SAIGONBOB

Cross-Cultural Racial Pain in Los Angeles--Gang vs Gang

     It's something that everyone knows about, but it is not mentioned in the presidential political debates, because it is easier to talk about the war in Iraq, than the racial gang war in Los Angeles.
    The Los Angeles Times did another story on the painful youth violence, which causes fear and pain in the hearts of parent's, and the death of innocent children walking to school or to buy gum.

    The Times headline, today Jan. 31st, 2008:

    "Cross-racial shootings spark fear in Monrovia."

    Many killings in the last week, in this city, just a little north-east of Los Angeles.

    Victims included: An African-American kid, 19 years old, who had turned his life around and was attending a City College---and---a 16 year old Latina girl, walking to the store to buy "orbitz" gum, her favorite...but she was shot eight times.

    As a society, we have become so numbed to this problem, that no presidential candidate talks about needing a new "surge" to stop the killings.

    Television hosts, who are so used to living the good life, and see everything in intellectual terms, don't think it is a big deal...or at least they don't ask "how are you going to solve this problem?"

    Gangs are like little non-elected governments, which control areas of the city....get caught in the wrong neighborhood and you are punished.

    Not all of this is a racial problem...because gangs need to control turf, for drug money, and the collective ego.

    But, this story highlights, the political tension between Hispanics and African-Americans within the larger political scene.

    When political reporters ignore this story, and Bill and Hillary Clinton bring the race card into this contest, it does damage to all American's....especially the most innocent of us...the children.

    It is a domestic Iraq.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

 

   

   

 

John McCain Vs. Barack Obama: A Dream Presidential Contest

    (Sorry about photo..some glitch...can't straighten it out)

     An old picture of me, setting up a telephone news conference for former Senator Humphrey, who became a "bridge" between the McGovernites and the rest of the Democratic Party, during the general election of 1972--between George McGovern and Richard Nixon.
    "Moderation in the defense of liberty, is no vice."
    Some of us are sick of the radical end of extreme politics, where, during the general election, each side slimes the other person, with the result that  most American's vote for the lessor of two evils.

    Bill and Hillary got involved with this against Barack Obama prior to the South Carolina Primary.

    It is just a clue to what will happen in the general election.

    To much of the electorate, Senator Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain, are heroes, in their own right.

    Each brings a mature understanding of the give and take of life and politics.  Neither candidate is afraid of reaching across the aisle to get the best legislation for the rest of us.

    Hillary and Bill Clinton will bring out the worst "attack dog's" during the general election, and the GOP in response will use every negative against "Bubba and his wife," which will in-turn---once again---turn off the voter.

    I'm going to vote for Barack Obama, because he brings back hope to the political process, and he won't lie, just to get elected.

    I also think it would be wonderful to have two small children running around the Oval Office, again.  It gives the President a healthy perspective before making major decisions on war and peace.

    Senator John McCain, is a real war hero.  His constant bludgeoning while in solitary confinement in a North Vietnam prison camp, for about 5 years, while they kept breaking his shoulder for "acting up" is well documented.

    He is not a "cheap" politician, and would also make his candidacy of "togetherness," not go back to the mud throwing politics of the 1990's.

    Although, neither candidate can control independent committees, which may throw some mud, at least John McCain, and Barack Obama, would stay above the fray.

    I would love to see a McCain-Obama contest in November.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

   

      

The Kennedy Family Quiets Bill Clinton

    After Bill Clinton's outrageous behavior during the South Carolina Primary, the Kennedy family, basically, beat up the bully, and sent him home to hide behind Hillary Clinton.
    All of a sudden Bill is just praising his wife in a New Jersey speech today, Feb. 29th, and not swiftboating Barack Obama.
    Sen. Ted Kennedy tried to warn Bill, that he was way off base and to stop attacking Senator Obama.
    Bill didn't stop, and a couple  of days later, three members of the Kennedy crew endorsed Barack Obama.

