by Frank James
The Washington Post political gossip blog, "The Sleuth" provides an interesting tidbit of information for anyone seeking more insight into why Sen. Edward Kennedy was so angry at the Clintons that he got off the fence and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama this week.
Much of the reporting made it seem like Sen. Kennedy's endorsement was all about President Bill Clinton, particularly his comments the day after the South Carolina primary in which he appeared to dismiss Obama's big win there as a race thing and nothing more.
Yes, Kennedy was upset by that sin of commission by the former president. But he apparently was also upset by the sin of ommission by Sen. Hillary Clinton who evidently sat by at a New Hampshire event while the person who introduced her appeared to diminish President Kennedy's civil rights role.
Reporter Mary Ann Akers has this on The Sleuth:
Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.
One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.
The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" signed the civil rights bill into law.
The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and "sat passively by" rather than correcting the record on his slain brother's civil rights record.
Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done."
Both comments that day, by Clinton and her supporter, were meant to make the point that Clinton would be better equipped to get things done as president than Obama, her chief Democratic rival. Sources say Clinton called Kennedy to apologize for the LBJ comments. But whatever she said clearly wasn't enough to assuage Kennedy, who endorsed Obama earlier this week.
If this situation illustrates nothing else, it's the nearly impossible demands that are on presidential candidates who reach the level of Sen. Clinton and their staffs.
In hindsight, one can see why Kennedy would be upset. First, the Kennedy people always had a problem with LBJ who was seen as a usurper to the dead president, the rightful occupant of the Oval Office.
Also, it is true that President Kennedy did tee up civil rights legislation with the speech he made before his death. In fact, there is some thinking that Kennedy's assassination helped LBJ navigate the legislation to enactment since he would often invoke JFK's name, telling lawmakers that the legislation was important to Kennedy.
True, Kennedy did not move as quickly as Dr. King would've liked when it came to civil rights. But the administration did take steps, especially when King prodded it, to support protestors in the south, actions Kennedy saw as risky to his planned 1964 re-election bid.
Indeed, even before he was elected, JFK famously made a empathetic phone call to Coretta Scott King during the 1960 campaign when Dr. King was in jail.
His brother Robert Kennedy was sure the phone call would cause JFK to lose support among southern Democrats and thus the election. But the phone call to Coretta was reported throughout black America at the time and attracted lots of black voters to Kennedy, which helped him win a very close election against Vice President Richard Nixon.
But in the days before the recent New Hampshire primary, with the Clinton campaign trying to figure out a way to overcome its shocking third place finish in the Iowa Caucuses just days earlier, it would be understandable if Clinton and her campaign were just too distracted to notice that a slight to the Kennedy legacy on civil rights had occurred.
In any event, Clinton and her campaign never corrected the historical record enough for Sen. Kennedy. If they had realized how things would play out, does anyone doubt that they would have made such a correction? It was an important detail that was missed.
So, like the old saying goes, for want of a nail, the Camelot kingdom, or at least its endorsement, was lost.





Comments
I've been watching the election results, surveys and debates. Republicans don't care that McCain isn't the ideal conservative candidate. Conservatives voted for him anyway. A survey from Florida showed they voted for him because he's the most electable. Republicans want to win the White House, because they know that there's more at stake than just the oval office...supreme court appointments, attorney general...etc.
Clinton or Obama, IMO, would fair very well against McCain if either of them went toe to toe on the issues and their records. Unfortunately, this race is not about the issues, it's about power and the Republicans want it more than they want an ideal candidate. And are willing to do anything to get it...even elect a candidate who doesn’t fit in line with their ideals and policies. That's why so many Republican heavies are endorsing McCain over more conservative candidates.
If the democrats hope to win the general election against the full court press of the Republican party, Clinton and Obama need to put their petty squabbles aside and join forces.
If Clinton is the nominee there will be a large percentage of the democratic base who won't vote in the general election; end result - Republicans win.
If Obama is the nominee there will be a large percentage of democrats who either won't vote or will vote Republican; end result - Republicans win.
Obama and Clinton combining forces is the best opportunity for the Democrats to take back the White House. Otherwise we're going to have at least another four years of lies, lies and more lies.
Posted by: KeepHopeAlive | January 31, 2008 9:36 AM
I knew why the Old Grudge endorsed Barack Obama,
He did it out of spite.
1. JFK masterminded the assassinations of the best doctors, engineers, lawyers and other leading Iraqis in 1963 in Iraq.
2. What of the Bay of Pigs Invasion that JFK authorized?
You reap whatever you sow.
