by David DiBello

Opponents of Hillary Clinton trot out the tired comparison of her experience as First Lady to a medical receptionist working for a brain surgeon, or legal secretary in a law firm. No one would want the receptionist to hold a scalpel over their chest or have a secretary represent us in a court of law.

Perhaps a better comparison is of a Giants fan who watches a game every Sunday on TV, opposed to another fan that belongs to their fan club, meets all players and coaches, has seasoned tickets, and attends all exhibition and road games.

Hillary tried to broach the Health problem of the day in 1992 which has since been ignored and has turned into crisis mode. She met with foreign leaders both home and abroad, and lectured China on its lack of human rights for women. She had firsthand knowledge vis a vie her husband on all matters foreign and domestic.

She came into their marriage having staked a claim in politics long before her association with Bill, having met with Dr. King, as a member of Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign, and then on the committee to impeach Nixon. This is more along the lines of a medical receptionist who is also a doctor married to a brain surgeon.

The limited view of the worn out analogy ignores not only her secondary involvement as First Lady (which could be viewed as an active internship), but what she has done as NY Senator, involved on Budget, Armed Services, Environment and Public Works; Aging and Health, Education and Labor Committees. She is Commissioner of Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and I will never forget her presence at Ground Zero and support since for all those who lost loved ones in that tragedy.

The rest of her accomplishments can be read via Wikipedia. Then all who harbinger that boorish appraisal can honestly ask, “Does that sound like a secretary to me?”

Reverend Jim McGreevey has gotten his celestial shorts in a bunch over Dina Matos’ renewed airings of her humiliation by his actions during Eliot Spitzer week. Via collusion, McGreevey’s cohort informs us of threesomes in their past. This hearsay evidence is the best Jimbo can hope; the kind that plants seeds yet can’t be proven. Of course if false, this statement converts to perjury in a court of law.

One can rationalize a kind, lovely albeit naïve woman like Dina agreeing to such a circumstance as an attempt “to keep” her husband. However, if the ex-Governor has this evidence hanging over her head, why would she vehemently detest McGrevey’s behavior in TV, radio and print media? Why would McGreevey omit this arrangement in his liberating “tell all” memoir book, which would make for salacious details and great book sales? Did he have a sudden bout of honorability? His current actions depict a man devoid of character.

McGreevey continues to play “the man scorned” stooping to any level to defend his perceived oppression, and defend his misconception as to why he resigned. He didn’t resign because he is a Gay American; that is an affront to U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, N.Y. City Council President Christine Quinn and the countless number of Senators, Mayors and other Civil Servants who are openly gay. Governor McGreevey used State funds and services to conduct an underground sexual tryst, used undue influence in obtaining said tryst, and placed himself in the position to be blackmailed while having access to state funds.

Most ludicrous of his assertions is the claim Dina “should have known” of his being gay. This is like telling a victim of a pyramid scheme they should have known they were being conned while being conned. Absurd! Why would someone knowingly continue to be duped?

McGreevey sounds like a punished child on the verge of losing his toys, and will whine and lie to defend against such an outcome. He needs to act like an adult, take his medicine and make amends, a concept the right reverend should embrace not only to his wife whom he deceived, but to the mother of his child and his daughter. I doubt that means anything to him. His sole interest is self preservation sans respect or decency. In lieu of any contrition, New Jerseyans would just like this freak to go away.

David DiBello

Reverend Wright, who resorts to profanity, sexual gesticulations and curses on America, sounds more like a whining sore loser endorsing hate speech to compensate one’s shortcomings. He needs to explain black entertainers, politicians, journalists and legal scholars, as well as those who own businesses or work in management and have prospered in recent decades.

Shakespeare said, “The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.” America is the land of opportunity for all, and those who do not achieve chose to dwell on sins of yesteryear to compensate for their own shortcomings. The mere fact that countless African Americans have achieved so much depicts the fact that failings are not America’s fault, and if we aspire to hard work and dedication we are in a better position to succeed.

America as a racist country is an antiquated notion. Jeremiah should address problems within the black community that inhibiting their success: broken homes, children not finishing high school, drug use and sales, and violence echoed by their music and words. They desire "bling," but need to work hard to obtain luxuries and necessities rather than resort to the blame game. We needs only consult Bill Cosby for a more detailed accounting as where the finger of blame be pointed.

 David DiBello

9.    My bad; I thought it was a gambling ring!

8.    Hey as Attorney General you meet a lot of friends

7.    Why should Wall Street have all the fun!

6.    Playing a round of “can you top this” with Bruno

5.   Needed to divert attention from trooper gate

4.   Making “Governors Gone Wild” tape with McGreevey

3.   Putting the “Super” into Super Delegate

2.   Emperor's club? This isn’t the Joy Luck book club?

1.   Trying out new NY Motto: “At least our Governor’s not Gay!”

David DiBello

By David DiBello 

It was hysterical listening to former Sen. Tom Daschille, a Obama supporter, declare on Meet the Press that the Democrat Presidential nomination should go to  the winner of pledge delegates, then seconds later gloat that Obama can possibly take more delegates than Clinton in Texas, a primary he lost by 3 percentage points.

It seems he supports the will of the people, except when his candidate fairs better. This is the topsy turvy world of Democrat allocation method where Hillary can win Ohio by 10 percentage points but come away with only 8 more delegates, about one half of one percent.

In the end, if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and Florida along with either Kentucky, Indiana or Michigan chances are she will tie or surpass Obama in popular vote total (they would be tied today if Michigan and Florida’s popular vote counted) but not exceed him in delegate count.

The Democrat party, the ones who wish to do away with the electoral college because of a stolen election in 2000 despite a half million popular vote lead, will be faced with a similar quandary if Barack, having slightly more delegates is awarded nomination when Hillary has more popular votes. Equally dismaying is the awarding of delegates to Barack in states that conduct caucuses, which limit participation to about five percent of overall state electorate.

All the talk about following rules leads to contradiction as well, since Obama supporters want pledge delegates to dictate, and continue to penalize Michigan and Florida, which flies in the face of supporting the “voice of the people.” They say the resolution is to award the nomination to the one with the most votes, rather than the one who tops 2,024 delegates, which coincidentally would be an alteration to “the rules.” It further underscores the lack of foresight of Howard Dean in removing over 300 delegates when a fixed number was needed to win nomination. The Obama campaign’s beliefs remind one of Al Gore, declaring every vote should count in Florida in 2000, except of course the military absentee vote, and recounts of Republican counties.

The political campaigns aren’t the only ones immersed in subterfuge. The media makes one William Jefferson Clinton out to be a piranha, claiming to remind voters of the pickles he used to get into while balancing a budget for the better part of eight years. It is understandable that FOX news is against a man they are clearly despise, especially since his economic policy was successful and if the Clintons won, might see taxes adjusted to reasonable rates. MSNBC, clearly in the tank for Obama, needs a little more decorum, especially from sportscaster turned political commentator, Keith Olberman. Does anyone ever mention that Bill Clinton has the highest approval ratings of any modern day ex President, edging out Ronald Reagan by a percentage point? Why do they keep saying Americans don’t want to go back to a period where the budget was balanced, cost of living held in check, and unemployment low?

Fortunately in this campaign the political groundhog, which might be the electorate itself, demands seven more weeks of campaigning, and then some, to wear away at the blatant lies and contradictions camouflaged by hope and change.

David DiBello

All these months of Obama’s rhetoric and smoke about following a higher ground, appealing to mystical qualities of hope and change have dissipated under the stress of possible losses in the next three primary states. Barack, after debunking “silly politics” during last week’s debate, has resorted to mud and smear, sending out pamphlets, concrete evidence distorting Clinton’s stances on NAFTA and Healthcare.

Barack’s usual scam is to not address opposition criticism of his views, or the fact he is a lightweight, but play on the electorate by shifting focus on alleged politics of negativity, when in fact candidates are merely questioning his stances.

It’s a scam run by a minstrel show, snake oil salesman. A con artist who uses catch phrases to appease to the heart strains of voters like a Romeo who gets what he wants then abandons a pregnant Juliet. Like any televangelist who begins to sweat under the lights of inspection, he gathers the flock to yell “persecution,” then resorts to the very thing he claims he is above, and despises.

He can’t lose, it will shift momentum, so he attacks Hillary on NAFTA, when her support for it was lukewarm, and she stated it needs to be reworked. This is clear evidence that while in the strong union state of Ohio, it is Obama who will say, do and in this case put in writing anything to win where he is projected to lose.

On Healthcare, Obama has co-opted Hillary’s position as he has with all her others, sans for the fact that he will not guarantee healthcare for all Americans. This gets under his skin, but he can’t help it, since Hillary has been working on behalf of the working class, women, children and families for four decades of her adult life.

Obama has relied on the old adage “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.” Anything to redirect attention to the fact he is not qualified to be President, especially with the likes of his opposition. Unfortunately Clinton is restricted in her criticism for fear of hurting those mesmerized masses Barack plays. In the Democratic Party it’s not politically correct to criticize even if warranted. An unexamined candidate is not worth electing.

