MucheDumbre

Because he knows that we are all Americans and it doesn’t matter if we live in small towns or big cities…”We All Love This Country”

You can either search congress for the ‘anti-americans’.Travel only in the ‘real’ America while dividing yourself from the rest of America..You can keep throwing every attack you can find, whether that be visiting his dying grandmother on a campaign plane, or because he said in down times people hold on to their religion.

Or, you can unite and believe “in the future we can build together..”

Why Obama?

…if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation, and if it can change the nation it can change the world...

If you can listen to end of that and not feel hope. Not feel inspiration, not feel that “Yes, we can…” Yes, we can be better, we can do better, we can do anything if we stand together…. then Vote for McCain because there is nothing more I or anyone else can do to help you decide.

If you would rather listen to the same old attacks that lost McCain the Republican nomination in 2000? Tune into Fox news or watch any McCain ad, because he has hired the same attack dogs that George Bush used against him.

But if you want change, If you want unity, if you want an end to the last 8 years of division. Vote Obama.

Why Obama?

Sure, it’s easy to be cynical and say it can’t be done… One voice can’t do anything. One man can’t change anything. Why should we hope for anything?

There has never been anything false about hope…. When we have faced down impossible odds, we we’ve been told we’re not ready or we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t.. Generations of Americans have responded……. Yes we can!

Why Obama?

Because… with him we can be the America that is prosperous, caring, respected, feared and envied.

Don’t roll your eyes… Yes, we can.

Breaking news: The Surge worked.

Actually it’s not so breaking.  The results have been apparent for several months now.  Civilian casualties are down, military casualties are down, and acts of violence in general are down.  Iraq is no paradise, but on the other hand it’s not quite the hell on earth that could have safely described it in 2006.  It’s hard to argue now that it was the wrong strategy, so let’s take a look down memory lane and see who opposed it eh?

Senator John Kerry:  “The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn’t the answer–in fact, it’s a tragic mistake. It won’t end the violence; it won’t provide security; …it won’t turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won’t deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won’t rein in the militias.”

Kerry’s fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, declared the surge, “an immense new mistake.”  Kennedy actively tried to fight sending any more troops.

Senator Christopher Dodd, former Presidential candidate and onetime threesome partner with the previously mentioned Senator Kennedy:  “We don’t need a surge of troops in Iraq–we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years–Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers–has drawn the same conclusion–there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (really, is that his real name?), when asked is she was worried that the gains of the surge might be lost if the troops were removed too hastily, “There haven’t been gains, Wolf…The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.”

Governor Bill Richardson, former Presidential candidate and yapping Vice Presidential wannabe had this to say on the surge:  “The president is wrong. We don’t need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge. We must get all our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Senator Joseph Biden, yet another former Presidential nominee, and currently running for either Obama’s Vice President or his Secretary of State, whichever will put him in front of the cameras the most, told this to Secretary of State Rice on the surge:  “We heard a plan to escalate the war, not only in Iraq but possibly into Syria and Iran as well…I believe the President’s strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice, I believe it is a tragic mistake.”

And of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who tried to play the man in her ultimately failed Presidential race against Senator Barack Obama:  “Based on the president’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq…The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The president has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to take us down the wrong road, only faster.”

There was some Democratic support however.  Senator Lieberman said this in support of the surge:  “it’s just unfair to our troops implementing the surge, to Gen. Petraeus, who helped create this totally different strategy — which is working — to essentially pull the rug out from under them, to take away their reason for fighting before they even have a chance.”

Oh wait, Lieberman is an independent now.  Although he caucuses with the Democrats he is regarded as traitor.  Quite a fall from being the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate 7 plus years ago.  But I don’t want to make it sound like only Democrats opposed the surge.  There was some Republican opposition as well. 

Retiring fence sitter and amateur historian Senator John Warner had this to say, “Young men and women of US forces and coalition forces should not be caught in the crossfire of a civil war prompted by who should have succeeded Mohammed in — what is it? — 650 AD?”

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who teased the country on his decision to think about deciding to consider whether to entertain the notion of running for President, had this to say:  “This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq.”

But right now, the opinions of those who matter most are the two Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.  Come January of next year, no matter who wins, George Bush will be packing his bags and whatever White House towels he can get away with.  As he leaves, his policies leave with him.

McCain’s views on the surge are well known.  In fact, you could argue that he risked his political career on the surge.  But what did fellow contender, Barack Obama have to say?

Before the surge: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

After the surge was announced:  “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Of course you will have to look a little bit for Obama’s earlier comments now.  He scrubbed his website to clear out his previous anti surge comments.  Now, guess what?  The surge worked:  “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.”

