Hillary Clinton tells Ohio supporters: 'No Palin'

Hillary who?

GREED....greed...greed

What country's flag does Palin wear as a lapel pin ??? Israel's - That shows you what country she puts first

Ironically, Hillary's best chance - probably her only chance - to be President is if Obama loses. Then she could be facing a potentially unpopular Palin - who of course could well be an incumbent President by 2012.

A new message for Sen. Clinton in support of Barak:
To those who help me put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, Thank you. To those who believe in universal health care, (list any or all the differences between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden ticket here). Join me in making this happen.
Vote for Barak Obama and real change. You can't expect change votin' for McCain/Palin to fix Bush's failin' (note the drop of the g)

or

Don't be bailin' with Mcain/Palin.

or

?

If the Clinton's put as much effort into supporting Obama/Biden as they did Hillary's campaign in the next 50 days, Obama will win. Speaking for 20 minutes in Ohio just doesn't cut it. MCCAIN IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Well I guess she doesnt have a chance then. We are working to turn Texas blue. Everyone is assuming red except our ground troops. Anyone wanting to help insure Democrat victory go to barackobama.com and participate in some way; calling, donations, knocking doors whatever. We enjoy our work and meet fantastic people in the process. As a bachlor, I am having a ball. Find a local office near you. Either an Obama campaign office or Democratic Party office. Get involved. Complaing doesnt help.

Texas ain't gonna vote for no Liberal Democrat from Chi Town.

Sarah is a lifetime member of the NRA. 'Nuff said.

Obama has less experience as an elected official than Sarah Palin!

Yes she is tied with Bush ....in more ways than you want to admit

REPUBLICANS DONT LOVE AMERICA ONLY MONEY

Hillary was the DEMs best hope. Obama is struggling in the polls because he is to far left pretending to be a moderate... People see that, his record shows that! I dislike both parties, but to blame one over the other is totally wrong. Last I checked, they both continue to vote and fund this war. The only thing I see is the DEMs continue to blame Bush and GOP, but take no responsibillity for their actions before and now... Can you please tell me why they continue to fund this war they said we should not be in????

Senator McCain's choice of Sarah Palin lifted McCain's approval among Republicans, Independents and some Democrats across America. Now, in response to McCain's rise, Senator Obama has approved Bill Clinton to help the effort of his campaign in an attempt to regain a confident lead. Today's story is that Hillary is also emphasizing her support. It should be obvious that Obama would not enlist the Clinton's support unless he thought it necessary. One question this raises is what price will Obama pay for the Clinton's support? The Clinton's and Obama's objective of power converges from now forward to election night. We the people should expect to elect men and women to our highest offices who have exhibited impeccable character. The character issue and Obama's willingness to sign up the still popular Clinton's is why I'm here. I just want you to check out a couple of things.

http://www.blockingthepath.com/trailer.html

One: The Clinton's role in blocking the DVD release of 'The Path to 9/11'. You can go to the web site pasted above to watch a trailer of the doucmentary about the censorship of the Path to 9/11. The Path to 9/11 is an ABC mini-series which aired once on TV over 2 years ago. The producers thought that the Bush administration would go crazy. Wrong. The Clinton's not only screamed, they suceeded in preventing its DVD release. Why would Hollywood fear the Clinton's? You can probably recall a few documentaries which were very critical of the republican administration yet those can be rented or purchased today.
The other issue I have is the Peter Paul fundraising event which took place during Hillary's fund raising for her Senatorial election. You can just Google Peter Paul, you'll find it. The Clinton's may have a habit of making things happen with an increasing boldness that really ought to cause some concern.
The way I see it, Obama has just made a faustian bargain. You can bet the terms of the agreement leave something very appetizing for Hillary (and Bill).

Hillary is just upset that the woman on the ticket is not her, too bad. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton but she did not get the nomination, and she now knows that the DNC will never let a woman win the Nomination, too bad but the Republicans did do the right thing by picking Sarah Palin, we tell our daughters every day that they can be what ever they want too, and now that a woman has a chance to be VP, let us women get out in force and prove to our daughters that we mean what we say.

Women of America stand up together not apart and vote for

JOHN MCCAIN and SARAH PALIN.

Did any see the Bill Oreilly interview with Barrack Hussein Obama, when questioned about his faith, Obama said and I quote exactly his words, { I am tired of every one questioning my Muslim Beliefs } after saying that he corrected his words to say I meant to say Christian Faith. The words Muslim Beliefs rolled off his tongue just too quickly and easily for me.

