On November 16, 2007 I wrote on this blog, “I personally dis-associated myself from a friend who showed himself to be a bigot and I would not be part of any group that stood for any bigotry.”

Today Barack Obama stated, “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies,” Obama said. “I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue.”

Quoting from an AP report, “He said Wright’s controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his ties to the 6,000-member congregation church – he and his wife were married there and their daughters baptized – Obama decided not to leave the church.”

On As an Independent I liked Barack Obama.  I voted for him in the Democratic California primary.  I must hold someone I would support for president of the United States to the same standards I set for myself.  Hillary Clinton is no angel (playing the race card, playing on fear, and keeping too many secrets).  John McCain has at least two faults (he opposes a national health care system and would fight a war in Iraq for a hundred years).

When I vote in November I will be holding my nose.

I am a political independent and a moderate. The California registration form asking your party designation calls it “decline to state” if you are not joining any party.  Almost 20% of us Californians are in this category.  The reason I changed to an independent is that I found myself disagreeing with many Democratic party views.  That percentage “decline to state” people has doubled in the past ten years.  It’s no wonder that this has happened.  The state legislature has been incompetent for years.  Our state has been mismanaged by both political parties.

Right wing members of the Republican party need to understand that this is a democracy.  Americans accept the results of the ballot box.  So James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all the rest of you right wing leaders(?) get over it.  The vote is in.  Unless Mike Huckabee accomplishes an extraordinary rise in popularity John McCain will be your party’s candidate.  That is a good thing because moderates like me will consider voting for him.  In other words you have a chance at holding on to the presidency.

Democrats also need to accept the wishes of the voters in their primaries.  Super delegates who can vote without regard to the wishes of the voting public should not have the power to determine the candidate.  Where is the democracy in that process?  Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are viable candidates.

Talk show hosts need to “calm down” as John McCain has stated.  The also should control their sentiments and provide more “fair and balanced” coverage of the political races.  The could attract for more listeners and viewers if they followed this advise.

Rabbis, ministers, and preachers and their groups should stay out of politics.  Religious differences can destroy a nation.  Iraq is a good example of the strife that those differences can bring.  Separation of church and state ought to be honored by everyone.   

I am disappointed that both Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards have left the race for president. Both would have done a very good job.  The remaining candidates have too many flaws.  I will be forced to make an unenthusiastic choice.

John McCain is almost the moderate Republican that I could support.  He has three serious flaws.  He is opposed to any form of universal health care.  That is an issue that is very personal for me.  My son has no health care plan.  My wife and daughter have plans that are very expensive.  Second he says, if it is necessary, he will keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years to win the war. The third issue is his age.  He will be 72 years old on inauguration day.  The job of president is very demanding and one that really requires the attention of a younger and healthier person.  Whomever he selects as vice president has to be someone that really can step into the presidency.  Is that the way we want to select the next president?  

Mitt Romney has a history of changing positions on too many issues.  I do not know his real views on any major issue.  His flip flopping and turning and twisting tell me nothing about what he would do as president.

Barack Obama stands for “change we can believe in” and has a poster reading “stand up for change.”  I do not know what that means.  He has no administrative experience and has had a very short time in the senate.  He does have chutzpah.  Many younger voters are supporting him because they find him inspiring.  My question is, “where’s the beef?”

Hillary Clinton has experience and knowledge of the working of government.  She also has Bill Clinton and both of them are too much the manipulators.  Her campaign methods make me uncomfortable.  It’s her “know it all” attitude that bothers me.  We need a president that can bring our nation together.  She alienates people.  Who would agree to be vice president or secretary of state for Hillary Clinton?

“there is, perhaps, one large American political figure who could cause depressed, fractious Republicans to bind their wounds, downplay their divisions, renew their purpose, and join hands in blissful unity at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Republican convention.  And that figure is Hillary Clinton.” Michael Gerson, Former Bush speechwriter in a Newsweek article.  That was so apparent in the January 24 GOP debate in Boca Raton, Florida.

 If the only thing uniting Republicans is their common hatred for Hillary Clinton the party will most definitely lose.  John Kerry was not a good candidate for the Democrats in 2004 but they rallied around him because they hated George W. Bush.  The GOP needs more than hatred to win in November.  They need an inspiring candidate with a vision.

