effect can account for as much as a 6% difference in actual results versus what people told pollsters they would do. 

Does this mean that Obama should be worried? I guess it depends on whether enough white Americans have overcome their own racial biases. Some say they have. Some say they have not. The question is, "have enough Whites conquered their racial monsters in key battleground state like Ohio, Michigan and Virginia"? I guess we will see on election night.

Critics of the so-called “Bradley Effect”, suggest it existed in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then evidence suggest it no longer exist. Now critics consider it an outdated fear of racism on the part of non-white candidates.

Assuming the Bradley effect really is a thing of the past, Senator Obama is in an excellent position. Assuming it is still in effect I do not think Obama will be affected by it anyway.

Six other Blacks who have run for president before Barack Obama. All brought their own flavor to the scene, but none could overcome the force of “The Bradley effect”. They never really got their campaigns off the ground.

Obama on the other hand has gracefully cleared this hurdle. Whether you believe in the “Bradley Effect” or not you can only conclude one of two things. Either white America has grown enough in its racial tolerance that it can identify with a Black candidate or they do not see Obama as Black.

I would argue that it is the latter of the two. Barack Obama has done a better job than previous Black candidates at neutralizing his race. Whether that is good or bad is open for debate?

Obama’s bi-racial background goes a long way towards supporting his race neutrality. His Kenyan roots lend very little to tie him to a traditional Black American background as many do not mentally link Africans to African Americans.

If there is any truth to this analysis, then the “Bradley effect” will not affect Obama’s bid for the presidency. Assuming it exists, the Bradley affect will only harm minority candidates that have strong ties to their racial group. Senator Obama does not innately have this tie and hence can turn on/off his blackness when deemed appropriate.

Obama is the antidote for the “Bradley effect” that has plagued many Black candidates of the past. If the candidate can build into his/her campaign a form of political albinism and convince enough progressive whites that he/she is sincere then Black politicians have found the recipe for climbing the political ladder.

It will be interesting to see how much influence, if any, the Bradley effect will have on this election and how much the Obama effect will mitigate it.

In the meantime, I will be happy when a candidate is truly measured, positively or negatively, by the content of his competence and his character not the color of his skin.

Just my 20 cents!

When we take money from one thing and use it for another. We call it “Robbing Peter to pay Paul”. That sounds a lot like US Treasury Secretary Paulson’s $700 Billion bailout plan.

I was daydreaming the other day about what I would do with $700 Billion if I could simply scare some folks out of it. We call that robbery, incidentally, in most states. If I could scare the country into giving me $700Billion dollars, what would I do with it?

Well for starters, the cost to upgrade the Gulf Coast levee system has run about $250 Billion. I would finish the job. This would ensure that lives are not lost, people have a place to live and an entire American city stays intact.

I would plan a Sudanese invasion. The Iraq war has cost $648 Billion, to date. Yet, we have accomplished very little in the way of protecting American interest. I believe that the crisis in Darfur is a travesty. $700Billion would probably fix the situation militarily and diplomatically, with change left over.

Following mortgage loans and automobile loans, student loans are the largest debts on many Americans’ balance sheets. Outstanding student loan debt is at $550 Billion. I would buy up and renegotiate the student loan debt. This would free up extra cash in people’s pockets. We would really get the economy going. Assuming you have one, imagine how life would be if you did not have a student loan payment. The other $150 Billion would go towards increasing Pell grant funding so folks do not have to borrow so much money in the first place to go to college.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been working on a network for emergency workers. It is a national 911 system so emergency personal can communicate and be dispatched anywhere in the country. Experts say building it could cost $15 Billion. With the change, I would staff, maintain and operate the network for the next 50 years.

Seven hundred billion dollars would cover one year's health care bills for more than 85 million seniors, disabled people, children and low-income Americans enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. On the other hand, I might opt to add another 10 million children to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) at $35 billion per year over five years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, half the money Roosevelt spent on his New Deal program to lift the country out of the Depression and banking crisis was for public works projects. For $250 billion, in today's dollars, we could build 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings and 72,000 schools.

I’ m not big on universal health care as I don’t like the government telling me I can’t drink, smoke, sky dive or whatever else I choose to do that might hurt me. Nevertheless, if I had $700Billion, I could provide universal health care for six years. That is long enough for me to convince the people that it is an overall bad idea.

