White House Lectures US on 'Jihad'

The White House's Counterterror Advisor lectured the people of the United States on the derogatory usage of the word 'Jihad' - one which they say is a legitimate tenant of Islam and thus should not be targeted or diminished by the US government or her people. In a move that is both an example of political correctness nuttary AND more evidence of the absolute disconnect of the Obama administration from reality, many across the nation and world are left wondering - WTF?

Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either. "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,"

The word Jihad was first used by the Al Qieda group, as a call for a Holy Struggle, or a Holy War to cleanse the Holy Lands of infidel - the tactic was to bring war to the infidels - the the West.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims.

The key words of the last statement being: "FOR ALL MUSLIMS". Nay, Mr Brennan, not for all, rather for the ones determined to return the Middle East to a strict Muslim prison, and extent the tenants of Islam to everyone else, by force.

Maybe I should wait for the White House's next great lesson on Islam: that freedom can only come to a man who submits entirely to Allah!

Next thing you know the US Vice President will address a foreign league of leaders in a foreign city and declare that place the world's true capitol of freedom... oh wait - Biden already made that Declaration in Brussels.

How do we the people opt out of our 'obligatory servitude' to these idiots?

Palin: Pointing Fingers at Bush, in the past, is NOT Change

Perhaps one of my favorite clips from the Vice Presidential debate last night was when Sarah Palin challenged the "change" that Obama/Biden represent, versus the reform that McCain/Palin represent. Obama and Biden are pushing the blame game, attempting to play off the emotion of the people, insisting that "A Republican by any other name is still a Bush!"

Palin struck back with the following:

h/t to Brigate for posting this clip at: Desde la resistencia - where she also explains why McCain may be hesitant to visit with her President in Spain.

Sarah Palin is right. Once the next President gets in office the fingers are going to be pointed at him! So your strategy had better be more than pointing fingers to bring the country together.

Real change is a reform in government - not a societal change of leftist policies and hate politics - there is no "Unity" in that... merely a political catch phrase. Obama has no record of Unity, and is openly disgusted by conservatives and Republicans in General. So much for "Change"

Huffington Post Predicts Palin Win?

A backhanded compliment, but the Huffington Post is predicting that Sarah Palin wows America with her debating skills tomorrow night. This could be pre-damage control to ensure the base that her oratory skills and demeanor under the pressure of debate should not detract from her "poor showings" on her two liberal media news interviews.

The Huff even went as far as placing a video compilation of Sarah's debating skills, after targeting her style as "just words" with no substance:

Perhaps this is the Liberal Left's way of some pre-debate damage control. Lowering the bar on Biden while suggesting that even if Palin wins, it is not a worthy feat...Unfortunately, McCain has allowed the leftist media to use the last month to define Sarah Palin as an ignorant 2nd rate leader not worthy of her PTA post - I think they have another thing coming.

My hope is that Palin creams Biden, as she did the gentlemen from Alaska in the clip above - and once this is complete, she then takes the vigor to the campaign trail, and that the McCain campaign let's Sarah Palin be what I know she can be: A fighter, A Reformer, and the Next Vice President of These United States.

Maybe THAT is the GOP October Surprise.

Vice President - Biden or Palin as the Future?

As Joe Biden continues his embarrassing string of gaffes, one has to wonder what Obama must have been thinking in selecting Joe. If foreign policy was his only discriminator, Biden is even sketchy on that - as he has been wrong for about 30 years!

But what I want to question is the importance of the Vice Presidential selection, and what it is supposed to represent as the future of the respective party.

When a President's term is up, it is generally the Vice President who is the next in line to run for the party in power. This election is an anomaly, which was widely discussed after the 2004 Bush victory, in that Cheney would not seek the Oval Office.

As we look at our prospects for President, we must also look at the selection of VP running mates, and what they represent for the next election cycle.

Obama's selection of Joe Biden would indicate that, should Obama/Biden win, Biden would be next in line in 2016. If Biden insists, as Cheney did, that he would not seek the White House in 2016, it would bring into question the selection of VP candidates, and the role of the VP for the future of the White House. More importantly, it represents the end of the Clintons in White House politics. If Obama and Biden gain victory, and Biden makes the move in 2016, Clinton would appear as a spoiler should she attempt to unseat the "next in line" candidate.