John McCain admits to voting with Bush 90% of the time. He voted with Bush to invade Iraq. Long before the war even started Obama stated that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. As a nation we are experiencing the consequences of those decisions by the Bush admin. We do not need 8 more years of this admin. McCain has said that he was comfortable keeping troops in Iraq for 100 yrs. The dems need to continually tie this back to the Bush admin. No McCain, No Palin, No McSame. Hiliary needs to shout this from the rooftops.
We cannot now don the troops, nor stop funding for our troops. Bring them home!

Democrats Beware! Attempt to Steal Election Under Way.

"Obama supporters and registered Democrats were calling in from Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Florida, describing how they had received Absentee Ballot Applications from John McCain. These applications referenced old addresses and wrong addresses for election offices.

"McCain sent out 1 MILLION bad absentee ballots in Ohio and they want election officials to notify voters of the bad ballots within 48 hours.

"About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.

"In a narrow interpretation of Ohio law, Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner says many of the McCain forms have not been completed properly. If the box stating the person is an eligible elector -- or qualified voter – is not checked, Brunner said, the application is no good.
"Even though the box is unneeded, by not checking it voters are essentially admitting they're not eligible, Brunner said."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/183111/943/612/595352

LE MONDE DIPLOMATIC. EUROPEAN PRESS

YOU PEOPLE BETTER READ THIS.

The economic disaster that is military keynesianism
Why the US has really gone broke Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month's stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation's economic life
By Chalmers Johnson

The military adventurers in the Bush administration have much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups thought that they were the "smartest guys in the room" — the title of Alex Gibney's prize-winning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay or repudiate. This fiscal irresponsibility has been disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defence" projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — "military Keynesianism" (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.

Fiscal disaster
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense's planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations' military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush's two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.

Before we try to break down and analyse this gargantuan sum, there is one important caveat. Figures on defence spending are notoriously unreliable. The numbers released by the Congressional Reference Service and the Congressional Budget Office do not agree with each other. Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: "A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicised) basic budget total and double it" (1). Even a cursory reading of newspaper articles about the Department of Defense will turn up major differences in statistics about its expenses. Some 30-40% of the defence budget is "black"," meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate.

There are many reasons for this budgetary sleight-of-hand — including a desire for secrecy on the part of the president, the secretary of defence, and the military-industrial complex — but the chief one is that members of Congress, who profit enormously from defence jobs and pork-barrel projects in their districts, have a political interest in supporting the Department of Defense. In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security, has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalised either department for ignoring the law. All numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.

In discussing the fiscal 2008 defence budget, as released on 7 February 2007, I have been guided by two experienced and reliable analysts: William D Hartung of the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative (2) and Fred Kaplan, defence correspondent for Slate.org (3). They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4bn for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7bn for the "supplemental" budget to fight the global war on terrorism — that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4bn to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defence budget documents) of $50bn to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This makes a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5bn.

But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in 2003, when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.

Military Keynesianism
Such expenditures are not only morally obscene, they are fiscally unsustainable. Many neo-conservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defence budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. That statement is no longer true. The world's richest political entity, according to the CIA's World Factbook, is the European Union. The EU's 2006 GDP was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the US. Moreover, China's 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the US, and Japan was the world's fourth richest nation.

A more telling comparison that reveals just how much worse we're doing can be found among the current accounts of various nations. The current account measures the net trade surplus or deficit of a country plus cross-border payments of interest, royalties, dividends, capital gains, foreign aid, and other income. In order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88bn per year trade surplus with the US and enjoys the world's second highest current account balance (China is number one). The US is number 163 — last on the list, worse than countries such as Australia and the UK that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5bn; second worst was Spain at $106.4bn. This is unsustainable.

It's not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On 7 November 2007, the US Treasury announced that the national debt had breached _$9 trillion for the first time. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the "debt ceiling" to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defence expenditures.

The top spenders
The world's top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each currently budgets for its military establishment are:

Rank Country Military budget 1. United States (FY 2008 budget) $623bn 2. China (2004) $65bn 3. Russia $50bn 4. France (2005) $45bn 5. United Kingdom $42.8bn 6. Japan (2007) $41.75bn 7. Germany (2003) $35.1bn 8. Italy (2003) $28.2bn 9. South Korea (2003) $21.1bn 10. India (2005 est.) $19bn World total military expenditures (2004 est) $1,100bn World total (minus the US) $500bn

Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration's policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology, and have now become so entrenched in our democratic political system that they are starting to wreak havoc. This is military Keynesianism — the determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it makes no contribution to either production or consumption.