Since it is burning a hole in my pocket, I could spend it on a space program. The Apollo mission to the moon cost $164 Billion. I am sure we could go much further than the moon with $700Billion.

We spend approximately $700 Billion per year on foreign oil. This money goes into the pockets of OPEC countries. $700 Billion would go a long way toward fostering alternative fuels and drilling in American territory.

$700 Billion is a lot of money. Nothing suggests, however, we simply have this kind of money just lying around. Assuming we find it, what is going to happen to President Obama’s social spending programs? There will not be any money left to lower taxes on the middle class. There will not be any money left for health care reform. There will be no means for the federal government to run many existing programs.

According to a recent CNN Money poll, 76% of respondents do not believe the bailout package will relieve this credit crisis.

With all the issues we are facing, I could find quite a few good uses for $700 Billion. Rescuing some greedy corporations that have preyed on mostly uninformed borrowers is not one of them.

Are we robbing People to pay Paulson!

That is just my 20 cents!

I find the debate over the financial bailout plan interesting. Both candidates have been next to silent on it. Yes, both made statements about the plan. Both voted for the plan. Both expressed the need to bring this issue to some resolution. Neither, however, acted boldly presidential and took a leadership role.

Neither candidate rose above the other to resolve this issue. It was dull yet frantic politics as usual from both candidates.

Both claim to be able to handle the grave issues facing the country for the next four question riddled years. Both were in position to open a definable lead on their opponent. They could have deafened their critics and shown the people that:
(1) They had the full support of their party
(2) Had the influence to pull together persons from both parties to get things done
(3) Understand the motivation and desires of the people
(4) Could handle the country in a time of crisis

Neither did….

This makes me ask a bigger question about the top task of carefully choosing a president. Are we, the people, asking the right question? There is no right answer to a wrong question. Since neither candidate has yet to answer our screams for leadership on the economy, maybe we are simply asking the wrong question.

In the primaries, we asked both parties who we should choose as president. The Democratic response was Senator Obama. The Republican response was Senator McCain.

The question is not who should we choose as president, but who will be the best leader of our country over the next four years. Then, we can elect that person. In haste to get rid of G.W., we asked the wrong question. Unfortunately, what it takes be elected president and what it takes to be president are very different skill sets.

What does a person have to do for the people to vote for them? To be elected requires popularity and pandering.

We ask…
(1) Do I know and like this person? (I.e. Popularity)
(2) What will they do for me? (I.e. Pandering)

The candidate that best answers those questions generally is the most electable. McCain clearly has shown that he is electable. At least Republicans thinks so. Obama clearly has shown that he is electable. That is why his party chose him.

Let’s raise our political intellect and change the question, in effect changing the answer. Let’s ask a more basic, meaningful and impactful question. Who would be the best person for the job of president? Let’s ignore who the parties have “In the queue”. Let’s draw up a set of core skills that “this president” needs then identify people with those core skills. The list would depend on what is going on in the world. It would depend on the issues that we are currently facing. It would depend on the foreseeable issues.

We painfully need to change the question of picking a president from “Who should we elect as our next president?” to "Who is the best person to be our next president?" This would get us out of this “lesser of two evils” political process.

George W. Bush was the most electable candidate. However, poll after poll suggest that he has done a miserable job as president. It is not his fault though. Collectively, we chose him. What were we thinking? We did not ask what skills and qualities our next president should have. If so we would have insisted on candidates with experience with terrorism, crisis management, economic efficiency and bi-partisan coalition. George W. Bush has failed miserably on these accounts. But this begs the question, had he ever shown he was competent in these areas.

Are we asking the right question about picking the next president?  Have you asked yourself?
(1) What qualities should our next leader have? I would like someone who is trustworthy, has global vision, is accountable and has the ability to work with his/her rivals to get stuff done. Our next leader must have character.

(2) What competencies or skills should our next leader have? Crisis management, fiscal management, global strategy, and military management would be a few good skills to have. Our next leader must be competent in the areas where we have issues.

After insuring that a person has the character and the competence to hold the position of president, then and only then should, we turn our attention to his/her electability.

The Democrats presented Barack Obama as “The Answer”. The Republicans presented John McCain as “The Answer”. Unfortunately, when both had the chance to clearly show their ability to be president (the bail out plan), both failed to show up. The financial quagmire over the last few weeks was the perfect storm for the “Real President” to stand up.

