SAIGONBOB

Should Democrats Disallow Big State Early Primaries in 2012?

    Do you remember those Feb 5th, "Super-Duper" primaries?
    California spent 60-90 million dollars to push their primary from June to February.
    At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger, cut the successful $55 million dollar program which helped the thousands of  mentally ill homeless.
    Those big state primaries, never gave the voters enough time to take a look at Barack Obama, for example.
    Because, in small states, the voters get to really know the candidate, and word of mouth means something, and an insurgent candidate can beat the better known politician.

    However, if  the  big contests are so soon after Iowa and New Hampshire, the insurgent candidate is at a distinct disadvantage to the early funded and better known person.

    Senator Obama, was successful, only because he outwitted the Clinton campaign, and fought in those smaller caucus and primary states, immediately afterward.

    If California held their primary, even in March, Barack Obama would have the money and time to convince the voters in the Golden State to vote for him.

    Word of mouth, means nothing in a huge state...it is all about name identification, and television advertising.

    Because, Mrs. Clinton has been in front of the electorate for about 16 years, she had the advantage of  competing in those early big states.

    Its bad enough that Michigan and Florida are a mess, going into Democratic convention, but once again, California takes a back seat to Texas and Ohio, in this election cycle.

    A new candidate needs more time to develop a solid presidential campaign, prior to competing in the big states.

    I hope that the Democratic National Committee, develops new rules for the 2012 presidential campaign, protecting minority candidates, and newer office holders, after the election of 2008.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

 

 

Hillary's New Attack "Phone" Ad Against Sen. Obama

    I'll be blatant about this Clinton TV spot, which aired today, Feb 29th, 2008, in Texas against Barack Obama.
    It shows children, safely in bed, while the announcer says something about ....will your children be safe when that call comes in at three in the morning?
    It's a fear mongering ad, by the Clinton campaign, which is geared to reinforce those voters who may be afraid to put in the first African-American in the White House.
    The spot could easily be changed to..."Gee, we only recently have had Black quarterbacks in Football, can we really trust this guy to protect us?"
    I think it is time that the Obama campaign run an ad which shows the former First Lady, kissing Mrs. Arafat, while she smiles, and Bill Clinton glad hands Yasser Arafat in the middle east.
    Then the ad can say, "honesty, is the most valuable asset for a President of the United States."
    Hillary Clinton is willing to tear apart the Democratic Primary, in order to gain power...that is now obvious.
    She will hand the election to the GOP in the fall, if she doesn't pull back a bit.
    Mrs. Clinton is starting to make Richard Nixon look like, "Mr. Clean."
    Thanks for reading:
    Bob Kholos
   
   

"Obama Supports Israel. Period." --Israeli Newspaper

   
    This is the biggest moment in the American campaign for President, in the Democratic Primary, with Hillary Clinton facing Barack Obama, in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island, on Tuesday, March 4th, 2008.
    The latest "crap" thrown at Senator Obama, is that somehow he is in bed with that racist, separatist and anti-semitic Reverend..who you all know, but I refuse to print his name.
    This is so much B.S.
    Because a candidate is White, it does not mean they are in bed with the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan!
    Because a candidate is Black does not mean that he is somehow anti-Israel and anti-semitic.
    Senator Barack Obama has a long history of supporting Israel, and the Jewish community in Illinois.
    No one put it better, than a correspondent and blogger for the Israeli Newspaper-Haaretz:
   

Obama supports Israel. Period.

Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.

    This was from the blog of Shmuel Rosner, on March 3rd, 2007, long before anyone thought that Senator Obama would make a challenge at Senator Hillary Clinton:

 

Rosner's Blog

   

Shmuel Rosner Chief U.S. Correspondent

www.haaretz.com/rosner

   

    I rest my case!

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

Should Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana be on Barack Obama's VP Short-List?

    Although, he is currently a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton--Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, may be a good choice for Senator Obama for Vice-President, if the Senator from Illinois gets the Democratic nod for President.
    His only real political negative, in such a situation, is that he represents the same center of the country as Barack Obama.
    However, Senator Bayh's positives, as a moderate, who has served two terms in the United States Senate,  is well versed on economics and small business, and is accustomed to reaching across the aisle, in order to pass legislation.

    Bayh, is soft spoken, knows how to play the political game in "red" states, and would be a positive influence on Senator Obama---when they traverse the tricky business of trying to pick up independent and Republican voters, away from John McCain, in the fall.

    The other VP candidates I have mentioned in the past, are Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.