The January 22 Democratic Debate on CNN was a real Donnybrook.  The arguing between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama was more like two children fighting over nothing of consequence.  It made both of them look foolish.  Bill Clinton wading into the melee added nothing but another child like behavior.  I believe Hillary won the arguments but she made herself look foolish.  The outcome was that John Edwards came through as the adult with real issues.

It’s been driving me just a little nutty.  The word is “change.”  I thought perhaps I am the only one noticing this almost drum beat use of the word.  So, I avoided writing about it.  I was wrong.  The cover article on today’s Los Angeles Times Opinion page is The Empty Promise < http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-noah13jan13,1,1572050.story?ctrack=1&cset=true> by Timothy Noah.  He too questions the use of this word. 

The primary user of this word is Barak Obama.  His slogan is “Change we can believe in.”  The problem is he does not explain those changes.  He has had signs printed with this slogan and many people at his campaign speaking sites are waving them vigorously.  He is asking us to believe in him without giving us any of the detail.  This has prompted me and many pundits to ask the question “where is the beef?” 

If any candidate wants my vote he/she will have to tell me their plans.  Selecting a president on faith is not good enough.  The current and previous president is proof enough that faith is not enough.

The first three election caucuses and primary elections represent less than ½ of 1% of the total population of our nation.  Despite this small number, the pundits and talk show hosts have delivered the final results.  They have almost told us who the next president will be.

I disagree with the idea that they know any more than me or any of my friends and acquaintances.  Everyone seemed to believe that Barak Obama would win today’s New Hampshire Democratic primary well ahead of Hillary Clinton.  Now that we know the results it will be difficult to believe anything those pundits say. 

I changed my political party affiliation after voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor in October of 2003.  I had been a Democrat during all of my previous adult life. The reality was that the previous governor, Gray Davis (D), was doing an incompetent job.  It was obvious that a change was necessary.  Now that I am not part of either political party I can really evaluate the pros and cons of all the candidates.  It has been a refreshing experience.

The following entry was posted on a news blog in a response to a news item about Barak Obama’s growing popularity in the polls.  The writing may not be perfect but the thought could be a worthwhile guide to America’s thought processes.  

Talk is cheap. Obama is inexperienced and America is less intelligent than I even thought if we buy into this man who does not have any new ideas or specifics about what he will do as President other than to say lets change and hope for better things. To me this shows that he is naive and this is the real world.

He speaks in generalities and as the law professor that he was in the past. America is basically an optimistic country, but it does no good when it can not be enacted. Obama is a talker and not a doer.

I hope (good huh?) that America sends him back to the U.S. Senate and let him vote and take a stand on issues and work through what he really believes in, then come back and try again from President. Times are too serious for his rookie status and the impression that he is God come back to save us all.  dmw, roeland park,ks

Oh, this was a very long recording on my DVR.  We went square dancing while the DVR set me up for a Sunday review.

It continues to mystify me that the two political parties are rarely discussing the same issues.  Are these parties discussing issues in two different countries?  The message I receive is that Republicans and Democrats really have different visions of America.  That is really too bad for its citizens.  It may be the reason that the meeting at the University of Oklahoma tomorrow, January 7, may be very significant.

We need a president that can lead all Americans.  The closest candidates that meet these criteria are Barak Obama and John Edwards.  But they also do not address the issues that are discussed in any of the Republican debates.  That may be the reason that the Oklahoma meeting is really very important for our nation.

“The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to restore stability and democracy in a turbulent, nuclear-armed Islamic nation that has been a critical ally in the war on terror”.  This from an analysis written by Matthew Lee of the Associated Press. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071227/D8TQ1RKO0.html

This was a truly sad event for Ms. Bhutto’s family, Pakistan, and the United States.  George W. Bush’s nation building was all about spreading democracy.  That opportunity now seems remote in Pakistan.  The assassination also signals us that we live in a desparate world that will do anything to stop the changes that the western world wants to advance everywhere.

The fragility of many U.S. allies in the Islamic world reminds us that our national issues can be overshadowed by events on the other side of the world.  If we let this fear distract us, the United States will no longer be a leader.

Too many political commentators are saying that this assassination will change our voting behavior in the elections of 2008. ”. That would not be good for America.