“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” — James Madison

The real problem with this prolonged Democratic Primary is that it is causing a schism within the party at a time when the Democrats need to be formulating a strategy to win over the American people in November.  The battle between Obama and Clinton has gotten so bad that each sides supporters vehemently dislikes the opposing candidate.  Clinton voters have said they won’t vote Obama and Obama voters likewise won’t vote for Clinton.  In the end the Democratic Party is the one that is hurt.

I put myself in the category of someone who wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  I’m not saying I couldn’t be persuaded to vote for her should she win the nomination, but, as of today, I would not vote for her because of her campaign and the stubborness she has portrayed.  Her policies are not that impressive to me and I still have yet to be told what her vast experience truely is.  Yes she’s been a senator longer than Obama but what exactly has she done that is so fantastic? And when I say done I mean what policies has she herself pushed for and gotten enacted, not just been a part of.  I will also admit that I just don’t like Hillary Clinton as a person and she seems very disengenuous to me.  Is Obama a saint? No.  But I trust him more and I like the way he seems to unite people instead of divide them.

To me it’s just a terrible time for the Democratic Party to be fighting like this.  George W Bush’s presidency has turned the tide against the American public’s love of the Republican Party.  But with all the squabbling going on with the Democrats they just come off as leaderless and unorganized.  It’s not a definate that this prolonged primary will hurt the Democrats come November.  But I see it being a very real possibility.

I just read on cnn.com that Hillary Clinton believes she is leading the popular vote in the Democratic Primary.  According to the article she leads if Michigan and Florida’s votes were counted, but the Democratic Party voided their votes because both states held their primaries earlier than allowed.  Barack Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.  Obama leads in the all important delegate vote 1,719 to 1,586. 

I wrote in my blog that it was sad how much Hillary is clinging to her campaign.  It’s gotten to the point where she is simply whining in the hopes that people feel sorry for her and give her more votes.  Evem though her campaign has displayed plenty of “dirty” ads against Obama, she complains when his campaign fights back with a low blow of their own.  Her knew “argument” is that she’s more electable because she has won the swing states necessary even though there is no way to correlate the Democratic Primary results with how people will vote in the General Election. 

Frankly, I’m sick of Hillary Clinton at this point.  I’m sick of her excuses and her stubborness.  I’m sick of the way the media is feeding into this battle between the Democrats when we are at a time in our country’s history when we need people to be working together for common goals.  This campaign is displaying Hillary’s true character.  Which to me is that of a vain, self-centered woman who is looking to indulge her own ego instead of thinking of the best interests of the Democratic Party or the American people.

The following article is from this site

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-simple-arithmetic-of_b_97655.html

Numbers tell a story. Especially over time. They compel us to focus on results — success and failure. Over the short term, maybe a few years, numbers can be manipulated or give false signals. But not over decades, and not over a generation. The numbers over the past 30 years are not refutable. When it comes to creating jobs and managing the nation’s finances, Democratic presidents demonstrate success while Republican presidents show failure.

Job Creation

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs
Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs
Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year

Government Spending

How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Democratic Average: $1.16

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Republican Average: $1.29

The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.

Increases in Government Debt

Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3
Democratic Total: 0.6

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1
Republican Total: 4.3

The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.

Growth of Debt Held By “Government Accounts” [$US trillions]

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8
Democratic Total: 1.3

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4
Republican Total: 3.0

Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House.

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.” USA Today, August 3, 2006

This subject warrants a separate article, but, there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans’ “Social Security Reform.”

In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers’ nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government’s reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined “lockbox” to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that’s taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.

Anyone who speaks of a crisis in Social Security is really talking about a problem that can be laid at the Republicans’ doorstep. It’s not class warfare, just simple arithmetic.
Sources:
Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB, On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget Revenues
Increases in Government Debt: OMB

An interesting article from the New York Time on how the Pentegon spreads its message.

>>> Article Here<<<