The following report shows that Ted Kennedy has failed again.
................
Deval supporters go for Clinton
Bay State pols point to gov’s early gaffes
Among Patrick supporters now endorsing Clinton are: state Reps. Cory Atkins, Dan Bosley, Alice Wolf, Marty Walz, Barbara L’Italien, Elizabeth Malia and Michael Rodrigues and Sens. Edward Augustus, Susan Tucker and Susan Fargo.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1070229
Senator Edward Kennedy failed in all his attempts to become the president of America and becoming a senator has been his only consolation.
He endorsed Senator John Kerry in 2004 and Kerry lost the presidential election.
Ted Kennedy is bad luck. If only you could see his nightmares.
It is unfortunate that Barack Obama who is ready to kiss any white arse for white votes has accepted the legacy of the bad luck.
It was quite a black comedy watching Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Barack Obama playing the Uncle Sam and Uncle Tom of American politics. The bemused African Americans were gaping and moping as their Uncle Tom was kissing the butt of “Massa” Uncle Sam. Two confused people, older one suffering from political senility, and the younger one suffering from political naivety and immaturity.
Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi | January 31, 2008 9:43 AM
And don't forget the rumors that John John's plane accident was no accident. Why did Newsweek, right after his plane crash, pull it's issue with an interview with him saying he was going to run for the Senate? And then who won that seat?
Posted by: Mike Tackett | January 31, 2008 9:52 AM
Let me get this straight so I understand this guy. It is ok to murder a young girl names Mary Jo Kopechne, but it is not ok to give credit to LBJ. Wow woth morals like that I can see why Obama would want this guys support. How can anyone take Tedd serious. If his last name were not Kennedy he would be just finishing 20-30 year prison sentence.
Posted by: Vinny | January 31, 2008 9:58 AM
Hillary did slight JFK to bestow the 1964 Civil Rights Act the doing of LBJ.
Posted by: Denise | January 31, 2008 10:18 AM
Remember Llyod Bentsen's best line?
http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/2008/01/senator-you-no-jack-kennedy.html
Posted by: JaneBecker | January 31, 2008 10:49 AM
It's interesting that Obama keeps whooping it up about "change" and getting away from traditional Washington politics, and then he aligns himself with the ultimate Washington insiders like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and others. Can Mr. Washington Establishment Al Gore be far behind?
Obama is about Obama -- not change.
Posted by: Ted | January 31, 2008 11:19 AM
Orinkla - if that is your real name - please do us all a favor. Fix your problems in Nigeria before you spout about the kennedy's and saying that Obama is an uncle tom. It is despicable.
I think bruce has taken on a new alias...
Posted by: Batski B | January 31, 2008 11:29 AM
J.F.K's legacy?
If JFK would have followed Eisenhower's plan to invade Cuba we could all be vacationing there right now!
But, JFK chickened out by listening to his liberal brother Bobby and pulled any air support off the table.
A cowardly act like that opened the door for the Cuban missile crisis which almost led us into a nuclear war.
Some legacy.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 31, 2008 11:38 AM
Hasn't Bill Clinton gone around bragging about how he is now considered a member of the Bush family, and that Barbara even calls him Son.
Didn't Bill Clinton recently state that Hillary is a very close friend of John McCain's and she greatly admires and respects him.
So where do the Clintons then get the nerve to pretend to be outraged because Senator Obama said some thing nice about another Republican President.
The Clintons are total hypocrites, and they will do and say anything to get their way.
Posted by: Liam | January 31, 2008 12:14 PM
I don't think anyone would have a problem winning the nomination if they just stuck to the issues. I don't want a child as president. This fighting over misspeaks and etc. are so very childish. As I look around and see and have seen the problems with us poorer people, I take umbrage at the caliber of those running for office.
Posted by: Pat Kamuda | January 31, 2008 12:24 PM
Where is Obama's father? No one mentions him
Posted by: kathleen | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM
Typical slanderous article trying to smear an Obama endorsment because Hildabeast didn't get it.
Not surprised coming from this "journalist".
Posted by: The Laughing Liberal | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM
Get over it Kenedy... After your car crash the only thing that talks is your money and it speaks volumes that Obama is going for it!
Posted by: Robert A Brown Jr | January 31, 2008 12:26 PM
Ted Kennedy is only relevant in his own mind. His endorsement provides temporary media attention to his his chosen candidate. I am a lifelong liberal democrat who has a very, very low opinion of Ted Kennedy. While his message can certainly resonate with me, the delivery is appalling.
