PR Straight Talk

David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times, said on Meet The Press this morning that Hillary Clinton should quit.  That she can’t win, and has a mere 5% chance of winning, or less.   Mr. Brooks did not earn my respect this morning.  If every candidate listened to the so-called “respected” pundits for advice, they’d be torn in shreds by the varying opinions of people who’ve never run for anything -and who hold opinions just like all of us do, no better or worse than anyone else’s point-of-view.

Don’t buy it, Hillary - and you’re unlikely to buy it as you’ve declared your intention to stay the course until the Convention.

 Why should Hillary Clinton buy it?  She’s so far won every large-state primary including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and California!  She’s about to win Pennsylvania.  She won in Michigan and Florida, though without - so far - the delegates.  In terms of electoral votes, these are the states needed to win an election.  Furthermore, the Florida delegates should be seated - and Michigan should hold another primary with Obama on the ballot (even though this seems at present to be an unlikey scenario, to the shame of the Democratic Party).

Senator Clinton holds a much more impressive record of accomplishment as Senator than Senator Obama.  She knows how to work both sides of the aisle in the Senate - more so than Obama, though he speaks about “bringing us together.”  She has cultivated relationships with political leaders abroad, and earned their respect.  She has shown herself time and again to be tough and resilient - qualities we need in a President at this time.  This includes the toughness shown by staying the course in the current campaign.

This is a democracy, and neither Hillary nor Obama have yet achieved the delegate count that would earn either the Democratic nomination.

Hillary is not Mike Huckabee, and her performance to-date, in winning the large states, in being quite close to Obama in delegates, has earned her the right to stay the course, until either she or Senator Obama achieves the winning number of delegates required to become the nominee.

So far, Senator Clinton has shown that she is strong, courageous, and not a quitter.  Those are qualities much desired in a President - and she deserves to stay the course until either she or Obama wins the nomination.

From my view, Clinton would be a better President.  Obama lacks experience, and his real views and intentions are suspect.  He may have overcome the Rev. Wright controversy in the public’s eye, particularly after his speech on race - but the questions about why he would attach to a controversial racially divisive Minister with anti-American sentiments, someone he knew intimately for 20 years, and whose sermons he heard for 20 years, have NOT been satisfactorily answered.  Further, Obama’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan, clearly an anti-Semite,  have not been sufficiently investigated.  Third, why would Obama have a close international advisor on his staff, a General who is clearly anti-Israel, if he “says” he is pro-Israel?

I believe actions speak louder than words, and in these instances just cited, Senator Obama’s words belie his actions.  It appears to me that Barack Obama is a liar, and is prepared to say anything under the guise of inspirational rhetoric, to win an election. 

He has won the support of many politicians and opinion leaders, but in my humble opinion, he has “Pied Pipered” them - and I am concerned about his real agenda, his lack of experience, and how he would conduct the affairs of state and international relations as President.

I don’t have these doubts about Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, about Senator McCain.  I believe either of them would be preferable to Senator Obama, because the concerns about the latter raise too many unanswered questions that in my view have not earned him the right to sit in the Oval Office.

Truth in communications.  I wrote about this subject early in my blog postings.  With respect to Barack Obama, the question looms:  how can a man who has cultivated close relationships and sought spiritual counsel from a bigoted Minister speak to America about “bringing us together” and about “hopefulness?” 

The question looms and begs probing.

For a review of my early posting on truth in communications, here is the link:

http://www.prstraighttalk.com/the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-part-ii/

My cousin Gale said it best:  “While you can’t be responsible for what comes out of other people’s mouths, I was always taught (as I teach my children as well) that it says a lot about who YOU are by the people YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH!”

We should think long and hard about who Barack Obama really is by taking a look at his close and intimate relationship with his Minister, Reverend Wright.

If you want to understand who Minister Wright is, read the following link.  This commentary by former Wall Street Journal editor Ronald Kessler, which also appeared as an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, presents a portrait of someone who “may” reflect the true Obama’s views, underneath the candidate’s political rhetoric:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_minister_wright/2008/03/06/78440.htm 

If Senator Obama’s true face has been hidden behind the mask of “Hope” and “Bringing Us Together,” we ought to consider whether he may be a far more complex and shadowy figure than we have heretofore understood.  If that is the case, he may also be the  most talented Pied Piper ever to come to the political stage - and where will he lead us if he is elected?  What will all the Ted Kennedy’s of the world say if they have bought into a great pretense?  And what of our country?

I have carefully listened to all the candidates - Republican and Democrat - for president.   Having carefully listened to each of them, watched C-Span for their full speeches and extensive remarks, read many of the transcripts of their statements in The New York Times and Washington Post - and done my best to examine their records - I am squarely in Hillary Clinton’s corner.  My scrutiny includes not just the intellectual process of examination, but an intuitive take on who Senator Clinton is as a person and a candidate.

I genuinely believe that when she is in touch with her authentic self, and not too much in the throes of her advisors, or even her husband, Hillary comes up as the best choice for President.

First, she has set an outstanding record of accomplishment as United States Senator, serving the people of New York with distinction, and she has shown a first-rate ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans on key issues.  Senator Clinton doesn’t just talk about working together, and bringing opposite sides together - she’s DONE it!

Second, as First Lady, she was an active Ambassador of Goodwill on behalf of the President to all parts of the world, and she was a staunch advocate of women’s rights - as well as Civil and Human Rights.  She was, as we all know, a passionate pioneer in advancing the cause of Universal Health coverage.  She did not succeed the first time around, but she learned many lessons and she is poised to succeed as President.  She is passionate about the causes she believes in, she is a fighter, and she does not give up.  She deserves points for her record of accomplishment, and her passion and steadfastness shows character and strength.  We need a President who evidences these qualities.

In international affairs, I believe Senator Clinton will chart the best course for the United States.  She is much more aware of the dangers inherent in Islamic extremism and fascism, and she will act with care and circumspection before sitting down with America’s enemies.  I believe she will attempt to open doors, but she will not act brashly, and she will not underestimate the intentions of people who are unimpressed with softness, and who are more likely to manipulate us and undermine us based on naivete.  She would certainly NOT be another Chamberlain making peace with Hitler!

Mrs. Clinton is very intelligent.  She is tough.  She is for the people, and for advancing the Global community and the less developed nations - but she is a “street smart” person who will not compromise America in any way with crafty people who don’t respect our system or our rights.

I believe she would be a more capable President than Senator Obama.  I am moved by his inspirational pronouncements, his desire to bring us together - but I do NOT believe he has a handle or the experience on how to work with adversaries - both domestic and international.   I do NOT believe that in this very treacherous time, Senator Obama would have the strength to maneuver through the tough times that are undoubtedly ahead.

On Iraq, I believe that Senator Clinton’s intentions were understandable in taking the vote she did at the time, based on intelligence of WMD that was only later proved faulty, and in the context of the aftermath of 9-11 which had occurred only recently before.  Her INTENTION was to protect America, and while I do not believe that she would have invaded Iraq if she had been President, I believe that as Senator she signed on in order to reserve the right to protect our country.  As a precautionary measure, I believe Senator Clinton acted honorably.

I was against the invasion of Iraq.   Sadam was an enemy of Iran and while he was a rascal and potentially dangerous, he was the “check” against Iranian Middle Eastern intervention.  Having said that, I can look at Senator Clinton’s vote with respect, especially in consideration of her intentions.  But now, we must look at the situation as it presently exists; and I do think that a precipitous and immediate withdrawal would be ill-advised.  Our focus must be on strengthening the Iraqi Army but withdrawing ever-so carefully until we can turn over full reigns to them.  I also think Senator Clinton, while she has declared the need to withdraw, will do so but do so carefully and gradually.

I firmly believe that Senator Hillary Clinton can make a great President.  My vote is for her.  One last consideration - a consideration that is not primary - is that it’s time to elect a strong leader who is also a woman.  Women, and America’s girls - deserve that kind of role modeling and encouragement.

Lastly, the Democrat voters of Michigan and Florida must not be disenfranchised.  Michigan, which did not have Obama on the ballot, must arrange for a new Primary; and Florida’s delegates should either be seated, or a new Primary should move forward there as well. 

Florida’s voters in the Democratic Party Primary cast their vote.   Most of these voters were NOT aware of the decision by the Democratic Party to withhold delegates.  This writer was one of them.  The idiotic rule by the Democratic Party to punish Florida if the Primary date changed, also punished Florida’s voters and should be rescinded immediately.  No need for a new election.  Just count the delegates.  

Michigan is a different story because Barack Obama was not on the ballot.  Michigan should hold a new Primary asap, and either the State, the Democratic Party, or both, should pay for it.  Otherwise, the Obama and Clinton campaigns should split the difference.  Let’s get on with it.  Period.

Whoever the winner of the Democratic nomination turns out to be, it will be a fraud if the voters of Florida and Michigan are not represented.  Period.