9 posts tagged “2008 presidential candidates”

Sean says...

Respect for one's country is one thing, is wearing it really necessary? Does not wearing a flag pin or patriotic garb mean we are any less loving of our nation? When is symbolism too much?

I don't usually agree with CNN commentator and columnist Roland Martin but today he really hit the nail on the head. When are we as people going to let silly issues like this one go and concentrate on issues? Probably never, since we hold on to things we can understand and ignore things we don't. This is an easy issue that gets people fired up unlike poverty.. I mean some Boston Red Sox fans will never vote for a New York Yankees fan, but sometimes you have too.

But is not wearing something desecration or ambivilence? I don't think so. We all support our free will to make decisions, should we really be throwing rocks at glass houses on who is more of something? If we did that noone would get along. Is what we do to show our patriotism or any other personal feeling about our lives, loves, country, or religion anyone else's business as long as it does not harm or personally insult someone?

(CNN) -- When is the last time you watched a mindless movie that had no redeeming value for you intellectually, but all it did was make you laugh?

That perfectly describes the raging debate among voters and the rabid television and radio talk show hosts who love to yell and scream from the top of their lungs, "I'm an American, and by golly, you better show as much appreciation for this country as I do!"

But once you finish listening to these high-minded bloviators -- and yes, that includes the voters who have bought into this nonsensical issue -- ask yourself: Does it really have anything to do with anything?

I've watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"

I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.

Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former soldier often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.

It has become sort of like bird watching as I've surveyed elected officials on the local and national levels and looked them over like a hen-pecked mother or a foaming-at-the-mouth military drill sergeant, studying their attire and deeming them insufficiently American because of their lack of decency and respect by refusing to adorn themselves appropriately with a lapel pin.

So, after listening to radio callers and the folks that e-mail various TV shows, maybe we ought to expand this need to express our Americanism even further. Shouldn't we insist that our politicians all begin to sport red, white and blue socks in order to feel good knowing that they are walking as Americans? How about asking officeholders to sport the American colors as undergarments to show that their undying love for the country is so important, they want the flag pressed against their skin?

There have been times when the candidates -- especially McCain, who has beaten back skin cancer -- have worn hats on the campaign trail. I want to know, datgummit, why the people running for the highest office in the land didn't cover their head with an American flag baseball cap to express to the nation their love and affection for the U.S. of A.

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

That's what zealots do. They take something so simple, so personal, so voluntary, and absolutely lose their mind, trying to force someone else to do as them, and everyone else be damned.

Folks, the first year I ever cast a ballot for political office was in 1988. And in the last 20 years, whether it was mayoral, school board, city council, or a statewide, congressional or presidential campaign, the thought of what was on a politician's lapel never entered into the equation as to whether they are worthy of office.

Those who will criticize me will say, "Well, Roland, if it's no big deal, then why not wear one?" And the reply is the same: "If it's no big deal, then why do you make it a big deal?"

Let me tell you something: When I'm on the golf course and I slip my wedding ring into my golf bag, the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin is still my wife. When we shoot hoops and I remove my Texas A&M University ring from my right hand, I still love my school. The fact that I can no longer wear my 1987 class ring from Houston's Jack Yates High School doesn't mean I don't cherish the crimson and gold. And I may not be able to fit into the shirt I pledged in, but I will be a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. until the day I die.

I am an unapologetic Christian, but you won't see a cross dangling from my neck or a James Avery charm bracelet on my wrist. Why? Because my love of Jesus Christ is in my heart.

This debate is useless, tiresome and distracting. Why? Because if there are members of Congress who wear a flag lapel pin but refuse to shore up our borders, don't do enough to stop the flow of drugs into our neighborhoods, or don't help to eradicate the gaps between the haves and have nots, then are they truly fighting for the concerns of Americans, or playing on the emotions of people by what's on their lapel?

We're better than that. We're smarter than that. It's time that we make decisions based on substance, which is what we say we actually care about. But maybe we're just lying to ourselves about that, too.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University.You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

The McFreeds, in the interest of equal time, post this speech from March 18, 2008 for your review...

This does not mean we are giving up on our support on Hillary Clinton, it means only that this speech is major enough to make available to our readers.

Sean reports...

Well as the Democratic Party continues to shoot itself in the foot over stupid decisions and rules, I found this story that makes a lot of sense to me but in the end may mean nothing.  To me the Democrats have a point on being a private entity but when they are utilizing resources from the state doesn't taht factor into having to abide by legal statute? Enjoy!

Sean and Stefan announce...

Well after Sean endorsed John Edwards a few weeks back only to have him withdraw from the Democratic Party race and Stefan being undecided up to the very end, The McFreeds finally made their selection, and voted in the Maryland primary last night.  We both voted for Hillary Clinton.  It was a long and tortuous decision (Sean's mom noted that this is the first time since he discovered politics as a passion that he had not selected a candidate before going into the voting booth); but in the end we voted with our minds and not our hearts.

Clinton convinced us that she is the best person to tackle the hard facts of Washington DC, not with oration, but with her sleeves rolled up ready to work on Day One.  America needs a working President, not just a cheerleader.  Our faith in her comes from her grit and determination in tackling mountains over her entire life, not just career. As a leader and a woman, she has overcome so many things you cannot deny her respect for figuring out how to survive and take it all - good and bad - in stride. She has made some mistakes and learned from them. But it is her commitment that can never be questioned. If elected, she will always have health care, education, and the family checkbook on her agenda. She has been consistent in that mission and in her desire to bring all Americans together to make our nation work for everyone. This is why we made the decision we did and why we hope she will eventually win the nomination.

This is not to say this that this was an easy decision. Barack Obama would make a better president than any of the the Republicans running, including the remaining foes John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Obama is an amazing speaker and personality. It is no wonder his fresh words and his very picture of change as the first truly viable African-American, or any minority for that matter, (with all do respect to Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm) to have a real chance at being our nation's president. But for us, he just hasn't sealed the deal. There is substance lacking here. And if he does win the nomination, his ideas will be scrutinized in the general election harder than now. Sure the website is impressive in words. Obama's mention of gay and lesbian issues on it and in his speeches is most welcoming. Clinton's lack of mention on her website is discouraging, but her public words cancel that out. We know both of these people will do what they can for us, but it is really up to the states to make the changes we need, along with a federal cheerleader to hold the nation's hand as we make that change. But we choose a President for the whole package and this round she won with both of us.

Everyone wants a John F. Kennedy this year to sweep us into the wonder of a fairy tale; but lest we forget that even Kennedy had a tough fight to his election as well because of questions about his substance. Up until 2000, the 1960 election was the last election where it was too close to call. Richard Nixon was the candidate of substance that year. The whole reason Kennedy went to Texas that faithful day in November 1963 was to start his push for the 1964 election because it was going to be a tight one. But as it worked out, Kennedy's strong vision and Lyndon Johnson's initial brilliance at working the Congressional machine gave America the progress it needed to make major changes in how we dealt with ourselves. Unfortunately it took his death, Martin Luther King Jr's death, and his brother Robert Kennedy's death as well as many other martyrs to a greater cause of equality and economic championship for this to be accomplished.  But what if Kennedy lived? Would his vision have become a reality? Would he have compromised like he did in the first 2 years? We will never know. But this true look at history gives at least Sean pause when considering Obama. It is right to wonder if the emperor has new clothes when considering a President. And if anything Obama hasn't made his case in this first test to us.

Granted Obama won last night and this weekend, but whatever the media pushes does not silence the fact that it is still dead-even on delegate count. It will be on this division of opinion that the ability of our standard bearer to unify a party will make our choice either stronger or weaker when the time comes. We concede that who ever the nominee is for the Democrats will be our candidate in the general election, but our voice as well as others too should be heard to at least force Obama or Clinton to learn from why we didn't choose them the first time, not matter the size or % of the opposition. Because, if anything, we Democrats want to win in November, and we want to make sure we are united after the convention ends.