    Because of the "newness" of Presidential candidate Obama, it is more important to the vast American public, on who he chooses as his running mate, against long term Senator, John McCain.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos   

After MSNBC Debate-Ohio and Texas--Will Hillary Clinton Fight Barack Obama to the End?

   
    It's the day after the MSNBC debate, between Obama and Clinton.
    All in all, I think it would have been a tie, had it not been for the little nasty sarcasm's thrown by Hillary at Barack....so, I give Mr. Obama the edge on this most important debate.
    If this had been a general election debate,  Senator Obama would only have to hold his own..and he would have walked away as the winner and the new champion.
    However, this is still the Democratic Primary, and the demographics in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, still favor Senator Clinton.  Vermont should be a run-away for Senator Obama on March 4th.

    In order to change the dynamic of this campaign, Senator Clinton needs to get 60-65% of the vote in Texas and Ohio.

    The trouble for us Democrats, is that if she narrowly beats Obama in the big states, Clinton may claim a major victory...although...because of the delegate maze, Senator Obama will still be in the lead by a hundred or more...going into Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

    This gives her a month or more to go heavily negative on Senator Obama, and split apart the Democratic Party, going into the Convention in August.

    That scenario would give the GOP the Presidency.

    If the election is close on March 4th, and perhaps, Obama wins Texas, for example, and Hillary wins Ohio, we could have a real mess on our hands.

    At that point, the Clinton campaign, has a major decision to make.

    If she fights on to Pennsylvania...she may be seen as the "Ralph Nader" of 2008...forever ruining her legacy.

    However, if she drops out, endorses Obama, she will be viewed as a champion of the Democratic Party...forever.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

      
   

Shutting Out the National Media--A Major Barack Obama Mistake?

   
    According to Politico.com correspondent, Carrie Budoff Brown, who writes today, Feb. 26, 2008, says that the media road crew on the Barack Obama campaign trail, are being shuffled away from the Senator.
    They are kept away when Senator Obama is being interviewed by satellite for various television stations.
    On road events, they can't get close to the Senator, as he walks through the crowds.
    This is a major change, and is a horrible new strategy.
    Mr. Obama, should take a lesson from former President Ronald Reagan.   Even as Governor of California, the press who couldn't stand his politics, gave him a break on coverage...as he was always a pleasure to work with on the campaign trail.
    Governor and President Reagan (This changed quite a bit during his second term) always enjoyed the company of reporters.
    Even presumptive GOP Presidential candidate, John McCain, enjoys a life long appreciation of reporters, even when it gets combative.
    To shut out those who practice the First Amendment on a daily basis, and are disciplined when it comes to its practical application, is a major error by the Obama campaign.
    Make no mistake, this is a major problem for their presidential campaign.
    I'm a major supporter of Barack Obama for President, and have been blogging about him since April of last year---but, in shutting out the major media on the road, he may be making a fatal error within his campaign.
    Thanks for reading:
    Bob Kholos
   

The Clinton Campaign: How Low Can They Go: "Islamisizing" "Ghetoizing" Barack Obama

    The Hillary Clinton campaign has gone down to a new low in Democratic politics---changing the face of the Democratic Donkey, to a Democratic Pig.
    In a shameful attempt to make Senator Barack Obama look suspicious, they sent a two year old photo of Barack Obama in Africa, dressed up in traditional Somali clothing to the Drudge Report.

    Rather than just "ghettoize" Mr. Obama, as Bill Clinton did, just prior to the South Carolina primary, they have now tried to put the Christian Senator from Illinois, as some how "Islamic"--in order to put doubt about him--because of his unusual name--in the minds of voters in Ohio.

     Senator Clinton has gone from "Ms" nice to "Ms" mean, in the last few days.

    The Clinton reaction to the criticism of the release of the photo is basically... no big deal.

    I assume they mean that because the Obama NAFTA brochure was circulated in Ohio, they can release this photo.

    Mrs. Clinton can try to reverse her historic support of NAFTA, but how does Senator Obama try to reverse the impact of a photo, showing less than understanding voters, the not so subtle attempt to link him to Africa and Islam?

    Is he supposed to defend the color of his skin and repeat the fact that he isn't Muslim?

    This is just another racial "code" to put back the fear of people in Ohio, who have lost many jobs as a result of NAFTA, to put a picture up, saying this guy is somehow strange.

    With million dollar consultants, those of us who have been around, perhaps too long, understand that they understand, exactly what they are doing.

    I suppose Senator Obama could say, "Shame on them."