George and his team came up with the horrible idea of bailing out businesses with questionable business practices so we could maintain business as usual on Wall Street. John McCain and Barack Obama followed, despite the outcry of the masses. Neither was the beacon of hope they claim to be. They decided not to cause any waves and voted for the bill, despite overwhelming public disapproval.

Either candidate, depending on the situation, can be elected president. Neither has shown that they can be president. We are asking the wrong question and there can never be a right answer to a wrong question.

Feel free to cast your vote on whether you agree or disagree at Vote

I know it has been a while since I have put out a rant. You know how it is. Right in the middle of our wonderful plans… life happens. I would like to thank everyone that has supported my family and me during our time of bereavement. God never promised us we would not hurt. He only promised comfort when we are hurting. So thank you all for the comfort.

I just read about a very interesting experiment. The scientists were testing whether you could learn hopelessness. They defined hopelessness as a state of accepted helplessness. If so, how is it learned?

Interestingly presidential candidate Sen. Obama has underwritten his whole campaign with the idea of hope. Former presidential candidate, Jesse Jackson, built his career on “keeping hope alive”.

Where there is hope there is help. We all could use a little help every now and then. Obama has been able to paint a picture in the hearts and minds of the people that the most powerful government in the world is willing and ready to help them. Now that is hope! Who would not vote for that?

I, on the other hand, am skeptical of the government’s willingness and ability, for that matter, to help people in a lasting meaningful way. Hence, I focus on people. What can we, as individuals, do to help ourselves?
What is making Obama’s message of “hope in the government” so popular? Obama’s message resonates with people, who for a long time have lacked hope and over time may have learned to lack help.

I pose this question to myself. Have I learned helplessness? Will I vote for the ticket that potentially represents the most help (hope)? My fear is that many American’s, especially African Americans, may have learned helplessness somewhere along the way.

In the experiment, a caged dog received an electrical shock. It could however push a button that would end the shock and let it out of the cage. At the same time, there was a second dog that received the same level of shock as the first dog. There was nothing, however, it could do to relieve its shock on its own. It had to wait for the first dog to figure out how to stop the shock to get any relief. A third dog received no shock at all.

Here is what the research showed. The first dog very quickly realized that it could do something about its situation. It would do so as soon as it figured out what to do. The third dog who had received no shock learned that it could do something about its situation. It did not take it long to figure out how to stop the shock and free itself from the cage. 

The second dog, however, exhibited a very strange behavior. The second dog learned that regardless of what it did, it did not matter. Despite the pain of the shock, it did nothing. It just laid there. It learned that it could not change its own situation so it simply suffered the pain. It yelped from time to time, but did nothing of substance to improve its own situation.

Now I wonder how many of us are like the second dogs. How many of us have yoked ourselves to a presidential candidate? How many of us have decided to endure the pain of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, foreclosures, bank failures or whatever your particular pain is until one of the “Big Dogs” figures out how to stop the shock.?

Sen. McCain believes he can stop the shock and many people are hoping (voting) he can find the “STOP THE SHOCK” button. Sen. Obama believes he can stop the shock and many people are hoping (voting) he can find the “STOP THE SHOCK” button.

We can find our own “STOP THE SHOCK” button. We can help ourselves.  We already have hope. We can bring about change in our lives today. We can bring about our own hope.
Regardless of who becomes the president of the United States of America, do for self. Determine what we as individuals can do to change our personal lives so that we can undo our learned helplessness. Regardless of who becomes president… whether it is McCain or Obama, we can affect our personal situation when a shock of life happens. We can do something about it and it does not matter the breed of the first dog Democrat or Republican. Roo!!!!

This is just my 20 cents!!!!

A few months ago, I talked about games we play keeping up with the Joneses. Experts refer to it as “Wealth Signals”. I outlined why African Americans were much more willing to live beyond their means.

Although I believe “Wealth Signals” is alive and well, I think there might be a larger issue. If I am correct in my breakdown then it will give context to our approach to politics and public policy.

In America, capitalism is the name of the game. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is! We need to look at any and everything that we do relative to that system.