We are sure many of you will have opinons about our vote and our reasoning. Please be respectful as we are of your choice. Many of you showed us your passion and commitment to your choices up to this point and we are amazed at all of your dedication. Sean's friend Keith gave an impassioned plea in particular for Obama; Keith's trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina are truly something to be admired and celebrated. Stefan's brother, sister-in-law, and parents lobbied us hard on our vacation in Florida for Obama as well. Their arguments made it even harder to choose. And Sean's Mom and sister gave their own reasons for voting Hillary. We wish we could have mentioned you all that spoke including fellow bloggers (Quest and Wayward Son in particular) but the excitement about it all truly is encouraging that people are thinking and involving themselves in the right to vote in 2008.

Sean says sadly...

It was only 5 days ago that I announced that I would be voting for John Edwards in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Sadly, John Edwards announced his withdrawl from the race today, January 30, 2008.  He returned to where it all started, New Orleans, in order to honor his commitment to a new war on poverty.  All the comments I have heard both from friends and commentators alike is that he was a principled, decent guy who had great ideas. I guess respect of the mind is a great way to be remembered as you leave. What I find sad is that a man who was a leader on issues in this campaign was beaten by celebrity and oration rather than true facts and strong solutions. A bitter comment, of course; but a bitter reality of how our system works. Americans ask for change but in the end we vote for who is familiar and who is the better show horse even if that horse can't run. With that here is a clip of John Edwards saying thank you to his supporters as he departs the race, not the political scene we hope.  

Sean says...

John Edwards is my choice for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination.

Change is not something you represent, it is something you do. This election season we Americans have the opportunity again to make a change in who is president of our nation. The challenge to select a candidate in 2008 is to choose one for who they are rather than who they are not. The other candidates physically represent change, but are they a change from the norm? Is what they are saying a strong vision? Are they offering valuable solutions to America's problems that are innovative or even correct? 

Edwards has always swayed me since 2004 with his talk of the Two Americas. Under President George W. Bush, our nation has focused on national security issues because of the reaction to the horrible disaster on September 11, 2001. However, the struggle of every American to realize their American dream economically immediately took a back seat.  It took the tragedy of New Orleans to expose us to the tragedy of our own economic strata. And it has taken the collapse of our housing market nationwide to realize that Americans are thinking more about consumption than future.  It is Edwards who saw this in 2004 and he continues to build on it as the nation and the world is ravaged by economic change.  He is the true inheritor of Robert F. Kennedy's mantle. 

Bobby Kennedy said once, "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'Why not?'" I beleive John Edwards emulates this visionary statement George Bernard Shaw penned and Bobby Kennedy strived to make us follow. Bobby was struck down before his moment was realized, but its John's time now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the exciting candidates of the media and are unfortunately catching the curiosity of the camera.  But John is still there fighting. It is his belief in his own message, himself, and the nature of the discriminating voter that John Edwards will build his coalition and take the prize. 

Why does John deserve to be OUR president?

1) An economic plan that makes sense and is integrated with real numbers and real goals that meshes agriculture, energy, health care, and trade into a sensible idea that includes all Americans.

2) A renewed call for a war on poverty to improve ours and our neighbors lives and opportunities for our children's future. (If you watch any clip this is the one to help you decide if he is good enough.)

3) A strong commitment to ending the war in Iraq.

But how does he help families like Stefan and mine? Edwards is for civil unions but understands that our issues are more than just some sort of legal partnership, dare I say legally recognized marriage. It is about job discrimination and financial security that our gay and lesbian community require to also survive not unlike the greater community does. But what about his "journey" and comfortability with gay and lesbians in general that many have asked questions about? How does he differ from the other candidates?  He differs because he is questioning his own faith and soul about the issue of marriage in general. How many presidents really have said that?  And with the fact that he surrounds himself with people like his wife Elizabeth and others who support our causes, I beleive he is getting closer in his decision. But in the overall stance on our issues, my own faith tells me that he will be the one to lead our nation into changing more than the others. Humility of self is more important in my president.

We all have to make a choice. Some might feel that Edwards should just give it up based on recent results. But we still have many states to go through and many tests to meet over the next month. Great oration without substance does not a great president make. Edwards has the oration and substance to inspire us and lead us to greatness. It is recognizing that leadership over the directing of who matters in this race by the media that will lead to change. I hope you will change with me and vote John Edwards for President.    

...my campaign for Edwards now begins by trying to convince Stefan who is still undecided.

 

 

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

 

 

Here is what we (Sean and Stefan) both think!