Posted by: Jeff | January 31, 2008 12:34 PM
President Kennedy did initially propose the legislation in 1963 but he was having no luck pushing it through and did not really seem that concerned about it. After he was assassinated President Johnson picked up the ball and pushed the bill through the congress by saying that it would be a way of memorializing JFK. It passed easily. LBJ was a master at manipulating the congress, and the mood of the country at that time made it a no brainer. JFK was just not interested. For Ted Kennedy to protect his brother's "legacy" in this matter is idiotic.
The history they are talking about was 45 years ago - how many voters will remember that time period?
Posted by: Terry | January 31, 2008 12:50 PM
Paulo,
If Cuba wanted to invade the US and Iran gave them air support what would you do?
Posted by: jethro | January 31, 2008 12:55 PM
A Kennedy is a Kennedy is a Kennedy.Not much to look forward to for the rest of the day. At Least a drunk sobers up and feels better.
JFK is dead...some would say thankfully. I think the world a better place without him.
Ted is who he is and that is not much of a person. His climbing on Obama's ship is the second time in history a rat was seen climbing on board a sinking vessel.
Posted by: Frank H. Madigan | January 31, 2008 1:05 PM
This is unbelievable! I can't believe what I am reading. President Kennedy was a wonderful president and accomplishmented many things, INCLUDING the Civil Rights Act. It was the Kennedys who thought it up and made it a reality. Just because Johnson signed the bill means jack. Good for Ted for endorsing Obama.
Posted by: Whitney | January 31, 2008 1:23 PM
The best case scenario for Obama is, obviously, winning the nomination and the presidency. The second best scenario for him is Hillary winning the nomination and losing the presidency. In 2112, Obama will be the Dems frontrunner in a year where a GOP win would put the GOP in power for 4 straight terms. It is highly unlikely that either party could hold on for 4 straight terms, so Obama would be a shoo in for the White House. He has zero interest in "bringing the party together" if Hillary is nominated. I'm sure that Obama knows that a Pres. Hillary in '08 virtually guarantees a Rep.president in '12.
Posted by: JohnP | January 31, 2008 1:24 PM
Frankly, I'm not pleased with any of these candidates. I don't vote for or against someone based on endorsements. I used to be able to vote based on the issues, but that's not going to happen in this election year. We've forgotten what's important and no matter who becomes the next president, we're going to be worse off in four years if we don't all join in to work together.
Posted by: Julie Totsch | January 31, 2008 1:39 PM
John Kennedy was involved in Civil Rights as a president and very probably would have pushed it though Congress had he lived. However, he did not live and Lyndon Johnson as President became the one that pushed it through and Clinton was correct in what she said.
Had she been giving a talk on the Civil Rights movement of the sixty's and negelected JFK and his contribution, perhaps Ted Kennedy would have an issue. This, however, was not the case and Kennedy has no issue. This was nothing less than a short statement while making a case for the requirment of experience in a President to get a job done. This was taken out of contex by Obama with a reverse racism effort to entice black vote from Clinton. If Kennedy bases his evaulations of political candidates on such personal (and incorrect) situations, I don't see his endorsement with much creditability.
Posted by: Ken | January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
while it is true the Kennedys held back on bay of pigs, one must remember what the climate was at the time, Kruschev was generally a tough customer and his willingness to push a bottom undetermined. Further it is thought (though not by any means factual) that the US was at that time no where near as savy as the Ruskies when it came to inteliigience. We were out spy'd by them and afraid to commit. I for one would love to see the beaches of Cuba.
I do wish they would of supported those men though, or at least pulled the plug instead of doing it all halfassed.
Posted by: MARU | January 31, 2008 1:58 PM
Vinny, speaking of deaths and corrupt businesses look in the Clinton's closet.
Posted by: bee | January 31, 2008 2:03 PM
Don't want Obama and don't want Clinton, only choice is a Republican it seems. And McCain looks like a formidable candidate, but it will be a heated race and interesting to see who the vice presidential running mates will be.
Posted by: P. Messina | January 31, 2008 2:14 PM
I feel bad for the country that it couldn't get the message John Edwards was trying to express.
He stayed on message.
Voters were too busy following the glitz to take time for the real thing.
America gets what it deserves. It's just a pity I have to get what it deserves too. I deserve better--like having a leader and thinker like John Edwards.
Posted by: Lori Klingman | January 31, 2008 2:27 PM
WHAT ABOUT RON PAUL?