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

   

   
   

MSNBC Debate: Clinton vs. Obama:Tuesday, Feb. 26th: The Whole Enchilada

    Tuesday's debate, on CNBC, this Tuesday, Feb 26th, may foretell the entire ball game for either Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.
    This debate takes place exactly one week prior to the Democratic Primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, on March 4th.

    Even though, the former First Lady, went all "soft" on Obama, in the CNN debate, last week, saying, "Its an honor..." to be on the same stage with the Senator from Illinois....she went on the frontal attack against Obama in Ohio, saying "shame on you."

    In her book, she praises the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and was beside President Bill Clinton, when he pushed through...at the protest of Unions and other Democrats, the NAFTA agreement.

    Now, her campaign has changed campaign tactics again, and gone to the negative against a flier, Mr. Obama's campaign in Ohio has passed around...criticizing her for her support of NAFTA.

    So, this debate in Cleveland, Ohio on Tuesday, should be wild.

    After 11 straight defeats, Senator Clinton is still ahead in Ohio and almost tied in Texas, according to the latest political polls.

    The debate and the primaries are the whole enchilada to Mrs. Clinton, now.

    The Junior Senator from Illinois, must be a little more engaged in his counter-attacks to the Junior Senator from New York.

    Mr. Obama has been a little too laid back in his last debates.  He can no longer afford that posture, now that Mrs. Clinton is on the attack.

    He doesn't have to be mean, but be a little more animated in his response to her charges.

    For example, he  can  read the paragraph in Senator Clinton's book where she supports NAFTA, and give her the copy.

    The election could be decided March 4th, and this debate could be the tell-tell sign, on who will win the Democratic Nomination.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

   

   

      

Hillary Clinton's Dilemma: NAFTA

    Senator Clinton likes to tout her "experience," including eight years as First Lady, with President Bill Clinton.
    The "experience" issue has been a main theme against Senator Obama.

    Now, that the issue of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been made a major issue by the Obama forces against her, in Ohio, Senator Clinton has fired back.

    She stood up before an audience, displaying a political flier, by the Obama campaign, on how she supported NAFTA, and said, it is not true and "Shame" on Senator Obama.

    This is her dilemma: Senator Clinton was closely involved with then President Clinton, and many people called it the first co-presidency.

    She took charge of the health care debate, and failed.

    It was President Bill Clinton, who pressured congress to pass NAFTA.

    I'm sure a lot of you remember the anger by some democrats on this issue.

    Union's were upset because they predicted, correctly, that thousands of American jobs would be lost, as a result of this legislation.

    Many environmentalists were concerned about the health effects and monitoring the resulting pollution from this act.

    So, now, Mrs. Clinton wants to distance herself from NAFTA and is on a mission to attack Senator Obama on bringing up this issue.

    But, she can't have it both ways:  She can't say that she has all of the experience of the White House, and then deny the results of this "experience." 

    Hillary Clinton is putting up a tough fight in Texas and Ohio...and still may win both.

    She still may win the Democratic Nomination for President.

    If she does run against Senator McCain, she will face the same dilemma on many other issues, while she was in the White House: Trying to defend and at the same time criticize the Presidency of Bill Clinton.

    Stay tuned to March 4th.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos

The Gangs of Los Angeles: Where Are McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this Issue?

    Perhaps it is easier to solve the problems in Iraq, than on the streets of Los Angeles, and that is why our presidential candidates and the reporters, who follow them, never bring up the issue of murderous gang violence all over this country...and ask the most obvious question to the candidates: What are you going to do about it?

    The Los Angeles Times ran a story on gang violence in the northeast section of the city(Feb 22nd, 2008:www.latimes.com)...here is a sample of what was reported :

 "Gangs that have been here for generations have been going at each other," Bratton said during a news conference, referring to the Avenues and Cypress Park gangs.

Since the beginning of the year, authorities said Avenues gang members are suspected in at least six homicides. Northeast Division, typically far from the most violent in the city, already has eight homicides this year, more than any other, police said. At that rate, the division would far eclipse last year's total of 18.

Photo Gallery

After the shootout

Deputy Chief Sergio Diaz said that while the area has gang problems, the level of violence in the last few weeks is "unheard of."

        The following journalists compiled this story:

      richard.winton@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes.com

Times staff writers Jack Leonard and Paloma Esquivel contributed to this report.

        We all know that poverty, and drug abuse and territorial control, are all a major part of the problem, but after identifying the problem for the last 30 years, you would think there would be a national effort to solve it.

    It's much easier for the candidates to offer their solutions to the economy and the war in Iraq, than telling us exactly what they would do to solve this nasty underbelly of  America, which destroys thousands of lives, each year.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos