Politics Waits for No Man - New Hampshire PRIMARY today

To Ron Paul's "fans", I apologize for "promoting" him from Congressman Paul to "Senator Paul" in my previous post.

If you needed proof, Ron Paul and the courts just may provide it. The "proof" I am speaking of is that there has rarely ever been so blatant a mis-use of journalism as the slogan of "Fox News" when it claims, "fair and balanced" news coverage. CONGRESSMAN Dr. Ron Paul appeared on the Monday night edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno saying among other things that in response to being left out of the Fox News Republican Debate on Sunday (Jan. 7, 2008) that he was considering taking them to court because this was clearly an instance where they were showing bias against his campaign. He made it clear that after his showing in Iowa caucuses and still ranking ABOVE Former NYC Mayor Giuliani in public opinion polls in New Hampshire that (though he could only "speculate") that Fox did not want their listeners and viewers to hear the message he wanted to deliver.

He also delivered his most popular and inciteful platform plank that terrorists (Islamists or not) did not target Americans and New York's World Trade Center because we are free and prosperous, the stupid bumpersticker explanation and jingoistic clap trap the Bush administration has been feeding us for years. He is aware, as he states, that over 50 years of political meddling and "occupation" as he puts it, of Middle East countries and puppet dictatorships, and CIA sponsored violence (not to mention the Afghanistan War - no not "OURS", theirs against the Soviets)(aka Charlie Wilson's War in the movie version) is what make the USA a target, not only here, but at our foreign embassies and military bases, too.

To those who might have seen "American Woman's" blog who seemed to assume that I was attacking Dr. Paul, I assure you, I genuinely admire him for bringing these truths to light. There is also some value in what he says about monetary policy, especially in the month after the Fed decided to increase the M4 money supply by some 40 billion. Yes, of course that contributes to some degree of inflation, but that is far from the principal reason the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar (as Dr. Paul implied on the Leno Show).

Does Hillary Clinton Have Enough Experience?

IF experience really was the question as to whether or not a candidate will make a "good" President, there is little question that she is at least as qualified as most of the people who have held that office.

THE question of Hillary's candidacy is does her position on the issues match yours on those issues that are most important to you. Better yet, are the kind of policies that she is likely to implement (Universal Health Care, International Cooperation and Development, Debt restructing for poor nations, cap and trade carbon markets) are GOOD for the nation and the world.

Is it likely that Senator Clinton will be strong on campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of lobbyists, ending pork-barreling "earmark" budget items? Can she, with or without a majority in both Houses of Congress, be able to bring about the rather sensible concept of line-item veto to prevent earmarks if she can't get those eliminated in the first place. Senator Obama's campaign does have a point that as part of the LONG ESTABLISHED Washington political machinery, can we really expect her to work hard for those kinds of reforms.

I think that the answer is a resounding YES, but will it really be working hard enough for her to succeed on every front? It cannot possibly be that easy. At least not unless we also give her the kind of OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of elected members of CONGRESS, too. It may take that kind of solidarity to reform and reverse the damages done by the current administration, but we need to act swiftly. We need immediate action on the "War" in Iraq (remember, we cannot BE "at war" without a formal declaration from CONGRESS, not just the actions of the President and the military), and with repect to Climate Change. We need strong legislation and decisive policies and we need them as soon as possible.

If you could pick today: Obama or Clinton?

Tough question.

I've been watching the debates, and some of the candidates positions, and I think that Hillary's experience in dealing with the Washington process, which is, after all, a process of compromise to arrive at the best solution that can be achieved which is acceptable to both sides, is a really important factor. When she is "accused" of falsely claiming to have represented the US in foreign trips, and the claim is made that Madelaine Albright (as Secretary of State) was the "real" voice of our country in the rest of the world, these attacks are essentially unfounded, and worse, the attackers know that they are unjustified slights on the work Senator Clinton did as First Lady. She was the soft persuasive voice, one of the "back channel" channels the news people like to talk about who often are the "real" diplomats that bring about compromise on the more visible side of the world stage.

We recently saw picutres of Mrs Clinton and Mrs Benazir Bhutto walking together. I doubt that either of them could bake a pumpkin pie, nor were they likely to be exchanging recipes. Yes, clearly they could be talking about raising their children (and the special nuances of doing so with millions of people watching), but I rather suspect that they were more likely discussing microfinance and its ability to provide economic opportunities to impoverished women to start businesses that not only sustain families, but can bring about relative prosperity rather rapidly. Both of the Clintons were very active in this field for decades now.

That is not to say that Obama is not appealing, and for some similar reasons. He too has been working (or did, in the past) to better the lives of less fortunate citizens. He too got things done by "political" means of compromise and forging agreements between groups with conflicting interests. He also brings his youthful enthusiasm and eloquent speaking style. He can be very persuasive on the mass scale of public speaking, which, as many people know, is what brought him to national attention through his speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. I like, too, that Senator Obama comes as half of a highly capable couple. Michele, like Hillary, is a highly educated, articulate and dynamic partner in their marriage, as we have already seen on the campaign trail.

So how would I vote? Well, I recognize that there are those who will have negative reactions to each of these two candidates, but given an absolute freedom to vote the way I would want, I would "VOTE" for a Presidential "ticket" of Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as her Vice-President, and hope that we might see President Obama emerge from the 2016 election.

I have not doubt that Obama can be a GREAT President, but I would like to see him take on that task after an apprenticeship under the very capable tutelage of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton. With 8 years of that kind of guidance, and experience, I truly believe he could be the greatest US President of ALL TIME, or at least maybe second after Jefferson.

Love

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

p.s. If you didn't catch my posts elsewhere, I am tickled pink (some of my more conservatives friends think I'm a little pink, tickled or not) that we now can get Arabic language television via satellite in the USA through DISH Network

p.p.s. I am also really pleased to have found a new diet, even though I am planning on opening a website at http://undietlifestyle.winfotech.com soon. (It may not be working yet, but it should be "soon")