You listen to the pundits, how they can’t understand how petty the Democrats seem to be, when it comes to Race, Sexism, and yet you know, maybe the Pundits are missing the point? Maybe they have spent way too much time in their Ivory Towers, being fed by their own egos? I mean you have had near riots this last year, because some white moron made some ignorant remarks about African American Women, and yet when it comes to it, they defend their own bad mouthing of women in their ‘rap music‘ lyrics.

RACIAL DIVIDES EXIST.

Perhaps it needs to be discussed, to be shown for what it is. Maybe it is time that candidates cleared the air about it, and let the people decide. Can a Black Man win? Can a Woman? I don’t know, but if people are so twisted in their bigotry that those things matter, then maybe it should be front and center. Racism exists, and years after Selma, there is still a strange racism that exists in America. There are still morons who believe in the superiority of the white race, or of their religion over others. So let it be discussed, let it be focused on, and who knows, maybe people will suddenly realize that racism isn’t worth it, that maybe being a bigot isn’t going to solve the Mortgage Crisis, or the Fuel Dependency, or end the War in Iraq.

Yet the debate tonight was perhaps more indicative of just how much is at stake here. To have both a woman and a man of color squaring off, with a white guy trying to play peacemaker, you have to seriously wonder what has happened in the world of politics.

After a brief discussion of the nation’s economic woes, the debate devolved into an angry exchange between the two senators, with Clinton noting Obama had taken campaign contributions from a political patron facing fraud charges and Obama calling Clinton a “corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.” (source)

First off, Obama is under fire because he was honest enough to say that Ronald Reagan changed the climate in the USA. I mean, is he wrong? Until Reagan won, the USA was looked upon as being impotent, as being incapable of making a single decision to protect its own people. You can lay that right on Jimmy Carter’s doorstep, but with the election of Reagan, he brought back PRIDE IN AMERICA. Maybe his policies weren’t good, or his morality was a bit too conservative, but give the man his due. HE DID BRING AMERICA BACK and perhaps more than that, he DID DEFEAT COMMUNISM.

To be attacking Obama over his respect for a man who did a hell of lot for the USA, is partisan politics at its worst. People have different ideas, different perspectives than others, so what is wrong with acknowledging that some of them did good? Reagan did bring about a major shift in US Politics, just as Martin Luther King did when he marched for Civil Rights. Surely even the racists of the South acknowledge that, so why can’t a Democrat acknowledge a Republican?

Then we have Hilary claiming that Obama answered ‘present‘ while a rookie STATE SENATOR, as if she is any better. I mean SHE DID VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR, but maybe if a few more Senators had VOTED PRESENT, there might be a different story about that WAR DECLARATION.

Then there is the whole NAFTA bullshit. Today you have John Edwards talking about FAIR TRADE, yet Edwards did vote for making the trade relations with CHINA PERMANENT. Clinton is the one who helped foster NAFTA, and just last year lauded it as being a huge economic boon to the USA. So I mean, let’s keep the records straight, and while the pundits and so called experts mutter how people should play nice, this is exactly what a debate and a primary process should be.

Candidates NEED TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES, though Senator Clinton prefers HER HUSBAND TO DO IT, and John Edwards has had HIS WIFE DO A LOT FOR HIM TOO, it is important to listen to them battle each other. Who says they need to be friends, to ignore their version of the truth? This isn’t about whether a Democrat or a Republican wins, it is about having THE BEST CANDIDATE WIN. People can’t choose who that is, if they all play nice, and are all kisses and smiles.

There are differences, and it is about bloody time that these candidates showed some grit, some guts, and struck out for what they believe in. Name calling isn’t productive, but getting the truth out there is important. It is time the gloves came off, and let the chips fall where they should. The more Obama talks, the more he looks like a man who CAN LEAD, and the more Hilary Clinton strikes out, the more she looks like a shrew, who is vain, petty, and not Presidential Material.

Too much of the OLD GUARD IN HER, as she tries to smear others, to twist the truth and to make mountains out of molehills. She is a good street fighter, but she is too well heeled to be an independent thinker. Her husband’s assault on Obama for mentioning Reagan shows that. And for her to use the old ‘he said it, not me‘ just shows how she is unwilling to stand up for her own beliefs. There is no doubt that he doesn’t say what she hasn’t approved, and for her to act differently is just showing that she would be as devious, as deceitful as the current President is. It is a cowardly act, to have someone else do your dirty work, which isn’t responsible. It this is what she means by being experienced, I wonder, is it the type of experience one wants in their President?