Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, Maggie’s Notebook, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Roseanne Barr Has a blog on Huffington that was startling in its simplicity as it showcases Obama’s greatest weakness:  Experience.

Experience vs. Inspiration

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what’s wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It’s not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won’t. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn’t “hope” they can’t break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can’t break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

She is right.  Inspiration is a fine thing, and so is an offering of hope, but neither of these can succeed without a leader who has the ability and experience to make the hope come to fruition.

Can Obama offer that?  It remains to be seen.   He has not been a leader for so long that his resume offers any comfort or assurance.

So in this case Roseanne has clearly shown the reality of Obama’s campaign.  Of course the fact she is an Edwards fan who went for Hillary, so that may be a sign of bias.

I sat up with my kids tonight, waiting for the glory and spectacle of the fire works show in Seattle, what we fondly call “blowing up the Space Needle.”

It started on time, then abruptly quit.  “We’re sorry, we seem to be having technical difficulties…”

Oops.  Seattle ended the year on a disappointing fizzle.  As my Daughter noted “..and they had Star Wars music playing, too!”

Undeterred we set off a few dozen of the little confetti poppers and the kids went their merry way with their faux champagne (Sparkling cider).

The old year was nice, Bizarre, even.  I reflected to myself, and had no less then several dozen weird and amazing events.  Too many to detail, maybe another day.

But looking ahead…ah…I see great things happening.  A presidential election that so far promises to break all the molds.  I seriously cannot wait to blog it. 

Likewise, I look forward to my continued efforts, futile as they seems sometimes, to thwart the Global Warming lies by posting all the truth and science I can. 

Immigration will surely continue to be a huge issue, as will terrorism, the war and so much more, all dovetailed into the presidential election theatre.

The local election theatre promises to be feisty as well, as Dino Rossi preps for a rematch to his stolen victory in 2004.

And then there is Hollywierd.  Britney may have imploded and become old news, but now her sister is entering the fray. And I cannot believe that Paris will lose her fortune without some headlines.  What of Lindsey, will she clean up, or burn out?  Will Rosie return with her conspiracy theories intact?

Film at 11…and so much more.

On a personal note, I am going to be dieting, practicing guitar more and preparing to redesign my blog.

Oh Joy…I hate web design, but the new software has some features my present design cannot use.  NW Bloggers will get a face lift, and I hope, a rebirth.

Via The Corner:

On the Internet as of sometime this afternoon, Fred Thompson’s closing argument to the people of Iowa.

Whereas Romney is saturating the airwaves with attack ads, Thompson pays the voters the courtesy of speaking calmly, and in detail—the video runs to just over 15 minutes. Why should the good Republicans of Iowa support Thompson? Because, the candidate argues, he can win.

YouTube video below:

 Trackposted to STA, Macsmind, Wizbang, Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, The Midnight Sun, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, DragonLady’s World, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Blogger, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Stageleft, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

More at Memeorandum.

A part of me is beginning to wonder.

Now, in this consideration, I am ignoring completely the presidential race, as none of the venom being used will exist in the fall when they unite under the Obama or Hillary banner.  We saw this after the lead up of the 2004 election, when Edwards had nothing nice to say about Kerry…until they were running mates, after which they were best friends for life.

First up, this from the WaPo:

 Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control.

Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) accuses Senate Democratic leaders of developing “Stockholm syndrome,” showing sympathy to their Republican captors by caving in on legislation to provide middle-class tax cuts paid for with tax increases on the super-rich, tying war funding to troop withdrawal timelines, and mandating renewable energy quotas. If Republicans want to filibuster a bill, Rangel said, Reid should keep the bill on the Senate floor and force the Republicans to talk it to death.

Reid, in turn, has taken to the Senate floor to criticize what he called the speaker’s “iron hand” style of governance.

Now, children…

In the past few weeks, the House has thrown wave after wave of legislation at the Senate — on energy, Iraq war policy, the housing and mortgage crisis, and middle-income tax cuts offset largely by tax increases on the wealthy.

Most of it has died quietly, a predetermined fate that both sides could foresee before the first vote was cast. Yet they went ahead anyway. Just last night, the House, for a second time, passed legislation to stave off the growth of the alternative minimum tax, to be paid for by a measure to stop hedge fund managers from deferring compensation in offshore tax havens. Like the previous House version, it has virtually no chance of passing in the Senate.

You can’t make this stuff up.   The man making the statement is essentially saying a black man cannot be elected, so support the white woman because she will be.  I think he meant it essentially as a pragmatic point, but he raised race as a qualifier, so there ya go. 

Black Alabama political groups split presidential endorsements

Alabama’s major black political groups have split their endorsements for president, with the Alabama New South Coalition giving its support to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday.

The Alabama Democratic Conference, the black wing of the state Democratic Party, endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in October.

…

Before the endorsement vote, Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner praised Obama’s qualifications, but urged the group to support Clinton.

“The question you have to put forth to yourself is that whether or not in this racist country a black man named Obama — when we are shooting at Osama — can win the presidency of the United States?” Turner said.

Turner said Clinton is the Democrat most likely to win in November “because of her husband and because of some other things, mainly because she’s white.”