Posted by: THOMAS E. SMITH SR. | January 31, 2008 3:17 PM
What is the Kennedy curse? I keep hearing that phrase used. I am only 36, so I wasn't hear for the Kennedy Era?
Posted by: steve | January 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Orikinla, you should shut up. Go back to your country and comment on the politics there, because you are speaking words that you know nothing about. Be happy you are in the US. If you want to speak on history, speak about your country, I believe it maybe Africa.
Posted by: Jean | January 31, 2008 3:23 PM
Sen.Kennedy remembers all the embarrassment Hillary Clinton has has caused. Telling America that she is the most qualified > candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes her > eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" - and her > seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record > includes: > > - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a > process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill > Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that > she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she > couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. > (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and > Senate.) > > - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her > first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to > withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. > Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst > mistake.". > > - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights > Commission. > When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. > > - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, > and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House > staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, > Foster > committed suicide? and Kennedy was forced to resign. > > - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clinton's, Craig > Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When > Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI > files > > of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White > House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent > Dennis Sculimbrene Confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both > the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, > the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven > presidents for over thirty years.) > > - In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Harry > Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be > awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office > fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their > reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy > Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House > funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two > hours. > > - Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption > squad" and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the > Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, > which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor After $80 > million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to > Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his > affairs. > > ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. > > ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury. > > ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. > > ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction > of > justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not recall," "I > have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath). > > - Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the > White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for > example, The First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each > year) > was Decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic > ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' > depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas.". > > - Hillary wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her Socialist > viewpoint. > > - Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never > lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino > support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also > had > Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial > support. > > - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in > White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. > > - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "woman card" by > portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. > > - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives > to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the > White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. > (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) > > - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major > legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator Schumer to tend to > the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of > workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. > > - Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has > since disavowed. > > Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family... >
Posted by: MARCO ISLAND 1 | January 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Boy that is a real good and logical reason the support someone. I thought Teddy was all grown up.
Posted by: rfb | January 31, 2008 3:39 PM
My outlandish theory:
Kennedy and Obama have a deal. Kennedy enorses him, then if he gets the nomination Obama chooses either Teddy or son Patrick as a running mate. This is probably Teddy's last opportunity to be part of a national campaign.
Not sure that an endorsement by Kennedy helps or hurts. If I remember correctly Kennedy never endorsed Jimmy Carter and the second time actually tried to run against him
Posted by: terry fisher | January 31, 2008 4:41 PM
The Kennedys have long had a checkered past and we all know it. Old man got his money during prohibition running booze from Canada it is alleged. Gone swimming lately, Teddy? Jack was no angel, ask a lot of women that, including one who committed suicide. Only thing he really did as president that he could hang his hat on was the Cuban missle crises. He got us into Vietnam and later the Kennedy's blamed it on Johnson. Teddy's is all name and BS. If he had any guts he would have run for president years ago but he was afraid he would get the same thing his brothers got. I wouldn't let the Kennedy backing of Obama ruin my day, Obama has a checkered history and that is now coming out so this makes them good bedfellows.
Posted by: Quills | January 31, 2008 5:01 PM
I wish someone would tell Caroline and Ted Kennedy and the OBAMA clan to 'Read my lips" - Hillary never said that Kennedy did nothing to help civil rights.” Hillary Clinton indicated that LBJ did a lot to promote civil rights. Hillary is not the source of this statement, actually the source of statements like this derive from prominent African-American leaders. It was a statement I originally read by John H. Johnson (Ebony/Jet publisher) where he stated in an article that Johnson did a lot to help civil rights and Dr. King. Please remind Obama who was only born in 1961 that Kennedy dies in 1963. Dr. King was here five more years until 1968, so it WAS Johnson who played a vital role in signing civil rights bills. THEREFORE, would the Obama supporters please get a GRIP!
Posted by: CHJ | January 31, 2008 6:30 PM
Read the comments above and you'll see why gossiping is considered a sin. ;-)
I'm sure it wasn't one or two specific things Ted didn't like, but rather what he was seeing as an overall pattern. He's seen more than enough 'dirty tricks' campaigns to recognize one when he sees one.
Posted by: Tom J | January 31, 2008 6:59 PM
If this account is true--about why America's royal family (so they say) supported a candidate who has not yet deatl with some major dirt that cold sack the dems chances (rezko) in the fall--heaven help us. That family never challenged the Warren Commission's b.s. report--because it's not really about public service, is it? I think it was about public service for Teddy and John and for Robert F Jr--but Caroline was a princess. She still is. Are we electing people or holding a coronation?
