Politics 2.0

In the 21st century America will see a drastic change in the character of its politicians. In a society obsessed with "progressiveness" as defined by its Hollywood idols, the once great leaders of the most respected nation on in history will soon be viewed as no more than mere celebrities - icons in the culture zoo that the media has built.

Hillary Clinton, for example, was never expected to win the nomination on ability or leadership qualities; she was meant to win because of her gender. Now that she has lost, cries of "sexism" will be heard and the mainstream media will accuse Americans of not being open-minded enough to vote for a woman. In a race as crucial as this one, where the ISSUES are what matters how can we as Americans allow such a crucial matter to be so belittled?

Our politicians have become accustomed to the excuse of "we are only human." Yet, political figures are not meant to be placed on the same scale as the average American for they are intended to be the leaders, chosen to do what is best for the nation while upholding a higher level of integrity and morality.

If America's leaders are allowed to be placed on the level of the average Hollywood celebrity, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. is loosing favor in the eyes of the world. The many nations look at us and see a vast community of people obsessed with themselves as typified by the average politician. The key to winning the support of the global community is not to show them that we are capable of electing a woman or a black man - of being "sophisticated" - but to show them that we are a nation of morals, ethics and responsibility.

To be a leader means to lead, not follow the wealthy, publicity-hungry masses.

How #2 Becomes #1

Hillary CLinton is not giving up. She is not admitting defeat, nor is she conceding the most coveted prize in American politics to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton's long-awaited withdrawal is merely a political maneuver aimed at saving face while she continues to pursue the Vice Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket.

That's right, I said "continues" - for I refuse to believe that Clinton did not already recognize months ago that she would not be nominated for President. Hillary Clinton, in an act of brilliant political strategy fought hard to prove her necessity; to show the Democratic party that they need her in order to win this November. Hillary has already begun her campaign for VP, a fact that is obvious to anyone her saw or heard her speech last night in which it would have seemed that she was declaring victory rather than defeat.

Yet, Hillary's attempt to achieve VP will soon be brushed aside for it would be political suicide for Obama to grant her that level of closeness to himself. Firstly, Hillary's supporters and Obama's do not and never have sen eye to eye on anything. Obama runs on a platform of change, whereas Mrs. Clinton dredges up bad memories of scandal and political doublespeak. By granting Hillary the VP slot, Obama would effectively cancel out the votes of his own supporters.

Secondly, if Obama truely wants to prove his ability to lead, he will not allow the Clinton dynasty to overshadow his presidency. As she did when her husband was president, Clinton will attempt to interfere in all aspects of the presidency. It would be the first time in history that the president answered to his VP - a fact that Obama recognizes and fears.

It is for these reasons that Obama will not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and it is for these reasons that the Democratic party cannot yet declare itself united, for the battle for power has merely been clouded over but not yet erased from the public eye.

EDIT: I just read this Dick Morris article which basically agrees with me but throws Bill CLinton into the mix.

US Iraq Deaths At Four Year Low

US Iraq deaths 'at four-year low'

US military deaths in Iraq are said to have fallen to their lowest monthly level for four years, after about 20 soldiers were reported killed in May.

The figures for Iraqi civilian deaths vary according to different sources, but have also dropped.

Most accounts put them at about 530 - or about half the levels seen in March and April.

Meanwhile, Australia has begun withdrawing its contingent of about 500 combat troops from Iraq.

The pullout honours a pledge made by the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when he was elected last November.

The Australian troops had been mainly playing what they call an "overwatch" role, assisting Iraqi forces.

Troop 'surge'

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says one reason for the reduction in US military deaths was the ceasefire in early May, which stopped fighting in the Sadr City district of the Iraqi capital.

Iraqi and American troops had been engaged in an offensive there against Shia militiamen of the Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

But our correspondent adds that the overall trend of the violence since late last summer has been downwards.

He says the US troop "surge" was clearly a big factor, as was the trend within the Sunni community to turn against al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.

The withdrawal of the additional US troops brought in last year for the surge is expected to be completed by July.

On Winning a War

While Obama still claims that things are not going well, and the Democrats are still claiming that the war in Iraq serves no purpose, the CIA seems to disagree. According to CIA director Michael Hayden, "Al Qaeda is essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the world."

Of course, this story will be buried in the depths of your newspaper and probably not even mentioned on the TV or radio. If the Democratic party is really concerned about America's success in Iraq and defeat of terrorism, shouldn't they be the ones publicizing this story?

Alas, the sad truth is that the leaders of the Democratic party do not care about the safety and security of this nation. No, their concern is whether a woman or an African American wins the nomination so as to "show the world" that we are more progressive.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that bin Laden really cares if he blows up a building filled with men or women, blacks or whites, adults or children. Although they have claimed to not care, the issues of race and gender have grossly overwhelmed the Democratic party, deriving them of the ability to focus on substance and issues. While Senator McCain is visiting Iraq in order to gain firsthand knowledge of what is really going on, Senators Clinton and Obama prefer to prolong their manufactured war and merely speak about their "experience" without having the substance to back up those words.

House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq.

Safe From Truth

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Anti-Militarism: House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory.

Congress seems to be acting out the role of Col. Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson in the film "A Few Good Men." When pinned in covering up a murder, Nicholson famously yells back at Tom Cruise, playing the interrogating attorney: "You can't handle the truth!"

Democrats have decided this election year that American voters can't handle the fact that victory in Iraq is at hand.

In its passage last week of the defense policy bill, the House issued a prohibition against the Pentagon's "concerted effort to propagandize" the American public regarding the Iraq War.

It came in the form of an amendment authored by Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., which also would authorize an investigation of the Defense Department's "propaganda" efforts by the Government Accountability Office.

Hodes' addition to the bill passed by voice vote and the overall bill passed the House by a large margin. The Senate will wait until after the holiday recess to consider it.

It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters.

Besides, haven't congressional Democrats insisted all these years that it wasn't the military they had a problem with regarding the Iraq War? Haven't they been saying how much they support those in uniform, that our military leaders really agreed with Democrats that Iraq was unwinnable, and that it was only the civilians who run war policy in the Bush administration they were attacking?

According to Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., the Hodes provision could end up classifying even the U.S. Marines' slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines," as a "concerted effort to propagandize" in violation of the law.

The Democrats' efforts to save America from good news in Iraq stem from a New York Times article last month charging that retired military officers appearing on TV were "puppets of the Defense Department" because they get frequent private briefings and talking points.

The paper called it "a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated."

How divided were the lines between government and journalism when the New York Times in 2005 refused the pleas of the White House not to endanger investigations that were in progress and alert terrorist plotters by exposing the National Security Agency's secret program to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of suspected terrorists?

Or when the Washington Post that same year imperiled national security by revealing the secret CIA interrogation program in which terrorist detainees were taken to foreign prisons where information that could prevent future attacks was extracted?

Democrats seem to be motivated largely by the notion that those who wear, or have worn, the uniform of the U.S. armed forces cannot be trusted. Witness Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, last week outrageously suggesting that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain looks at everything "from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

As will be obvious again on this Memorial Day, most Americans trust and appreciate our servicemen and women. Their wrath is sure to fall on those who pass laws that presume them to be liars.

US air strikes on Iran would be major step towards Iraq victory

From DEBKAfile:

Former American UN ambassador John Bolton said that while a hostile Iranian response harming US interests existed, the damaged inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action. He was quoted by the UK Telegraph as urging therefore that Washington order air strikes against the Revolutionary Guards Corps camps training Iraqi insurgents.

They Deserve Our Support and Thanks