When the Alabama Democratic Conference endorsed Clinton in October, leaders cited long-standing friendships with Clinton and her husband and voiced concerns about whether white voters would support a black Democrat.

So essentially, according to the black strategists in the democrat party, the Democrat party is too racist to elect a black man.

Well, ok, if you insist…

Linked at Memeorandum

 Trackposted to Dan Riehl, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I couldn’t have said this better…so I won’t:

Celebrities Unqualified to Give Political Endorsements

There have been so many debates and interviews and columns and profiles and polls, it’s hard to believe the election for president is still about 11 months away. Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.

There are reasons, of course, why candidates welcome such help. First, there’s the bonanza of free publicity. With so many names and faces vying for attention, what could be better than the burst of news such endorsements bring? There’s also the burst of money these high-profile celebs can bring in themselves and attract from others. Then there’s the extra attention and excitement these stars engender when they appear at a candidate’s political events. It’s far easier to attract a crowd in Des Moines if a big TV, movie or recording star is standing next to the politician.

Putting those obvious benefits aside, the question remains: do these endorsements really translate into votes? Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.

This is America, and we celebrities have just as much right as anyone else to speak up about any issue. The problem is that more attention is paid to what we say because we’re well known. But why should that matter? O.J. Simpson is one of the world’s best-known celebrities, but I can’t imagine anyone following his lead in a voting booth.

UPDATE:  See the video below.  In it Michelle notes one interesting fact previously unknown:  CNN disclosed the political affiliation of one of the questioners who had a republican agenda.

Good for the goose, but not for the gander, apparently….

Debacle is the best word I can come up with, as farce is overused.

But before I detail that dreadful event, I have some thoughts.

As my title suggest, politics is war.  As in a conventional war, there are opposing forces that wield force to secure advantages in territory, power and control.

There are armies, generals, tactics and battles which range from near meaningless skirmishes to full blown earth shattering engagements.

There are weapons.  Not the traditional slings and arrows, or guns and bullets, the weapons of the political war are ideas and promises.  Truth and disclosure.  Lies and innuendo.  Deception and misdirection.

And most important:  Money.

And there are spies, the operatives who seek the information to destroy the enemy.  There is secrecy and security to keep information secure.  There is deceptions and misdirection and even betrayal.

All of this exists because the modern politician operates from a position of moral authority that justifies any means necessary to win, because his or her ideals and ideologies are the best for the nation.  So what might be dismissed as dishonest or dishonorable is rationalized as necessary and crucial.

Because winning is everything.

I first became politically aware in the 70s, around the end of the Nixon years.  Through Ford, Carter and part of Reagan I had little interest and understanding of politics, and frankly the world was not as transparent then as now.

But now, since the Clinton years, I have watched and paid attention, and very little surprises me about the playbooks of dirty tricks.

So when i read about the Republican CNN You Tube debate, I should have not been horribly surprised, what with Hillary having already been shown to be guilty of planting questions in her own campaign.

During the 2004 presidential election, I predicted the Democrats would lose for one fairly simple, yet critically important reason:  While he was full of sound and fury about Bush’s faults John Kerry offered no alternative, no leadership.

He had no vision.  It is not enough to say how bad the other side is, you need to show you are better.

The Democrats learned.  In 2006 they stormed congress on a platform rich with vision and promise.  That so much of it has been false and empty is irrelevant.  At the time, they presented a vision of promise to the voters, and the peopley bought it.

Now as the 2008 elections are finally creeping up on us, the same situation is facing us:  Who will have the vision of leadership, and who will be full of sound and fury and no substance.

Don Surber ponders this in a well written blog, reposted here with his kind permission. 

Note very closely the irony of who has the greatest vision of America.

Lead America, Republicans

We need our Tony Blair, our Nicolas Sarkozy.

While Democrats select a presidential candidate, Republicans seek a president. There are a bunch of Jimmy Carters on the other side who are willing to apologize for America’s greatness. Forget about finding the next Reagan. America can settle for another Tony Blair or Nicolas Sarkozy.

Wouldn’t it be delightful to hear Mitt Romney say: “Sept. 11 was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it’s over. There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary …”

Wouldn’t it be great to hear Rudy Giuliani say: “There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don’t; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia’s savior. … ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. ”

Being a natural cynic, I find this more amusing then angering, particularly since i have long suspected candidates of all stripes of doing this at least on occasion.

But no, I was sagely assured by more experienced political watchers, that these events are carefully screened in order to keep them honest.

Uh huh.  Sorry I never believed that.  Candidates are all about Spin, Appearence and Image and they clearly screen for safe softball questions, if not planting the questions directly.

And in at least this one case, my skepticism bore fruit:

Clinton aides plant student’s question

The Iowa caucuses are known for their “living-room chats” where ordinary Iowans can meet candidates face-to-face and talk about what interests voters. When candidates have larger events or make major policy speeches, the crowds are bigger, but there is often still an opportunity for questions. But under the pressures of major media coverage, with polls narrowing in Iowa, campaigns can potentially control questions and coverage by planning questions ahead of time.

While no campaigns admit to this practice, at a recent Hillary Clinton campaign event in Newton, Iowa, some of the questions posed to the New York Senator were planned in advance, planting some audience members in the crowd.

On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press corps helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.