Obama's selection of Joe Biden means that the future of the Democratic Party - in a Post Obama Democratic Party - will be in the hands of a 74 year old Presidential Candidate, which is two years older than John McCain in the 2008 race. Biden will not just be a 74 year old, but a 74 year old with a history of aneurysms. Biden, as a symbol of the future of the Democratic party, and as a symbol of the future of America, is not a confidence builder on either front! That, of course, does not bring into account that less than 1% of Democrats wanted the gaffe master as their candidate to begin with.

Now let's look at the Republican selection. John McCain recognized that he needed to make a selection for the future of the party, and a leader for the future of America. Sarah Palin will be 52 in 2016, and 48 in 2012 - assuming that McCain stays only one term in office. Palin represents the conservative wing of the Feminist movement. Palin represents Conservative Reform in the party. Palin has the ability to bring the country together under a clean government initiative, sweeping ethics reforms in business and government dealings, and bring our society back from the brink.

As I watch the Presidential Race, I have to look at the Vice Presidential choices as the first indicator of decision making ability and intent for the future.

Palin was a great choice. Though she is not a well known Washington insider power house, she has the experience and the ability - her record of advancement proves it. And she did it all on her own.

Biden has indicated that he was a poor choice as a running mate, that he was wrong on foreign policy remarks, that the White House is not a place where you get OJT, that Obama is wrong on America's energy future, that FDR was president in 1929 - and that we had Television in 1929, that Indians are welcome in his community at the 7-11's, and that Obama makes poor judgement in his campaign advertisements.

Who best represents the future of our nation?

Blog Buzz - Biden Dumped for Clinton?

A simple Google Search of "Biden Dumped for Clinton" gives a stream of blog buzz regarding Barry Hussein's major flop in selecting Joey "Hair-Plug" as his Vice Presidential Running Mate - beginning around the time of Joe Biden's "Hillary would have made a better choice" comment.

Of course Biden is the Gaffe-master, but is he really setting the stage for a VP switch, as suggested by the blogging world? If so, what would that look like, and what legalities would have to take place? Surely an October 5th bait and switch would not leave ample time to change ballots in the 50 states plus territories voting...

The DNC's bylaws simply describe one of the committee's responsibilities as "filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President." (See Page 7 of this document [PDF].) The bylaws do not, however, explain how the DNC would go about making its decision or how all ~400 members of the committee would be allowed to vote.

The most recent case was in 1972, when Thomas Eagleton withdrew from the ticket under George McGovern after disclosure of previous shock therapy brought into question the seriousness of his depression. In this case, a "mini-convention" was convened on Aug 8th (as the conventions of that election were held MUCH earlier than the 2008 election), 275 DNC members attended, and had to formally elect a new candidate for VP - in that case, Shriver.

Simply put, Obama cannot "simply" replace his VP pick... though Biden may withdraw of his own accord - but it may be political suicide for him... it is notable, however, that he is running a re-election campaign for the senate in conjunction to the Vice Presidential bid - as allowed by Deleware state law. A withdrawal for severe health reasons may hinder the Obama candidacy, but it may bring into question his ability to hold a Senate seat for an additional 6 years.


That being said, the DNC would have to officially reconvene in some extent to reconfirm a new Vice Presidential nominee.

Politically, such a move by the Democratic Party would be seen as a last-ditch move on the part of the Democrats. It would demoralize the Democratic Party. Although a decent number would welcome an Obama-Clinton ticket, an equal number would see it for what it is: sheer desperation.

The Republican backlash across the nation would result in an overwhelming Republican turnout and Republican landslide not seen since Nixon defeated the McGovern/Shriver ticket in 1972.

Biden: Our Platform is to Redistribute Wealth

Biden has finally admitted what we have known for so long - the goal of the Obama/Biden Democratic party is to force the final bits of socialization of the Untied States.

Call me a fear monger? Or am I just telling the truth?

Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the wealthy must pay more taxes to show their patriotism.

"it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

What Biden seems to be forgetting to tell people is that an increased tax at the higher level, coupled with a near elimination of taxes at the lower level is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. It is a punishment of those who work hard and accomplish more. It is a punishment on intellect, innovation, and accomplishment.

And what Biden fails to recognize is that Free distribution of wealth, through charity work and charity giving, is the True American Way!

Now, I would not expect Biden to recognize charitable giving, considering that his $300,000 income only afforded him $350 worth of bread crumbs to toss to the poor.