Sean says...

Well the Iowa Caucuses are over and Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee won.  It's now on to the New Hampshire Primary. 

Huckabee is the intimate candidate (who I usually say when talking to Stef) has the "crazy" (although some might say unconventional) ideas.  He gave a great victory speech tonight that truly drew you in and made you like him. I am impressed by his delivery and his ability to communicate without seeming like the loon he truly is.  

Obama gave the speech of a leader.  Surrounded by adoring crowds he gave the speech from a pulpit that talked about hope, history, and change. Why did it still leave me unimpressed?  I feel like I am missing something about Obama (despite MANY emails from my friend Keith as to why I should be on the Obama train). Now I won't be voting for Huckabee of course because well he believes being gay is a choice, that being homosexual is ok as long as we don't practice it, and that creationsim is a valid theory. But Obama has a shot at my vote and I am not running to jump on his band wagon for some reason. My earlier post which really dismissed his impact is proven wrong of course and that is ok because this is one contest. But with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out now and the field winnowing, what do I do to get excited about someone I am just not getting into?

I am excited that in the Democratic race alone there are viable female, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino candidates!  And I think this is where a lot of people are getting excitement because truly race is being conquered as a barrier in our time in an arena where there truly was a barrier based on personal choice. However, is because the potential of historic significance a reason to vote for someone? I remember being in 7th grade and being excited about Jesse Jackson (yes I was in 7th grade now so it makes good sense since I didn't understand what was wrong with Jesse at the time) in 1984. Jesse I believe finished 3rd in Iowa that year which was truly a break through. Hillary Clinton finishing third is a break through as well since she basically has finished better than any female presidential candidate has done ever as well. 

But in the end I just don't have Obama fever.  I really haven't caught any one candidates fever actually. So what can anyone do, say, or argue to sway me toward the light of political hysteria for any of the Dems still standing? Is it just me? As I age am I becoming harder to impress and excite? Do I need political viagra?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan says...

Romney scares me because his beady-eyed stare is too Ted Bundyesque.

Huckabee frightens me because he is an eloquent, dynamic speaker, who conveys authority...whose ideas and messages are dangerous. 

Richardson blew it for me during his performance at the debate on Logo a few months ago.

Obama concerns me because of his youth and inexperience, despite his charimsa and likeability.

Edwards looks the part (he is certainly shiny and handsome), but I'm still not convinced...yet.

Clinton has the intellect and the experience, but I worry about her electability (of course, that's a little bit like a run on a bank, isn't it?)

Who is left?  Well, as long as they are left, and not right...  :-)  381 more days until Dubya is outta there!  http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Sean says...

Stef and I intently watched the historic debate last night where nearly all the Democratic candidates for President attended.  All your majors were there: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.  Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden did not attend. Each addressed questions separately by moderator Margaret Carlson, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese, Washington Post editorial page writer Jonathan Capehart, and musician/activist Melissa Etheridge (waits for the double take on this choice... tick tick tick...check out link to editorial about her inclusion). Although not strong questions, it was GREAT to see candidates take on gay and lesbian issues directly. ALL the Republican candidates were invited but did not attend.

Stef and my initial take was the following in terms in who did the best to satisfy us:

1. Edwards

2. Clinton

3. Kucinich/Obama

The LARGEST disappointment was Bill Richardson. When asked by panelist (yes you read right) Melissa E. the question "Do you believe homosexuality to be a choice?" he answered the following way (courtesy YouTube) which was followed by the biggest GASP by gay people I think ever recorded on TV that wasn't a planned acting event:

 

Really disappointing!  Bill Richardson had a lot of things going for him in my mind and this comment despite the explanation on his website just really deflated at least my balloon. This man is overqualified for the job with a resume that includes congressman (minority whip), Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, and Governor of New Mexico. But his interviews and debate appearances have truly disappointed me in the last 2 months. The man is great at getting things done apparantly in the past but he can't verbalize why his vision is the best. Ted Kennedy had the same issue when he was deciding to challenge Jimmy Carter in 1980 - "Why I want to be president?" And now one of the big issues on my political checklist (and Stef's too) has a bad mark for him.

You be your own judge here on this and tell us what you think.