    The Clinton organization is obviously re-calculating the campaign:  She was supposed to appear on CNN last night, after the State of the Union speech, and didn't show up, at the last minute.

    They are assuming she will win big in Florida today, even though Barack Obama did not campaign there, and  no delegates are at stake for Democrats in this primary.

    Mrs. Clinton has been in the public eye for about 20 years, and Barack Obama for about a year....so she will take credit for a bogus win in the sunshine state...hopefully giving her a little extra momentum going into super-duper Tuesday.

    This is why Bill Clinton is being a good boy now.

    It's going to be hard for Senator Obama to beat Mrs. Clinton in California, because he doesn't have time, in a week, to speak before the big crowds which would show up for him.(This is the inherent weakness in a massive early primary by big states)

    The latest poll still has the former First Lady in a double-digit lead in California.

    Senator Obama, has a week to make some news momentum, with specific proposals, to shore up voters in the big primary states.

    If he can pull close in California, New Jersey and New  York, while winning Illinois, and the southern states, he still could pull out the nomination.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

   

      

Will Bill Clinton be Hillary's Douglas MacArthur?

    General Douglas MacArthur was considered a brilliant tactician, who couldn't keep his mouth shut.

    World War I veterans hated the guy, after the "Bonus Army" sit down in Washington DC during the 1932 riots.

    When the Army first appeared at the front of the tent city.....the despondent soldiers cheered...but later were devastated as children were killed, in a rampage conducted by MacArthur.

    Even Eisenhower was upset at the General going overboard in his orders.

    Later, President Truman, at the risk of losing the Oval Office, had to fire General MacArthur during the Korean War.

    Against Truman's order to keep his mouth shut, he kept blabbing about going into China...China entered the war and many American soldiers were killed.

    A brilliant tactician....but going overboard...who does that remind you of?

    Bill Clinton thinks he can manipulate any political dialog.

    If, and that is still a big IF, Bill over-shoots his mouth and actually starts hurting his wife, politically, down the stretch--will she have to fire the guy and give him a little feminist "shut-down?"

    If she, does indeed, become President of the United States (I'm supporting Obama), and the First-Man, starts screwing up foreign policy with his mouth, and credibility down the road, will Hillary have to fire him like Truman did to MacArthur?

    Most Americans, now understand that it will be a co-presidency if Hillary Clinton wins in November.

    The other problem for me is 28 straight years of a Bush-Clinton presidency.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

      

"I Want My Delegation!--Willie Brown-1972 Dem. Convention

    Now that the South Carolina vote is almost over, and I am assuming that Senator Barack Obama will win--my memory goes back to the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami, where Humphrey and McGovern delegates were still fighting for floor space within the California delegation.
    That is when Willie Brown, who later became Mayor of San Francisco, famously called out on behalf of the McGovern forces...."I want my delegation!"
    McGovern did win the California primary, but then as now, delegates were apportioned to the convention by percentage of vote. ( I was McGovern's California Press Secretary during that primary---but I also loved Hubert H. Humphrey.)
    I don't know who will be heading the California delegations for Hillary or Obama, but it feels to me like we will have that fight, about 10 times over, this year in Denver.

    As I am going with my youngest kid to a college basketball game tonight, my latest analysis will have to wait until Sunday ( It is healthy to remember what really is important!)

    I suspect Hillary will say that "I never thought I would win South Carolina...but next week will be a different story."

    She will use the discredited Florida Democratic Returns to say she is still the "comeback kid."

    Bill Clinton, will once again, bark at Obama to keep him off message.

    Going into super-duper Tuesday, Mr. Obama has to really sharpen his message.  He can use the "hope" theme, but he has to become more newsworthy in specific issue proposals in order to win many of these states.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

Will Oregon Republican US Senator Gordon Smith be a Victim of a Democratic Surge in November?