Posted by: h finn | January 31, 2008 7:55 PM
This is what's so funny about the system. Y'all got a bunch a democrats sittin on the couch discussin their criminal candidates merits. Quityer whinin, whichever one gets elected you will get your handouts, don't worry. If a repub gets elected then get a job and become a productive member of society.
Now that I think about it, GET A JOB ANYWAY!! stop trolling the chat rooms, earn a livin, take care of your families, love your wife, and vote 'goerge 4 more years'
Posted by: badfrog | January 31, 2008 8:59 PM
PLEASEEEEEEEEE give President “Bill”, William Jefferson Clinton a DNA test…
his DNA results will clarify his ‘blackness’ …and … his ‘white privilege?....
Obama’s mother was English…his was father Kenyan… 50% white-50% black
his DNA... indicates he could become the first Democrat President, African-English
American …to be preceded in the White House by a distant cousin Republican
Vice-President, Dick Cheney!!!
Hillary/Billary could be the 1st woman President (no sure of her DNA) to whose
Presidency was only her 2nd elected position and who have scandal-scarred
history as 1st lady of Arkansas and 1st lady of USA includes her testifying before
Congress or in Court with ‘Altzmeimer’ – 250 times…I didn’t remember, didn’t
know, not that I recall or something similar. Previous Billary administrations
legacy are soiled with cattle-futures-Cattlegate… Travelgate...Whitewater…
Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale…Pardongate…and Miss Monica…
all in our houses of … we the people.
AMERICA! ... let’s now squander the future looking backwards
Posted by: Elisa Armento | January 31, 2008 9:29 PM
"Where is Obama's father? No one mentions him"
Posted by: kathleen | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM
Both of Sen. Obama's parents, His Kansan mother and his Kenyan father, are dead and buried.
Posted by: Keith Hays | February 1, 2008 1:35 AM
Spite makes sense. The Kennedy's are about legacy and the 'benjamins' ($$$). It's interesting that JFK did start initiatives, and they were completed during other presidencies.
The funny (and scary) thing is what's going to happen to Bush's initiatives (not the war, not the security, not the economy, but OTHER stuff he passed)--they could likely be accomplished by another president in the future too and be a huge win--don't judge history now, wait until it happens.
And Ted needs to accept reality:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/johnfkennedy/p/pkennedy.htm
"John Kennedy was important more for his iconic reputation than his legislative actions."
Everyone wants change and has hopes, but then again we all have different interpretations of that. Talk is cheap, action is what gets my vote.
Posted by: cww | February 1, 2008 1:38 AM
Who really cares about Edward Kennedy's endorsement. I have read all of the comments. Tnere is a guy on here who want George W. Bush for another 4 years. What's wrong with you, it is already proven that he lied about the reasons for us to invade Irag, he has made a total mess of our economy. I admit it was turning downward under Bill Clinton, but God man how many of the people of our country should be sacrificied in the name of making the rich, richer. As far as John McCain is concerned, in 2000 he would have been the first Republican I would have ever voted for, but he conceded the election to George W. Bush and has really lost all credibility with me, he once was a maverick now he is just a yes man that wants to be in the White House. As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned she has no real experience other than in the Senate, what other Elective Office has she held. Barack Obama has been a State Senator so they are about the same as far as experience goes. How about if we all whether you are a Independent, Democrat or Republican take a hard look at the candidates stand on the issues not about how they look, what race they are, what their gender is, what their religious beliefs are, we should be concentrating on whether or not they have the fortitude to lead our great country whether or not they are answering the tough questions on the issues, whether or not they have plan to propel our country forward not concede that we are strictly a country who is attempting to rule the world through false prophets and fake democracy, but real human beings with real problems and that we do care about the rest of the world community. We should care them as we would want them to care about us. We should stop bickering amongst ourselves about petty differences to the point that we have hatred in our hearts for one another. We should by now realize that we are all Americans, Citizens of the United States of America, despite our differences all of our ancestors have sacrificied for this country and have had a hand in building this great country of ours. Irregardless of our differences none of us are moving back to the countries of our ancestors. Because if we were we would have already left. As far as wars and armed conflicts are concerned, if anyone in the Senate or House of Representatives votes for a war or Armed Conflict their children that are at least 18 years old should immediately be inducted into Army or Marine Corps assigned to infantry and sent to the War Zone considering that they believe that it is a worthy cause, they should put their loved ones in harms way, not just ours.
Posted by: bgdady4life | February 1, 2008 1:40 PM