Hey, anyone can be wrong.  It’s possible that someday I might be wrong about something.  It’s not likely, but never say never.  But it’s stunning when an entire political party is wrong about something so important.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media was as one on the idea a year and a half ago that the surge couldn’t work and shouldn’t be tried. 

In this election, Barack Obama isn’t running on the experience card.  McCain has that locked up.  He’s running on his judgment. Because he opposed the war on Iraq, he is somehow supposed to have better judgment?  Sean Penn opposed the war too and he thought it was a good idea to marry Madonna.  His supposedly superior judgment had him opposing the surge too.

It wasn’t judgment that had Obama opposing the war,  it was the reflex of the anti-war left.  The same reflex that had him oppose the surge.  I’m still waiting for an example of his good judgment.

Rumors have been swirling that Obama,Dean and Pelosi are trying to negotiate Hillary’s name off of the ballot at the Convention next month. It seems they don’t mind her being on the ballot as long as it’s as a symbolic, roll-call gesture . They want her name on the ballot, they just don’t want placed on the ballot for nomination.

Neither Obama nor Hillary won enough votes to secure the nomination. Obama may have 390 more of them if all the super delegates who pledged to him actually vote for him at the convention. But with his shine getting a little a duller and with 18 million voters voting for Hillary, having her name as a nominee on the ballot and having to listen to all her delegate vote for her would make his ass pucker. All it would take is for her to have prime placement in the speeches and just knock it out of the park. The amount of delegates she has and the problems with his incessant flip-flopping could remind the delegates that she really does have a damn good chance of beating McCain. If she, or Bill were to remind them that her poll numbers against McCain were better than the 46% he and Obama share now…. Who knows what could happen and that’s why he needs to get her of the nominating ballot.

So what can he do about that? Well he can use his political influence to make sure that she is taken off the ballot as a nominee and placed there just as his symbolic 2nd. He’s done this before. Obama only likes to win when he’s uncontested. When Alice Palmer, the former state senator who picked Obama to be her successor back in the mid-90s wanted back on the ticket, he had her kicked off. The problem with Hillary is that there is no legal reason to have her bumped off the ballot. More than that though, if her voters aren’t allowed to vote for her then it’s game on and party unity my ass.

It would be quite embarrassing to Obama if there was a open-air-stadium-like response to Hillary getting on stage and giving a blow-out speech.. This is his shining moment and Hillary can’t be allowed to outshine him once again. But at the same time, Obama wants to project a ‘party-unity’ that just isn’t there. In order to keep that faux-appearance, Hillary just can’t be on the ballot and steal the sunshine from his over-whelming, ever engorging ego. It would ruin his grand plan to take over the world.

Don’t think he has a plan?

Ha-ha Ha-ha Ha-ha

He’s going to give his outdoor stadium speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK “I have a dream” speech while being the 1st nominee to give an outdoor speech since JFK did it in 1960. Yeah, someone is a little full of himself huh?

Here’s the thing. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if it’s embarrassing to Barack Obama. His people screamed like little bitches that Michigan shouldn’t count because he wasn’t on the ballot when they are the ones who took him off. So could you imagine the screaming and race-crying if there was a plan in the mix to get him placed on the ballot as a token 2nd choice? I think Motley Crue, The beatles and Charles Manson had a prediction for that scenario called “Helter Skelter”

This Manson predicted scenario is really just one wrong move from happening as it is. If the press caves, if Obama misteps in such a way that it just can’t be ingored we might have to call Charlie “profit” instead of whack-o-nut. But it would take alot to make the press go against the messiah I mean have you read a story on Obama? The other day there was a story that comics can’t even make fun of him, in that story the writer says

“But there has been little humor about Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique”

Is he Adonis or something? Maybe he’s Jesus? Or maybe he’s the reincarnation of Budda himself .

Jon Stewart tried to make fun of him, but met resistance from the audience. He had to tell them “You know, you’re allowed to laugh at him.”

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm ….Did Jim Jones’ followers ever laugh at him?

Every week I decide I am going to have to swallow my hatred and get on the ball and get the bad stuff out about McCain. Because there really is a lot of stuff out there….. I mean look at this response to a question about his surrogate saying that some health insurance will pay for viagra and not birth control and women would like to have the choice (response at about 5:00).

Could you imaging him being asked a really important question? HA!

Anyway, every week I want to change. I hope that I can finally sit down and do something positive about Barack or if not positive then something about McCain. But every week Barack tweaks my ire with something else and I completely forget about the crazy old man that might just be our next president and I shouldn’t.

This man is just as dangerous and the other one.

How in the hell did we get these 2 “unelectables in a sane year” as our only 2 choices?

Three words

George W Bush.