McCain, who had to redirect focus this week on libelous charges, will have far more leeway to open up the façade that is Barack. Those who do deeper exploration of this man’s politics when he isn’t serenading ego’s will be left with the same nagging doubt we all have: Can we risk inexperience for "crossing our fingers" on "hopeful" rhetoric during a slowing economy, or when confronting the Mid East, Syria, Iran and North Korea? We only need remember the presidencies of Kennedy and Carter what a dilemma noveau chic candidacies can give.

This week Obama revealed himself to be a calculating, cut throat candidate when the heat is on. His aloofness can no longer be whisked away, but explained for what it is – deceit.

For all his talk of change, in times of campaign crisis he has proven to be like those he detests. He was the alternative for Clinton supporters in the event “you can fool most of the people most of the time,” and he wins nomination. Not anymore.

David DiBello

Second, Hillary has more than diversion of the electorate’s attention span due to the NCAA tournament and summer vacations. She now has a resume actively depicting her ability to win the mega states Barack cannot. The Obama factor has taken advantage of her underestimation of his candidacy along with her own belief in her inevitability, and he has waged heavy organization, especially in caucus states that restrict votes, which Hillary did not feel needed. She is looking down the road at a landslide victory in Pennsylvania which will really turn the heads of Super Delegates, along with victories in Michigan, blue collar headquarters, and Florida, where she already received 50% of vote where all names appeared on ballot.  The DNC would definitely have trouble with an Obama candidacy that couldn’t win California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The plans are in the works for these states to be re-voted because neither candidate will reach 2,024 margin needed for victory, and as Gloria Borga of CNN exclaimed, “the votes have to come from somewhere.” This will ease the anger of those who feel disenfranchised, something the Democrats know all too well. For those sticklers about rules, whether those rules are ridiculous or not, they can take comfort in knowing the rule is one must reach 2,204. Any lower allocation would violate that precept.

Bottom line is Hillary has more than Calendar to look forward; she has major potential after Tuesday’s victories. In her campaign, April 22^nd can’t come soon enough.

                                                                              By David DiBello

The old recant of “I’ll tell my mother” is now replaced by the Obama campaign with “wha wha their using fear!” as a subliminal message of “don’t go there” to the electorate every time legitimate concerns are raised over his lack of experience, both foreign and domestic.

President Roosevelt said “there is nothing to fear but fear itself,” in an effort to mobilize the masses against being paralyzed by fear. Of course fear is a way for the body to warn itself against danger; having your car break down in a bad neighborhood, or not turning in your work assignment on time might warrant fear of violence or retribution, respectively.

The acronym for fear is Far Exceeding Actual Reality, and the great danger with fear is to embellish to the point of rendering someone useless, consumed by this belief. However the emotion cannot be discounted as a useful tool to logically question circumstances in one’s environment, especially trust in another person.

This is the key element to Obama’s use of the “fear” defense; he hopes he will make you feel guilty if you question his background and experience, or his current policies. Take his views on troop withdrawal which has been revealed through debate scrutiny not to be in its purest form, but rather a “musical chairs” withdrawal with the possibility of a sequel deployment in his administration. It makes one question, now that we have his complete strategy, why we would withdraw immediately based on public desire and exhaustion of the war, rather than the criteria of finishing the job once and for all.

Barack raises the specter of fear when one requests an exploration of his actual stances, both those on record as a Senator, and the ones made while he was just “musing.” Critics like Karl Rove will point to documented statements that Obama supported Bush in 2002 and 2003, and unless he admits to it, or reshapes his argument that he didn’t want to intervene in Iraq but supported the troops while there, he will be going down that “was against it before I was for it” slippery slope.

Hillary on the other hand, might no longer be the flavor of the day, but has been consistent on supporting intervention when public sentiment was three quarters behind engaging Sadam and removing a threat. She has criticized a poorly performed strategy of the Bush administration, and has been banging the drum for a responsible withdrawal long before Barack declared his candidacy. Her views have evolved as the publics and frustration mounted over the lack of a clear plan in Iraq.

There is more than the war. We have healthcare and education issues where the candidates differ, albeit slightly, yet in the former Hillary requires coverage for all – a sane philosophy since no one know, regardless of age and health, knows when they will suffer a debilitating accident and need coverage.

As far as education, one only need to turn to Wikipedia to have listed all the child and family programs Mrs. Clinton sponsored, chaired or created to know her experience dwarfs Mr. Obama.

An honest appraisal of Obama’s statements and experience is justified, and is something Barack shouldn’t fear.