This ideology goes back to the first years of the cold war. During the late 1940s, the US was haunted by economic anxieties. The great depression of the 1930s had been overcome only by the war production boom of the second world war. With peace and demobilisation, there was a pervasive fear that the depression would return. During 1949, alarmed by the Soviet Union's detonation of an atomic bomb, the looming Communist victory in the Chinese civil war, a domestic recession, and the lowering of the Iron Curtain around the USSR's European satellites, the US sought to draft basic strategy for the emerging cold war. The result was the militaristic National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) drafted under the supervision of Paul Nitze, then head of the Policy Planning Staff in the State Department. Dated 14 April 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman on 30 September 1950, it laid out the basic public economic policies that the US pursues to the present day.

In its conclusions, NSC-68 asserted: "One of the most significant lessons of our World War II experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency, can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living" (4).

With this understanding, US strategists began to build up a massive munitions industry, both to counter the military might of the Soviet Union (which they consistently overstated) and also to maintain full employment, as well as ward off a possible return of the depression. The result was that, under Pentagon leadership, entire new industries were created to manufacture large aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and surveillance and communications satellites. This led to what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address of 6 February 1961: "The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience" — the military-industrial complex.

By 1990 the value of the weapons, equipment and factories devoted to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants and equipment in US manufacturing. From 1947 to 1990, the combined US military budgets amounted to $8.7 trillion. Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, US reliance on military Keynesianism has, if anything, ratcheted up, thanks to the massive vested interests that have become entrenched around the military establishment. Over time, a commitment to both guns and butter has proven an unstable configuration. Military industries crowd out the civilian economy and lead to severe economic weaknesses. Devotion to military Keynesianism is a form of slow economic suicide.

Higher spending, fewer jobs
On 1 May 2007, the Center for Economic and Policy Research of Washington, DC, released a study prepared by the economic and political forecasting company Global Insight on the long-term economic impact of increased military spending. Guided by economist Dean Baker, this research showed that, after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative. The US economy has had to cope with growing defence spending for more than 60 years. Baker found that, after 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario that involved lower defence spending.

Baker concluded: "It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment" (5).

These are only some of the many deleterious effects of military Keynesianism.

It was believed that the US could afford both a massive military establishment and a high standard of living, and that it needed both to maintain full employment. But it did not work out that way. By the 1960s it was becoming apparent that turning over the nation's largest manufacturing enterprises to the Department of Defense and producing goods without any investment or consumption value was starting to crowd out civilian economic activities. The historian Thomas E Woods Jr observes that, during the 1950s and 1960s, between one-third and two-thirds of all US research talent was siphoned off into the military sector (6). It is, of course, impossible to know what innovations never appeared as a result of this diversion of resources and brainpower into the service of the military, but it was during the 1960s that we first began to notice Japan was outpacing us in the design and quality of a range of consumer goods, including household electronics and automobiles.

Can we reverse the trend?
Nuclear weapons furnish a striking illustration of these anomalies. Between the 1940s and 1996, the US spent at least $5.8 trillion on the development, testing and construction of nuclear bombs. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the US possessed some 32,500 deliverable atomic and hydrogen bombs, none of which, thankfully, was ever used. They perfectly illustrate the Keynesian principle that the government can provide make-work jobs to keep people employed. Nuclear weapons were not just America's secret weapon, but also its secret economic weapon. As of 2006, we still had 9,960 of them. There is today no sane use for them, while the trillions spent on them could have been used to solve the problems of social security and health care, quality education and access to higher education for all, not to speak of the retention of highly-skilled jobs within the economy.

The pioneer in analysing what has been lost as a result of military Keynesianism was the late Seymour Melman (1917-2004), a professor of industrial engineering and operations research at Columbia University. His 1970 book, Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War, was a prescient analysis of the unintended consequences of the US preoccupation with its armed forces and their weaponry since the onset of the cold war. Melman wrote: "From 1946 to 1969, the United States government spent over $1,000bn on the military, more than half of this under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations — the period during which the [Pentagon-dominated] state management was established as a formal institution. This sum of staggering size (try to visualize a billion of something) does not express the cost of the military establishment to the nation as a whole. The true cost is measured by what has been foregone, by the accumulated deterioration in many facets of life, by the inability to alleviate human wretchedness of long duration."

In an important exegesis on Melman's relevance to the current American economic situation, Thomas Woods writes: "According to the US Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation's plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over _$7.29 trillion… The amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock" (7).

The fact that we did not modernise or replace our capital assets is one of the main reasons why, by the turn of the 21st century, our manufacturing base had all but evaporated. Machine tools, an industry on which Melman was an authority, are a particularly important symptom. In November 1968, a five-year inventory disclosed "that 64% of the metalworking machine tools used in US industry were 10 years old or older. The age of this industrial equipment (drills, lathes, etc.) marks the United States' machine tool stock as the oldest among all major industrial nations, and it marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began with the end of the second world war. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system certifies to the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research and development talent has had on American industry."