Yes, that’s right. What kind of liberal rant would this be without putting some kind of blame on Bush? But it’s true. The DNC figured that no matter what and no matter who, they had this election in the bag. The republicans could clone Ronald Reagan and it wouldn’t matter. George Bush fucked this country up so bad and didn’t give one shit about it that anyone running as a (D) would win.

Look say what would want, but even McCain knows this and is doing everything in his power to avoid being linked to Bush.

So the DNC is all it’s wisdom gave us…. No forced upon us.. A liberals wet-dream. No the wet-dream isn’t a woman… No-no… the true liberal wet dream is a good looking black man. Harold Ford jr would have been my choice, but his skeletons have already been vetted out so a no name senator would have do. Hopefully he could get the nomination and election before they were weeded out by the press. But if not, what to do?

Then, a “Karl Rove like” idea was formed.

Anytime anyone dissed this candidate, scream racism.( Which as you know is the liberal kryptonite.) Scream it at every charge and eventually no one will make any more charges and if the do they can be put off as people who just don’t like blacks.

Howard Dean may not have known about Obama deciding to do the open-air stadium rapture until he saw it on the news, but he damn sure knows his liberals.

The problem is liberals don’t just sit silent and fall in with the party-line because the party wants them to. But to silence them forever Dean and his subordinates can only do one more thing to ensure the nomination goes to the exalted one. Get Hillary off the ballot at the convention.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope The Denver Group accomplishes it’s goal. Because Hillary may be an old school politician, but she is still better and saner than anyone else out there. The question is though, are more and more people with the power to do something about it paying attention?

I am a Drudge reader. I don’t share his politics, I think he’s dangerous to Hollywood movies and over all I think he’s a nut. But he’s a master at getting the scoop and his site lays out everything in a nice, neat, easy to read package.

Today though, I think something in him broke.

He really can’t be this incensed. He really can’t think this is newsworthy enough to take up the entire computer screen. Not even the tsunami that killed 500.000 people got that much space. The Iraq war didn’t get that much space. Saddam Hussien’s execution and. Benazir Bhutto’s shocking assassination didn’t get that much space. But Hillary Clinton referencing RFK’s assassination warrants this much ‘shock and awe’?

Does it really? This the news I should take the most interest in?

-After weeks Myanmar is finally allowing AID groups to come in and help.
-Tornado’s tear through Kansas
-Court rules the FDLS had their kids stolen from them by the state of Texas

But the news that I need to be aware of is that Hillary Clinton said something stupid.

I understand Chris Matthews walking around with a boner when this story broke. He hates Clinton and anything she says he takes to a whole new level of bizarre. I expect that. Just as I expect Sean Hannity to excuse every mistake the Bush Administration makes. And to be honest, I expected it a little from Matt Drudge. But this? This is just sick.

I guess I’m supposed to be mad at her or something. I still haven’t figured out what the reaction is supposed to be. She has been hounded and hounded over staying in the race and she said something stupid. It was a valid, but stupid, point. What it wasn’t was a code to get Jason Bourne to take action.

I’ve been told that the reason I should be mad is that people are already afraid that he’ll be assassinated. What!? If you and he are that afraid then maybe he needs to step down and go home because this isn’t little league, this is the office of the President of the United States and unfortunately crazy people out there have shot at them before. But guess what, none those presidents were black, so maybe he has nothing to worry about.

Did it ever occur to the Obama “Lets take this and push it out of control by saying it’s racial” spin room that the same people who don’t want a black man as president might not want a woman either? Gee, I don’t know when the last black leader was assassinated, but I do know when the last woman leader was.

The media is not supposed to influence people with their personal agenda’s. The media is supposed to inform people about what is going on in the world around them. The Op-Ed pages are supposed to be where the personal opinions and influences goes. If this explosion of Hillary-Hate has done anything it’s shown me that Drudge isn’t media. He isn’t the news-mogul I always thought he was and even though I didn’t share his beliefs I still respected. I still respect him and I will still read his page, but from now on the blinders are off and I see that he is just the print version of Andy Rooney. Or the un-funny version of Bill Maher’s “New Rules”. That realization makes me sad because now I have to find another news source, one that isn’t trying to incense me over a stupid remark from one candidate and trying to hide from me the preaching and teachings from the other candidates past. I’m an informed adult and as such I want to read the news and make my own decision. I do not want a recluse deciding for me what is and isn’t important.

The funny thing about all of this. Sites like TMZ and Dlisted are looked down upon because the sell gossip. But you know what, they don’t have an agenda and they don’t spin it. When Brittany breaks down, they report it. They don’t twist it or skewer it. They just give it to you raw. Yet they are looked upon as something lower than real media. I guess that shows you where the American media is at. News isn’t the raw ugly truth anymore, it what Matt Drudge’s opinion says it is.