    Oregon is a blue state with a conservative, but independent US Senator, Gordon Smith.
    He has opposed President Bush on the war in Iraq, and voted against oil drilling in Alaska.
    What are his chances in November?
    My best guess is the following:
    If there are a lot of new voters and there is a Democratic surge in November, he probably loses to the  lesser known Democrat.
However,   If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee...All bets are off, as she will galvanize the GOP and independents against her, and Gordon Smith will probably be elected for another 6 year term.
    If Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee in the fall, Smith like his brethren in the Senate will be wiped out in a new Democratic veto-proof US Senate.
    The State of Oregon may be in play in the Democratic Primary in May, as it was in 1968, if Hillary and Obama are competitive at that late date---a major possibility.

    Since the Democratic Primaries are "preferential" and the delegates are apportioned to the voting percentage of all of the candidates, with some exceptions, it is very possible that Oregon could tip the balance for either Hillary or Barack Obama.

    This is almost funny, because many big states like California, which spent 60-90 million dollars in pushing their primary date from June to Feb, 5th---to be more "relevant," may indeed become almost irrelevant to states that hold traditional later primaries.

    If Barack Obama is competitive with the former First Lady during late spring, the Bill Clinton's "purple rage" interviews may be a common theme in this election.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

       

Bill and Hillary Clinton's Racial "Code" Campaign

    Bill Clinton was a southern Governor.  He understands, not only how to get the African-American vote in a white state, but also how to manipulate his language to get a majority of non-Black voters in a statewide election.
    For those of us, who have "been there" before...this almost "secret" code is simple to declassify.
    First, you have to understand two things:  Pushing Obama in South Carolina as the "great Black hope," is a way of telling the rest of the nation that he is really only the African-American candidate like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson...thus pushing Mr. Obama into a corner he did not want.
    Bill Clinton is the attack dog in South Carolina, not to win the campaign for Hillary, but to narrow-cast Senator Obama to Hispanic and White voters for the Feb. 5th super-duper primaries.

    So Hillary Clinton goes to South Carolina, and says, "Isn't it wonderful we have the first Woman and the first African-American candidate for President."

    This would be no different than if she were running against Michael Bloomberg, and said, " Isn't it great, the first Women and the first Jew running for President.  Considering the Jewish vote is less than the African-American vote...it would a similar political tactic.

    Code:  She is really saying...In a state with 50% Black voters in the Democratic Primary, he may win...because I can get the white and Latino women's vote in other states where the African-American vote doesn't have the same impact.

    Bill Clinton supposedly makes a joke, that "I will vote for Obama for President, as the first Black President, after Hillary has her turn"--(Not exact quote..but close)

    Code: No joke: Reinforcing Mr. Obama's mixed race...result... Clinton gives voters a way out---oh, I can vote for Mr. Obama the next time: Result:As a Women this gives me the chance to vote for Hillary now, in the Democratic Primary.

    Barack Obama is a class act, and has a lot to offer.

    Don't get me wrong---I voted for Bill Clinton twice for President, and I don't think the two of them are racist...quite the contrary--however they are playing race-baiting politics- and have no shame in doing so.

    I get the idea that Bill and Hillary want the power of the presidency over the Presidency.

    The Democratic Party is getting split, because of their "code" politics.

    I'm getting to the point that I don't like either of them anymore.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

      
   

Will "Proportional" Democratic Primaries Push Obama-Clinton to Convention Showdown?

    I'm still hoping that Senator Obama wins the South Carolina Primary on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008.
    With the Super-Duper early Primary coming on February 5th, he needs the momentum to carry on.

    However, the Democratic Party insists on "Proportional" representatives of delegates, based on the raw vote, to the National Convention.

    There are some variants to this rule, and it does get a little complicated, but basically, it means that just because you win the primary, it doesn't mean that you get all of the delegates to the convention.

    This fact, has been under-reported by the news media---Just like the raw vote in Nevada.  Try to find the actual raw vote count for Obama v Hillary in that caucus state.