The socialization of America is nearly complete:

• The US government is continuing to "bail-out" mega-companies with Taxpayer dollars, seating the US government as the CEO of each company. They are months away from a complete take-over of the entire business market. Do you think the Taxpayers have a say? No - we are merely the working pawns, generating worth (not wealth) for the continuation of the government.
• The US has taken education out of the hands of the states, and federalized a state institution with "No Child" legislation. Obama and Biden promise to go further, eliminating state control to ensure equal schooling (for better or worse) throughout the United States, run entirely by a central Dept. of Education. Any hope for school choice? No - we cannot be trusted to educate our own children, or choose who we want educating them on our behalf.
• The Dept of Treasury has long since been usurped by the Federal Reserve, but in light of the current economic crisis it is important to point out the failure of the Federal Reserve. The Fed has no consideration for actual wealth - only perceived wealth. It is an institution that has devalued the American Dollar to the point that the money is worth less than the paper it is printed on. A perfect example is in the AIG bail-out. The answer from the Fed was to flood the market with newly printed dollars - driving the value of the dollar down. This gives the perception of wealth... however, when a $0.69 loaf of bread costs $5.00, and you find yourself in a breadline, you can thank the Socialist Reserve - um - the Federal Reserve.

The list goes on.

With Obama/Biden at the helm, the transformation from a Republican form of Government (article IV, section 4 - US Constitution) into a Socialist form of Government will be complete. They have shown the intent of their "change" to be the transformation of a free society to a society of proletarians - a working class whose only purpose is to provide worth for the government to continue survival.

Understand that the Socialist philosophy indicates that the source of wealth is labor. The more we work, as a collective society, the better off our society will be in the end. This is precisely the case for the symbolism of the socialist parties: Hammer, sycle, and gear. Symbols of labor. Dumb, hard, labor. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

In contrast, the Capitalist philosophy indicates that the source of wealth is innovation. The free market's freedom to succeed and fail based on leadership, new ideas, and creativity in the market causes fluctuation, but is based on the success of new technology.

If there was ever more of a reason to NOT vote for Obama, it would be that he supports the path that Bush has put the nation on - one of an authoritarian Socialized society. John McCain and Sarah Palin are the true anti-Bush on society, and have pledged to revisit the rules and regulations that are as outdated as an Atari. The real shake-up comes from a candidate with new ideas - not the instillation of old Marxist ideas.

Don't give Obama/Biden the free pass on their ideals. They are in favor of the further socialization of this once great nation... Don't support the "Che 2008"!

269-269 Electoral Tie - Civics 101 or 440?

Colorado and New Hampshire are absolute MUST WINS for McCain/Palin, else we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis where the House of Reps would be responsible to select the President of these United States, and under the 12th Amendment, the Senate would select the Vice President.
Let's start this discussion by looking at the electoral map. Based on the most recent state-by-state polls, three states previously won by Bush may be leaning towards Obama - Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. One state won by Kerry in 2004 may be leaning towards McCain - New Hampshire. If this is the case, there is no majority winner in the electoral college vote. Each party will receive only 269 votes, and as such, no President will be named due to the outcome of the election.

The 12th Amendment of the Constitution states that in the case of no majority in the electoral college, the vote for President goes to the House of Representatives, each state receiving only one vote, and similarly a separate vote will be cast for the Vice-Presidency. This means that the party tickets could be broken up, and the representatives will select the party leadership.

What my research has found is that it would not be the current Congress who casts the votes - rather the newly elected Congress. This would potentially give Obama an advantage, as the representatives of each state will have to work together to cast a vote for the state - a heavy loss in Congressional seats by Republicans would ensure that a vote favors the Democrats (could be Obama, could be another compromise Democrat, like Hillary).

Unfortunately, if a state delegation is tied, the votes from that state are uncounted. Below is a map of the 2006 election results, giving an example of which states would be in favor of which candidate, assuming no seats are lost to either party. Unfortunately, it is only a guide, as the house moved seats from some states to Western states growing in population.

If everyone in the House kept their seat, and neither party gained a single seat, Democrats would win: Democrats 28, Republicans 21, Tie 2. Obama wins, 28 votes to 21 (total is 51 because Washington, D.C. is counted as state for presidential elections).

Fortunately, the likelihood of another 2006 style Republican defeat is unlikely. The most important point to note is that Republicans must win in key states, where a vote would come down to one vote or a tie - turning the votes in favor of the Republican Candidates.