I feel that we base much of our public policy on income development. For example, the minimum wage is a policy designed to increase income. Pell Grants and government-backed student loans are in place to give the masses a chance at a quality education. Education is a strong stimulant of gainful employment and higher paying jobs. Proponents intend for NAFTA and other trade related policies to help Americans get and keep high paying jobs while keeping the cost of basic goods and services relatively low.

So what is the problem with an income based approach? Well… capitalism, although a factor, is not income based. It is wealth based. It is all about the ownership of private property that a person can use for the benefit of his/her self, family and community.

Income based policies are excellent and clearly needed as the income gap between Whites and Blacks has held steady since 2000, with they typical Black family earning a meager $0.59 cents for every dollar ($1) earned by a mainstream white family. I welcome any effort to address this gap.

Capitalism, however, is about wealth. The wealth gap between the races is sad. The typical Black family holds only $0.10 cents of wealth for every dollar held by the typical white family. This gap has remained steady since the late 1800’s.

For the first time in the history of America many African Americans were starting to make a dent in this generational wealth gap, but due to $71 – 92 Billion wealth that being lost due to foreclosures the gap appears permanent.

Studies suggest that it is going to take more than 594 years to make up the wealth gap brought on by the sub-prime loan fallout. With the foreclosure crises, causing the greatest loss of wealth to people of color in modern US history it is going to take a miracle to close the wealth gap.

Equality is America is not about integrating schools. It is not about living next door to folks of another race. It is not about sitting at the front of the bus or drinking out the same water fountain. These are huge steps towards progress, but they do not equate to equality.

If we were playing basketball on a basketball court but you were playing with a football approach you would not be very successful. You would look up at the scoreboard and with much frustration see that the score was unequal.

In America, we play capitalism where the name of the game is building wealth. Building, developing and growing income is important but it does not translate into points. It leads to points.

We must rethink about income-based approach to leveling the playing field. A much more asset-based approach is what we need, but it is up to those that are losing the game, 90 – 10 as it stands right now, to put this issue on the table and make it a central point of American public policy going forward.

Just my 20 cents!

The Republican Party can issue the most whopping blow to the Democrats in the history of the United States with one simple, although not easy, move.

It’s John McCain has finished off his Republican challengers and they have all dropped out of the race. He and the Republican Party now have time to beat up on whoever the Democrats decide upon.

In the general election he will give Obama or Clinton the run of their lives. The big question in Republican circles was never who the presidential nominee will be because McCain appears to have that hands down from the beginning. The million dollar question is who he will pick to be his running mate? Who can John McCain put on his team to give him the best shot to beat Clinton or Obama?

Can you say, “Condoleezza”?

If the Republican Party were able to persuade Condoleezza Rice to join the Republican presidential ticket, they would have one of the best presidential tickets in the history of America.

Many Republicans see McCain as not “Republican enough”. Rice on the other hand has been about as loyal to her boss, George W. Bush, and the Republican Party as anyone in recent history. She has followed them lock, stock and barrel even to her own detriment sometimes.

This ticket could make the issue of national security and the war a non issue. No conceivable Democratic ticket could match up with McCain, a decorated war hero, and Former National Security Advisor Rice.

Rice has testified so much on Capitol Hill that she answers tough questions in her sleep. She would mop the floor with any Democratic Vice Presidential candidate.

Dr. Rice holds a doctorate in International Studies. She has met with heads of state around the world and is highly respected.

With a little bit of looking surely the Democratic Party can find someone with comparable skills to boost the Democratic ticket. The problem is that whoever they find won’t be African American and won’t be a female.

Dr. Rice, a church-going Black woman from Birmingham, Alabama, has risen to the heights of American politics. Can you hear the birds singing? Can you see the heavens open up?

She would be the personification of Obama and Clinton’s campaigns combined. She would clearly be a change, at least on the surface. The Republicans could kill two birds with one stone, squashing Liberalism which is at the root of their existence.

Women would have a hard time voting against her. This weakens Clinton. African Americans would have a hard time voting against her. This weakens Obama. The Republican Party has stumbled across a “trump card” thanks to GW.

The Democratic Party has banked on African American and working class women’s support for the past 70 years. Democrats have been much friendlier to civil rights and women’s rights. In exchange, both have given the party unquestionable support.

But if Rice can be convinced to throw her hat in the ring for Vice President, both of these groups have a dilemma. Do they go with tradition and stick with the Democratic Party or do they cross party lines for the first time since the 30’s to support the Republican Party.

