Choose Your Language Of Preference Below
French Version German Version Russian Version Spanish Version
Portuguese Version Chinese Version Arabic Version
by Belliah K Theise
February 26 2008
Great Leaders Debate with Great Ideas, with common interests. It is happening on this Debate. It was not a fight people had anticipated. Health Care and NAFTA was the main topic of the debate.
The two opponents disagreed and agreed in a civilized way, Very good example to the world.
It was the most harmonious debate between the two candidates.
Obama:” she will be worthy as a nominee, but I think I am better;” Says Obama.
“The reason I think I can be a better nominee is that I can bring change to this country in a unique way.” says Obama.
Clinton said that there is no doubt that both Obama and herself will bring change to the country, especially that she is a woman. Both Obama and Hillary will make history to the United States. She emphasized that she will do what ever it takes to bring stability to this country. Concluded Senator Hillary Clinton.
Thanks a trillion
Belliah.
———————————————-
story by CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign Wednesday pounced on Sen. Barack Obama’s acknowledgment that he has yet to hold a substantive hearing since becoming chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Europe.
The admission during Tuesday night’s Democratic debate offered a “glimpse of the real Barack Obama,” and was emblematic of the Illinois senator’s light record of results, the Clinton camp said in an e-mail.
Obama “did not hold a single oversight hearing because he was too busy running for president; the Barack Obama who spends his time talking about change you can believe in instead of change you actually can count on,” the e-mail stated.
Clinton herself raised the issue at the debate in Cleveland.
‘”He chairs the subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan,” she said. “He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.”
In response, Obama noted he has only served as the committee’s chairman since January of 2007, just when his presidential campaign was beginning — a fact the Clinton campaign’s memo also highlighted.
“But by his own admission, he was too busy running for president to conduct a single substantive hearing of the committee he chairs,” the memo stated. “So he would rather talk about what he would do rather than do it through the responsibility he had.”
For the record, Obama has held two hearings on ambassadorial nominations, but no oversight hearings.
– CNN
Copyrights © 2008 Zambian Chronicle. All rights reserved. Zambian Chronicle content may not be stored except for personal, non-commercial use. Republication and redissemination of Zambian Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Zambian Chronicle. Zambian Chronicle shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, interruptions or delays in connection with the Zambian Chronicle content or from any damages arising therefrom.
Zambian Chronicle is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microplus Holdings International, Inc.
Copyrights © 2008 Microplus Holdings Int., Inc.
February 27, 2008 at 8:44 pm
… Great minds these are, America has never faced such a choice before in terms of race and gender … thanks a trillion
Read on …
February 27, 2008
Why Should Hillary Drop Out Now?
By Jack Kelly
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter have written columns this week urging Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic race for president now, before the primaries March 4 in Ohio and Texas.
This is ridiculous. If Sen. Clinton loses in Ohio or Texas (and especially if she loses in both) “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” not only will be scribbled on the wall of her campaign headquarters, it’ll be flashing in neon lights from the Goodyear blimp. March 4 is next Tuesday. We can wait until then to see what the Moving Finger writes. Hillary Clinton certainly will.
Mr. Novak and Mr. Alter argue Sen. Clinton should drop out now because even if she wins all the delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses, she won’t have enough to win the nomination.
That’s true. But thanks to the Democrats’ idiot rules, Sen. Obama would have to win 75 percent of the remaining delegates to claim the nomination outright, something he can’t possibly do, if Sen. Clinton wins, however narrowly, in Ohio and Texas.
Elections are the best way to determine who should hold political power. But for elections to have meaning, winners have to win, and losers lose. The principal reason why Democrats face the (for them) nightmarish prospect of a brokered convention in Denver is because they have mandated proportional representation in all their primaries and caucuses. So winners win only a little, and losers don’t lose much.
The other reason why there could be a deadlock in Denver is the Democratic fondness for “super delegates.” The Democrats have, I think wisely, made all Democratic senators, governors and congressman automatically delegates. Who better would know the strengths and weaknesses of Democratic presidential candidates than these people, all of whom were elected to their offices?
But there is no sound principle Democrats can’t screw up, and they screwed up the superdelegate concept by extending it to the chairs of the left-handed lesbian caucus and the transgendered dwarf caucus and every other special interest group you could think of. The result is the Democrats have 796 super delegates whose votes are not bound by the results of the primary or caucus in their state. Barring a total meltdown by Sen. Clinton, it’s the super delegates who’ll determine who the Democratic nominee will be.
This has caused angst among supporters of Sen. Obama. The super delegates, they say, have a moral obligation to vote the way their states did. This could produce hilarious results. Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachussetts have been Sen. Obama’s biggest name supporters in Congress. Are they obliged to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she won the Massachussetts primary?
Supporters of Sen. Obama understandably would be angry if he loses the nomination despite having won more delegates in the primaries and caucuses. But if Hillary wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she has a good case to make.
Sen. Obama has a lead in delegates chiefly because he racked up huge wins in caucuses in red states. For instance, he won Idaho, 82-17, and Kansas, 74-23. The lopsided margins were mostly because of the mind-boggling failure of the Clinton campaign to organize in the caucus states. But no Democrat who stopped smoking dope more than 30 seconds ago thinks Sen. Obama could carry Idaho or Kansas in a general election.
Sen. Clinton has won primaries in New York, New Jersey, California, Massachussetts, and by her reckoning, Florida and Michigan. If she wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she can claim to have won the big states a Democrat must carry to win in November.
A counter argument is that Sen. Obama is the more electable. Current polls show him leading presumptive GOP nominee John McCain by 3-4 points, with Hillary trailing Sen. McCain by about the same margin.
But current polls are deceptive, Hillary’s camp argues. Sen. Clinton is well known. All the people who dislike her already dislike her, so she’s got nowhere to go but up.
Sen. Obama, on the other hand, may be at the apogee of his popularity. He’s soared to the heights on elegant but mostly empty rhetoric. Support for him is likely to decline when his resume and record get more scrutiny. If she wins in Ohio and Texas, Mrs. Clinton can reasonably argue to the super delegates the air is leaking from the Obama balloon. But that’s only if she wins in Ohio and Texas. We can wait a week to find out.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/dumb_party_rules_keep_clinton.html