Stepping back from this scenario, it is dangerously clear that two states are in play for 2008 at this time: New Hampshire (where current polling gives Obama a 0.3% lead) and Colorado (where current polling gives Obama a 1.0% lead). If New Hampshire follows the suit of the Northeast, electing Democrats, and Colorado is pulled back into the traditional role of voting for Republicans, the crisis is averted, and McCain/Palin wins the election.

Should Colorado and New Hampshire both fall in favor of Obama, Obama wins at 273 electoral votes.

It is evidently clear that Colorado is the key state to both campaigns. The next President of the United States is going to have to set up a condo in Colorado... they can't afford not to!

McCain in the Polls - the Palin Bump is Killing Obama

Barack Obama's moment in the limelight may quickly be coming to an end. 30+ Million viewers watched his historic acceptance speech in his extravagantly constructed Greek Theatre on Thursday August 28th.

But then came August 29th - what will likely be known as Obama's Black Friday.

McCain made an announcement that would send shock waves through the political world - He named a little known, but highly effective reform Governor from the "tiny" state of Alaska as his running mate.

Instead of replaying the Obama speech on a loop all day Friday, Obama's speech was nowhere to be found. Instead, the news media was frantically trying to cover a HUGE story about someone they knew NOTHING about. They were left grasping at straws, trying to make a story - any story... and they ended up feeling the big hurt because of it. Their anointed one was no longer the story.

Sarah Palin, the first woman on the GOP ticket, gave her acceptance speech after 5 days of constant press coverage - to an audience of 30+ Million... even though she was covered by four less networks.

It would appear that McCain chose correctly.

And McCain's acceptance speech - one week after Obama's visual and oratory dream - received more viewership than Obama.

The game had clearly been changed - and all of Obama's attacks about making a poor choice for VP, and a week of comparing his record to that of the GOP VP nominee eliminated a commanding lead in the polls and in the headlines of all the major news outlets.

Obama's choice of Biden was intended to show strength through experience - but it showed a poor choice in planning for the future of the Democratic Party.

McCain's choice of Palin was intended to show reform through ethics and values - and hit the nail on the head.

Obama's failure to foresee McCain's strategy, and his clamoring in the week and a half since Palin was named as the VP have weakened his standing with the independents, the youth, the experienced - pretty much anyone outside of the "tow-the-line" Democratic Party.

Gallup reported yesterday on the swing heard around the world - a 9 point gain for McCain and a 4 point drop for Obama in two weeks - that is a 13 point swing in McCain's favor since the conventions kicked off. Gallup is not alone. As you can see in the attached graphic, McCain is tied or leading Obama in the selection of polls making up the RCP average, giving McCain a 1.2 point national advantage over Obama, representing an average swing of 8 points nationally in McCain's favor.

Sarah Palin represents a few things -

1. The strength of the "Every Woman" movement. This is different than the other wing of the feminist movement, where-in women have to become men to compete with them. The 'Every Woman' feminist is one who represents strength AND femininity. This is the Hockey Mom/Soccer Mom crowd.

2. Vitality. Her youth and endurance represent the future of a party - one who is capable of growth and leadership over a lengthy term of service.

3. Reform. When McCain picked Palin, he made the message loud and clear - The Republican Ticket was a reform ticket! Palin has cut the throats of corrupt Republicans with the ease of a warm knife in butter, and with a smile on her face. It is this same drive for a clean government that invigorates the voters who are desperate for a different kind of politician. They feel that they have that more with Palin on the GOP ticket than the duo of Obama/Biden.

For the time being, the Underdog campaign of John McCain has been boosted with the strength of Wonder-Woman. Scoring 54% in the USA/Gallup poll indicates that the independent voter may be willing to make a bet on the future by way of a reformed conservative movement, rather than a party representing the changing style of our society.

The Palin Bump has hit the polls - and even though she is number two on the ticket, there are many voters now decidedly supporting a "Palin/McCain" White House.

Obama/Biden - Disaster for Democrats

How better to start this blog than with a new ad that McCain had prepared in case Biden was the VP pick:

Joe Biden openly admits, and stands by his words, that Obama is not ready to lead - playing directly into John McCain's ad campaign attacking his readiness to lead:

"I think he can be ready but right now, I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training"

As I wrote earlier this week: Joe Biden would be a closer fit for the TRUE Obama - a radical leftist liberal in favor of socializing the US. Biden would bring foreign policy experience to the ticket, but selecting Biden would isolate Centrist Democrats, possibly giving them directly to McCain.

Obama could not have made this easier for the GOP. An Obama/Biden ticket is not a unity ticket. There is nothing of interest to conservative voters, nor centrist voters. This is a radical left ticket aimed at putting the nails in the coffin of conservatism - a maneuver that is sure to isolate the Democratic voting block to the far left.

Let's let Biden and Obama explain, in their own words, America as they see it:

2nd Amendment Rights:
Joe Biden accuses a gun owner of being mentally unqualified to own a weapon because he chooses to own a semi-automatic rifle.


Obama supports gun laws that would restrict any private owner of possessing a weapon, for any reason - as he supports the DC gun ban. (It is hard to get that message through the double speak - but listen closely)



Healthcare:
Joe Biden believes that government run healthcare is the only answer, supporting any democratic plan, and suggesting that government is an asset - not a problem - in getting involved with personal health planning


Obama is pushing a more stringent government run Hillary-care plan, asserting that government funding for healthcare is the goal for his socialist America - and clearly states that Abortion Rights are at the heart of his plan



General Feelings Toward America:
Obama believes that America is an inferior country, politically , socially, and structurally - and he will take every chance he can to share his thoughts on America's inferiority


Joe Biden is generally an idiot who believes that it is appropriate to compliment the Indian community by comparing them to the Simpon's Abu


The Democrats are going to have an uphill battle - with Obama slipping in the polls, Biden was not the pick to give him the bump necessary to wing the election in his favor.

Biden represents liberalism, and politics as usual (as one of the most senior senators for the Democrats) - this is not change - this is more of the same.

John McCain is now free to wow the press with a selection of Sarah Palin, bumping the "eh" factor of Biden with the "wow" factor of a true Maverick ticket for the GOP.

Could the 2008 Dem nominee STILL be Al Gore?

"And the nominee is..."

The crowd hushes, Hillary is smiling in the wings... Obama is pacing the in the pews...

"Al Gore..."

A buzz instantly fills the room... was Al Gore even in the race? Hillary can be seen, red faced, yelling at her campaign manager... Obama is in tears as he thinks of all the political leaders he wont get the chance to insult.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is not an actual situation, but an enactment of what could be the case during the Democratic Convention next year.

WHY? You ask... Well, The speculation of an Al Gore entry into the race is still afloat... and even Rasmussen, the most trusted name in polling, is predicting that regardless of the Clinton/Obama buzz, that the Democrats are going to pick a white male for their nominee. That leaves John Edwards and Al Gore.

What is better... Al Gore, without campaigning, is winning straw polls... The latest was the Scottsdale District 8 Straw Poll... It is no Ames, but voters had to pay $20 to cast a vote... and Gore walked away with the big win. He also came in second place to Edwards in the "popularity" vote. Clinton, Obama, and very far behind Richardson don't seem to have the support of the Central Arizona democrats... The same three don't really have the support in the Midwest, either... It is Edwards sweeping the middle-America crowds... which only means that if Al Gore enters the race, he will be the Democratic entity able to shake the Clinton foundation.

Speculation was that Gore would enter the race during the "save the earth" concert... but he didn't... With high numbers, high popularity, and the Democratic party secretly looking for the White Male candidate, the choice is Edwards or Gore. Recent speculation is that if gore's popularity and numbers continue to rise in the wake of the Draft Gore movement, December will be the kick-off of the Gore2008 campaign.

With political rivalries sizing up a Clinton nomination, throwing Al Gore into the mix could ruin the GOP strategy... (if I can figure out what that is, I will let you know). Remember, the GOP is planning to play the 51% "Definitely Will Not Vote Clinton" card VERY hard for the independents, as well as some of the Dems likely to jump ship. I know a few Dems who are in that category, and I don't blame them. There is a constant buzz in my community: "Anyone but Clinton"... and I think America Agrees.

So Al Gore... it looks like you may be getting the nomination after all...

GOP Candidates, be prepared for the shocker... just in case. Everyone else, keep your eyes on Florida!

God Bless.

Democrats Debate... YouTube Style...

Last night, America watched as the much hyped CNN/YouTube debate unfolded... The first 5 minutes were used to discuss which videos were not chosen, and why, what the format was supposed to be, and to once again claim the debate's innovative nature.