Hmm… What would you do?

Just my 20 cents!

Move over Ringling Brothers. I think I witnessed one of the greatest shows on earth Tuesday night. It was full of excitement. There were clowns. There was roaring. There were stunts that you couldn’t imagine. There was laughing. And sometimes the air had the stench of elephant droppings… or was that bull I smelled? Unfortunately it was not under the big top. It was the Texas Primary and Caucus meeting that I attended.

I got to the polls about 6:00 p.m. I went into the school and walking down the hall looking for the lines. I expected long lines. I could see cars parked down the street. After walking around the school a minute or two a lady stopped me asking if I was there to vote. I told her yes. She directed me around the corner to the auditorium.

Stop!!! Why the hell weren’t there signs at the door, in the hall or somewhere telling me that I needed to go to the auditorium? There should have been a person at the front to make sure people weren’t wandering around the school. Children were still in the building. Can you say security risks? But I wasn’t tripping.

I found the auditorium. There were two lines. One line was shorter so I got in the shortest line. After about 15 minutes in line, I handed the lady my driver’s license. She asked my address. She said I was in the wrong line. She explained that 2 precincts were voting in this location. I was in the wrong precinct line. I needed to get in other line. It was out the door by now.

Stop!!! Why the hell weren’t there signs (or something) telling us what each line was for? How hard would it have been to put up signs with “Precinct #23 Vote Here” and “Precinct #24 Vote Here”? What about a person there with either a laptop or a cell phone so people could verify which precinct they lived in? Was I, or Am I, asking for too much?

I got in the long line which was backing up in the hallway by now. It took about 30 minutes but I finally got my ballot and stepped to the voting partition. There was no pen or pencil there.

Stop!!! Why the hell couldn’t they have simply tied a string to a pencil or pen so no one could/would walk off with it?

I had a pen, so I wasn’t tripping. I quickly marked my vote and took it to the machine to have it recorded.

The guy at the machine asked, “You didn’t use that pen did you?” I replied, “Yes because there was not a pen or pencil in the voting booth.”  He told me I needed to use the felt tip pens that they provided. I should have asked for one.

Stop!!! Why the hell do I have to ask for a pen or pencil? I’m there to vote. You know I need a pencil or a felt tip pen. Either provide one or a least let me know that I need one. He scanned the ballot anyway and the machine accepted it. I had voted so I wasn’t tripping.

Later at in the foyer, waiting for the doors to open for the caucus I heard a lot rumbling about having to stand in line. The air conditioner was off. People were getting hot and cranky. Many had skipped dinner to be there. I thought about trying to be a hero and make a run to go get a few buckets of chicken, but I didn’t want to lose my place in line.

After about 45 minutes waiting we went into the school cafeteria. I gathered that the lady screaming at the top of her lungs was in charge. I wasn’t quite sure though. She wasn’t the only person screaming at the top of their lungs. She was however the loudest. The instructions were nil. I thought, “What the hell is this?”

Nobody knew what to do, including poll workers.  Folks were passing around several pieces of paper. I concluded that we should sign our name on the list, write the name of preferred presidential candidate and we could leave. Some people said we should stay so I decided I’d stay just to see the process. I was enjoying the show by now.

This was about as clear as mud to most people. One older black lady next to me kept echoing, “We ain’t ever had to do no caucus before. Why we gotta do one now? I knew them white folks was gonna try to pull something.”

About an hour later there were approximately 40 people left. It was clear that the people in charge were clueless and the voters were even more clueless.

I asked reasonable questions where I could. I got more contradictory answers than I care to share. Finally that same older black lady told me, “You sound like you know what you talking about. I’m jes gonna stick wit you.” I thought to myself - that’s been her game plan during this whole election. Go with the one that sounds like they know what they’re talking about.

They counted the sign in votes. Then they realized 94 people didn’t write a candidate’s name next to their sign – in. The meeting chair asked, “What should we do with those?” We could either throw them out or we could vote on how we wanted those caucus votes to go. It was 9 p.m. and most of these people had left the meeting by now.

The call for a vote went like this, “How many people want to throw those votes out?” Another gentleman and I raised our hands. “Now how many people want those votes to go to Obama?”

Stop!!! What the hell kind of BS is that? We weren’t voting on who should get those votes. We were only voting on what we wanted to do with them. I said that didn’t make any sense. I didn’t want to be held responsible for voting either way on behalf of people who simply misunderstood the instructions.