    If Barack Obama, does better than expected in New York, New Jersey and California, for example---but doesn't win outright---he may have enough delegates to challenge Hillary Clinton at the National Convention in Denver.

    Senator Obama still needs to win some of those 22 states voting on February 5th, in order to stay credible.

    If he can stay viable until the super primaries in March, it could come down to the most volatile Democratic Convention since the 1968 Chicago disaster.

    Mr. Obama has had a tough time taking on "2 Presidents" and has to figure out how to stop Bill Clinton from being an effective attack dog on the campaign trail.

    At the same time, the Senator from Illinois, needs to get his positive message out and let the average voter know who he is.

    The Clinton's realize that as long as he is fighting both of them, the media will pick that up as news, and the public doesn't get a chance to see Senator Obama's real message.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

   

   

      

Will Giuliani's Florida Attempt: Make Small Primary States Irrelevant?

    Today, is the Wednesday(Jan 23rd), prior to the GOP Primary in Florida.
    I'm guessing that since many Floridians have voted absentee, prior to John McCain's recent surge, Rudy(on some Fl. ballots spelled Rudi) may pull out an upset in Florida.
    If this is the case, and I would rather see McCain win the Republican nod, will that make  Presidential contests look past Iowa and New Hampshire, in the future?

    Probably.

    I don't think this is healthy for America.

    Small states are, for example, are protected in the United States Senate by having just as many representatives as large states (2).

    Also, candidates really have to "press the flesh" in small states, go into the living room's, look in a voter's eye, and connect.

    In the large states, it's only the candidate with the most money and television spots, that can make a difference.

    This fact, punishes lesser known politicians, and can push aside movement candidates.

    Although George McGovern lost his behind to Richard Nixon in the 1972 contest, he was able to make a statement about the War in Vietnam, and come from 2% in the national polls, to win New Hampshire and the Democratic nod in the fall.

    On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, was able to surprise everyone and win the Iowa straw poll, and make his own statement about the problems in Washington...win or lose.

    Word of mouth is important in small states.  In large states like California, where you have over 30 million people, it makes no difference.

    I'm a Democrat, and this "big state problem" worries me, for the future.

    If Hillary and Bill Clinton only had to run in the big states with their personal fortune of over 30 million dollars---all they would have to do is campaign in New York, and California with million's of dollars of television advertisements and win the nomination, without working for it.

    Also, candidates will have to start running for President 4 years prior to the next election...just to raise the money.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see someone announce, next week, for the 2012 campaign!

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

 

Did Gov. Bill Richardson Get a Raw Deal from the News Media?

    Within the Democratic Party hierarchy, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, is a popular guy.
    Under President Bill Clinton, he held a couple of very high level jobs, and was considered a success.
    Richardson is also a popular Governor.
    So, as the first Hispanic, he decided to run for President of the United States. I was  shocked, about a month ago, when a long time democrat in Los Angeles, didn't even know he was running for the Oval Office.

    The news media plays this "chicken and egg" thing with presidential candidates---where if you have the bucks and your poll numbers are over 15%, at the start of the race...they'll give you the air time.

    But, if you are legitimate, as Richardson is, but are hardly known,they will not give you the time of day.

    The campaign has some responsibility here---they have to make news and some impact on the race, at an early stage.

    Mike Huckabee did it by participating in the early Republican straw poll held in Iowa, prior to the caucus. He played it smart and won, and became a media curiosity.

    There was no such straw poll for the Democrats.

    Richardson did participate in the early debates, but unless you make the subsequent news bites on the major networks and cable news operations---a candidate doesn't exist to the average voter.

    Hillary made it with the media, early, because she has been in the public eye for 20 years.  Barack Obama made it as the Whiz Kid....and surprise early fundraiser.

    John Edwards became newsworthy, because he had been the VP nominee, 4 years ago.

    This dynamic left Bill Richardson, out in the cold.

    It's a shame, because Mr. Richardson has a lot to offer and was left out by America's news media.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos