Clinton's BIG Mistake

Hilary Clinton is in big trouble proving her credibility after flat out lying to the press. If she did not undergo any serious dangerous events as the first lady, then why make things up? Clinton failed big time, she forgot the most important thing about lying to the press: there is always footage to back your story up. And in her case the footage aided in proving that she is LIAR, round up your votes Obama because you are going to start getting all of Clinton’s real soon. Aside from loosing votes to Obama, Clinton faces the chances of loosing votes to McCain if she manages to secure her party’s votes to those undecided voters. No-one likes a liar, and if you are undecided why would you choose a person who has proved to be liar over one who has proven to be honest? The bottom line as I see it is that if Clinton wins her party’s nomination, then her party faces a bigger likelihood of loosing the presidency once more to a Republican.

The Obama Scandal

Obama’s image seems to have been hindered by the latest news that his pastor has said some pretty anti-American things. However, people need to realize that one man’s opinion is not another man’s opinion. Obama has strong ties with his pastor because he preaches the word of God, in a manner which Obama regards as honest, but not everything that the pastor believes (especially outside of religion) is believed by Obama. This is perhaps the reason why the pastor’s views have not really affected Obama. However, as a voter I believe that it might affect him negatively with those voters that are undecided and the independent voters that do not follow any one particular party. This is something that Obama needs to take into consideration, especially if he wins his party’s nomination. He needs to find the most strategic way to win the votes of those people that are up against the fence and do not know which way to vote.

Facial Features as a Determining Factor in Who Gets Elected

I found this interesting article and I just thought I share with everyone. I don’t fully agree with its main argument that physical features are a great way of predicting the next president, but study findings are amazing. According to the article, Australian university students and New Zealand schoolgirls were asked to judge photographs of the US presidential election contenders and rate that would be more competent. The results found that John McCain had received the most votes with Mitt Romney trailing close behind (and it is known that right after Super Tuesday Romney was slightly behind McCain). The study also found Clinton to be ahead of Obama slightly. Whether she is capable of winning or not, we will just have to see.

* I did not agree on what was said about Bush. Bush having masculine features which makes him a great contender during times of war? I don’t think so. Plus I don’t think that looks have much to do with who wins presidency. Think about it, how many US presidents were actually good looking. Besides Kennedy and Clinton, I can’t think of any others.

Obama as Running Mate for Clinton

After winning the primaries in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last week Clinton arrogantly said that Obama would make a great Vice-president since he is too inexperienced to become president. I found this comment interesting, since as things stand now there is no clear Democratic winner. Also, as I had mentioned in my last post no-one candidate could win the 2,025 votes needed to win. So I am left with the question, what makes Clinton so confident that she will win. I see a 50-50 chance that either candidate can win, but after seeing Clinton’s attitude in this campaign I really do hope that Obama wins.

1. Before Super Tuesday:

• The result of the primaries indicated that it was going to be a close race between Mitt Romney and John McCain and Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.
• It was understood that the above candidates were going to be disputing the presidency and the other contenders were out of the race.

2. On Super Tuesday:

• John McCain is the Republican contender
• Barack Obama has the upper hand; however, it is too early to determine the Democratic winner
  

3. Now

• John McCain is clearly the Republican winner
• Hilary Clinton won the necessary votes to still be active in disputing her spot for the Democratic candidate in November
• It is clear that the Democratic candidate will need votes from the party officials to determine the winner since neither candidate will be able to win enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to secure the nomination

Winning the Democratic Nomination

“Based on their current delegate counts, neither candidate can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to secure the nomination without the help of nearly 800 party officials and top elected officials who also have a voice in the selection” (Kuhmhenn and Woodward). This is a statement made by Jim Kuhnhenn and Calvin Woodward in regards to the Democratic candidates running for presidency. I believe that this is a scary thought, and as a citizen I would rather have the votes from Florida and Michigan be counted instead of having delegates choice the Democratic nominee. Otherwise, the Democratic winner should be determined by the number of votes. The person with the most votes deserves to win; I think it’s the fairest thing. The problem that I have with party officials determining the winner (which I believe numerous other voters also have) is the fact that we, the citizens, are not choosing the democratic nominee, therefore, our voice is not being heard. What scares me the most is having another fiasco like in the 2000 elections where Bush won the presidency although the plurality of voters voted for Al Gore. It is times like these that causes me to believe that the current political system that we have is outdated and should be reformed to better fit today’s voters.