I took notes during the entire debate... what was the question, who answered, and did I consider it a positive or a negative response (not down political lines, but rather in the candidates body language, knowledge of the topic, and comfort in talking "face to face" with the everyday American)

I am not going to go through my notes line by line, but I am going to hit a few highlights...

Anderson Cooper, the moderator, is OBVIOUSLY an Obama supporter. Cooper would direct general questions to the candidates, and for the first 35 minutes, Obama fielded twice as many questions as Hillary or Edwards... Mike Gravel fielded one question in the first 35 minute segment, and stopped the debate to complain about it... Cooper gave him more time later on... It took Cooper 20 minutes to FINALLY ask Bill Richardson a question... By that time Obama had answered three... In short, Cooper needs to determine a better way to distribute the questions... though by the third segment, he gave all the candidates 3-4 questions evenly... so he found his rhythm...

The questions covered the main-stream issues... but there were a few "dinner table" questions, and definitely a more personalized way of asking some of the mainstream questions... I appreciated the human-factor... as opposed to the Wolf Blitzer Robotic debate, where if you don't answer correctly Wolf will keep grilling you until you answer his question his way (like he did to Huckabee on creationism)... There were awkward moments like the candidates fielding question from snowmen... but in all, the idea was to keep the questions in a very YouTube-esque manner... It worked.

The winners? John Edwards did a great job challenging Obama and Clinton, and I think showed his compassion towards women's issues... and definitely out shined Clinton on the women's issues question. Gravel angrily came out against Clinton and Obama, using what little time he has left on the stage to make some deep wounds... and Biden almost made it into this category, right up until the end...

The losers? Biden... he had a lot of momentum, until he called the gun owner a mental wack-job just because he referred to his AR-15 as "his baby"... he even went as far as saying that the video submitter was most likely not mentally capable of owning his weapon, and suggested that he may be a danger to society... Mr Biden... The only danger is you, my friend. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson really needed to break out, and they didn't. This may be the last debate with them in it. Richardson has one of the best messages on Energy Independence, but he just can't seem to be "interesting". Clinton yells... a lot! And it is really hard to think that she is a compassionate person when all she does is yell... strike-out in my book... Dennis Kucinch needed to shine, and this was supposed to be his format... he did alright, but it was just shy of being put in the winner's block... and the loserest loser of all the losers... Barack Hussein Obama... in any given answer there were 15-20 "Umm", "Uh", and other fumbles as he looked for the right thing... his inexperience was in full swing, and though his answers may have been on message, they lacked the ease and intelligence that our next president needs to have.

If I had to call it, I would say that we are looking at the fall of Clinton/Obama, and the rise of Edwards/Biden (but Biden needs to make ammends with the gun-owners of the world)... Perhaps Richardson is going to be a VP pick... so we may see Edwards/Richardson as the democratic ticket for the general election...

Though my question was not picked, the very first question was mine but asked by someone else... I am going to focus on submitting a few perfect videos for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in September... Hopefully Huckabee is still in the running, and gaining more momentum!

God Bless!

Angry, Dark, and No Surprises

Political analysts Bill Schneider, James Carville, and J.C. Watts (all from CNN) have dubbed the 2nd Democratic Presidential debate as Angry, Dark, and without any surprises.

From Bill Richardson's bumbling to John Edwards' rant about Obama and Clinton not doing more to voice their discontent with the Iraq War, the debate seemed to be more of the same. The frontrunners are attempting to maintain their lead by keeping the status quo, while the tier two candidates are attacking them to get the headlines.

“They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote — but there is a difference between leadership and legislators,” Edwards said at the Democratic presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. And Edwards is right. The two frontrunners are wavering on their "message". If you are against the war, come out strong against it... stand for something, instead of hiding behind a silent vote. If you want to be the next president, you MUST have substance... and this goes for candidates on both sides of the aisle!

In all, the debate and the candidates seem to be lacking two things: Content and a Message.

Biden and Edwards came out on top. But in all, the feel was that the Democratic field of candidates are angry, dark, and lacking a clear message - none of which make a good candidate to lead our country.

We need to hold our leaders to a higher standard.

So my message to the Democratic Leadership - Lose the anger! Try running a positive campaign where you attempt, however slightly, to rise to the higher ground. Challenge not just your opponents, but yourself, to clearly state their stance on the issues and use that stance to reach out to the people in a positive manner.

If you cannot, you are not fit to lead this great nation!


God Bless!