A few rational heads (Obama Supporters) suggested that they call the attorneys to see what to do. After 15 minutes on the phone, the attorneys suggested we throw those votes out. Did we need an attorney for that? DAMN!

Next we decided to get the vote count, minus the 94 votes. Then someone realized that only 11 people didn’t properly mark the caucus sheet.

Stop!!! Was it 11 or 94? Now I can understand errors in math, but come on. More importantly what if I didn’t press the issue. If this was going down in favor of Clinton it would have been pandemonium.

Basically, it was total chaos… a Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. I’d argue that many people won’t look forward to participating in the process again.

But how can we avoid this madness in the future?  I have a few suggestions:

1. The party should provide universal signage to every polling place with information like directions, precinct numbers and phone numbers to report issues.
2. The party should provide a hot-line available, manned by volunteers, to answer questions like: Am I registered to vote? What precinct am I in?
3. The poll workers should use the built in PA system of the polling facility, if they have one. If there is not one, the party should provide a megaphone. A little ole lady should not have to scream at the top of her lungs to give instructions.
4. All poll workers should attend at least 8 hours of training. They must pass a test on rules of the primary as well as the caucus. They don’t have to be election experts, but they need to be able to answer basic questions.
5. The Party should send out caucus rules to all registered voters 10 – 14 days prior to primaries and caucuses. They should also post them in a visible place at the polls.
6. Print basic primary and caucus instructions on the back of everyone’s voter registration card… where applicable.
7. Only elect local officials (i.e. council persons/county commissioners) with a strong voter education initiative.

Just my 20 cents!!!

He should have knocked her out last week. I said in last week’s rant that I was disappointed that Barack had not put the “death nail” in Clinton’s coffin during the Texas primary debate.

The Clintons are pit bulls and you can rest assure if you toy around with them long enough they will bite you. Clinton is biting and biting hard.

Sen. Clinton was quick to make the press aware of the upcoming trial of a Chicago land developer that has financial dealings with Obama. No one has accused him of any wrong doing but you can bet the media will ask questions. Sources say that the defense may even call Obama to testify. People see him as the answer to “politics as usual”. Most people believe that most politicians are “in the pockets of big money”. Obama presented himself as incorruptible and as one who didn’t play the “votes for money” game. He says it was a “boneheaded mistake”, but mistakes like this get the rumor mill going.

Clinton has also conveniently leaked a memo to the press claiming that Obama was simply pandering to the people of Ohio (and Texas) about his true feelings regarding NAFTA. The memo suggests that he said one thing to the people and something different to the Canadian government.

Although Obama is currently “Wonder Boy” and can do no wrong, his grasp of some voters could slip. In a race this close, you don’t want to get “caught slippin”.

The longer this thing draws out the more it works in Clinton’s favor. She and her husband know how to work the democratic machine. You can rest assure that she will continue to push for the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention. If these states counted she’d have the delegate lead today. It’s going to be tough to keep them completely out. Florida is the “poster state” for voter disenfranchisement.

Toss in the super delegates and a few back room deals from Mr. Clinton and Al Gore and you got a Clinton upset. Imagine the disillusionment Obama supporters will feel with the whole process. Obama has done an excellent job in getting people to believe in the political process again. Unfortunately, his defeat would only be another example of the voice of the people really not counting after all.

How do we avoid this potential backlash that would virtually cripple the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future?

We need an indisputable winner. It needs to be decisive and clear. There can’t be a decision in this fight. Anything less than a knock out, will leave too many unanswered questions.

So “Wonder Boy” can save us all a whole lot of second guessing and in-fighting at the Democratic Convention in August if he would simply “take her out”! If he can!

Like Obama, Muhammad Ali had rock star status in his quests for the heavy weight championship. Some hated him. Some loved him. But he said what he was going to do and he did it… convincingly!

It is time for Barack to show us that “one thing” that many of his critics are holding out for. He has to show that he understands Ecclesiastes 3.

Yes, there is a time to heal. This country needs a lot of healing. But there is also a time to kill. There is a time to love. This country needs a lot of love. But there is also a time to hate. There is a time for war, which he has avoided with the Clintons and a time for peace.

Has Barack shown that he knows what time it is?

Just my 20 cents!