Nothing has been done since 1968 to reverse these trends and it shows today in our massive imports of equipment — from medical machines like _proton accelerators for radiological therapy (made primarily in Belgium, Germany, and Japan) to cars and trucks.

Our short tenure as the world's lone superpower has come to an end. As Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman has written: "Again and again it has always been the world's leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence and cultural influence. It's no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over the job of being the world's leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world's leading lending country. In fact we are now the world's biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone" (8).

Some of the damage can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that the US urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defence budget all projects that bear no relationship to national security and ceasing to use the defence budget as a Keynesian jobs programme.

If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don't, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.

Why Palin, small town mayor and woman? Palin was mayor of a city that had a smaller population than some universities. Her experience is not only limited in years but also limited in depth. The population base is nothing like the rest of the country. It appears that she had limited experience dealing with the needy. She did deal issues surrounding abused and raped women. She made them pay for their tests. All in all, Palin worked for a segment of the community and left the rest of them with higher taxes than ever. Their are high school principals, social workers, community workers, college presidents, and mayors of more complex cities who would server better than Palin. She is an empty suit who avoids real answers to tough questions because she needs to avoid the real answers. The less we know about her the more chance she has to be elected. Why did McCain pick her? It was not because she is a political astute woman. It is because he rejected Romney who would not have got the fundamentalist vote because they are anti-morman. McCain chose Palin to gain some white fundamentalist votes. It has nothing to do with the woman's capacities as a person, it is pure politics at its most dishonest. McCain sold himself out and is willing to risk the nation's good so that he can get elected. A very dishonorable man.

View slideshow from Anti-Palin rally this Sunday in Anchorage, AK

go to: mudflats.wordpress.com

It amazes me how small minded some people are. The fact is Sarah won each of her elections. She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska -- compute than to a national field and she is the leading contender hands down. Congress on the other hand has the lowest approval rating in history. The Democrats control both houses and have for the last two years. Has anyone seen any type of relief as promised before the 2006 elections? Fuel prices are out of sight since 2006. We have lost more jobs and the housing industry is in the toilet. Congress has attached more pork barrel spending to each bill. Why would we want a Democrat in the White House? It would seem they could all vote along party lines and we would be even worse off than we are now. It is amazing that Hilary would actually go out and support Obama when she opposed a lot of what he stood for before she lost. Perhaps it is an attempt to stop Sarah so Hilary has a chance of becoming the first woman in either the VP or President position. McCain stood by his principles with the surge even when it was not popular. Now that it has succeeded, Obama is still trying to spin it as a negative.

Google "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" on Wikepedia.

A 10 minute read will inform you that most countries in the world have this
kind of healthcare plan.

When you are finished reading you can figure out if you think it is something to fight for.

Americans are getting screwed over by oil companies, banks, mortgage companies and so on.

Your healthcare is just another example.

If you don't think the 10 minute read is worth it, and a lot of you will not, then you only have yourself to blame.

EDUCATE YOURSELF! 10 lousy minutes out of your life!

Here is an interesting perspective someone posted on this presidential race. Food for thought. Eight is Enough!!!
==================================================================

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified
candidates you're a 'token hire.' If you're a conservative and you're
selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a 'game
changer.'

Black teen pregnancies? A 'crisis' in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A 'blessed event.'

If you grow up in Hawaii you're 'exotic.'
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential
'American story.'

Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you're 'unpatriotic.'
Name your kid Track, you're 'colorful.'

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the
individual you're 'reckless.' A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a
'maverick.'

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your
organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to
$400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law
Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new
African Amerian voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law
professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator
representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of

the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend
nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of
nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the
Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs
committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a
town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor
of a state with 650,000 people, then you've got the most executive
experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of
the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should
you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to
Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of
people you are an 'arrogant celebrity'. If you are a popular
Republican female candidate you are 'energizing the base'.

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes
his own decisions you are 'presumptuous'.
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you
refuse to explain, you are a 'shoot from the hip' maverick.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are 'an
elitist-out of touch' with the real America.
if you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of
Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a hero.
If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an
'empty suit'.
If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an
'experienced executive'.

If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are
'extremist'.
If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man
made, you are 'strongly principled'.
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman with whom you've been wed
to for 19 years and raising 2 beautiful daughters with, you're
'risky'.

If you're a black single mother of 4 who waits for 22 hours after her
water breaks to seek medical attention, you're an irresponsible
parent, endangering the life of your unborn child.
But if you're a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you're
spunky.

If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls
you 'First dog.'
If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the
right-wing press calls you 'beautiful' and 'courageous.'

If you kill an endangered species, you're an excellent hunter.
If you have an abortion your not a christian, you're a murderer (
forget about if it happen while being date raped.)
If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.