Obama will offer great oratory similar to that of a spiritual motivational leader, or snake oil salesman, but when it comes to the mechanics of how one gets something done in DC, which can't be avoided, we will wish too late that we voted for someone with a track record of actually achieving what Obama swoons.

Pray people come to their senses. Remember JFK sans the myth: Bay of Pigs fiasco, Gary Powers Spy Plane fiasco, near nuclear confrontation with Khrushchev, failed attempts to assassinate Castro and of course the Vietnam War.

Can we risk inexperience for "crossing our fingers" on "hopeful" rhetoric when confronting the Mid East, Syria, Iran and North Korea?

Remember the Georgia Governor we elected because we wanted a Washington outsider. Can we risk terms of growing stagflation, rising costs, high interest rates which culminated in US hostages in Iran as we did with Jimmy Carter?

Hillary Clinton has the proven track record to get the job done, and she is the candidate we wanted since 2000. It's time her efforts, tangible hope and change, comes to fruition.

Barack’s remarks that the Bush administration created by default “Al Quada in Iraq” is blatantly false. Al Quada has been in Iraq with training facilities in outer Iraqui regions prior to March 2002. The difference now is they developed a name tag and party banner, but the surge has put a severe dent into ongoing operations.

Obama is embarking down the road less travelled for him this remaining campaign season, previously having an interrogation free press on his side, witnessed in every debate and confirmed by SNL this past week, never being hit hard by Clinton for fear of her seeming too aggressive and mean spirited.

The free pass will come down to haunt the Democrats this Fall if they choose Obama as nominee. Allegations of inexperience, especially in foreign affairs will not disappear, and despite protestations of admiration, the Republicans are salivating at an Obama nominee. This is apparent by their constant hatred of Hillary, and the votes for Barack in crossover primary states that are anti-Hillary votes since Barack has the most liberal label attached, and stands for everything Republicans despise.

Republicans are already voicing opposition over meeting with world leaders from terrorist nations with no preconditions, an act of weakness, or wonder the wisdom of withdrawing troops if he is in favor of sending them back if a conflict blossoms again. Does he expect a rose garden upon immediate withdrawal?

This past debate the Harvard graduate Obama claims to know no difference between denouncing and rejecting Farrakkan, which is the difference between saying “I don’t like what you did,” and “I want no part of you.” He stammered at the forced “rejection” just as he stammered regarding his illegal immigration stance, although in fairness Hillary did the same.

Lost in the glossy rhetoric is the hemming, hawing moments; the times when he becomes unglued and tells people outright fabrications as “Al Quada in Iraq,” but survives due to safe ground in front of a partisan primary group. This will change, if it hasn’t already, with attack dogs like Karl Rove, this decade’s Lee Atwater or James Carville, waiting in the wings with facts and figures, like referencing Obama support of Bush’s intervention in 2002 and 2003.

These are more fabrications that will be unveiled by a McCain campaign already in full gear, and if timely enough, can flame the fires of buyer’s remorse, as already seen in polls which indicate Barack supporters not as confident about their candidate as Hillary supporters are of theirs(1).

Barack has the ability to win the general election by ten points because of the promising heavy primary voter turnout by Democrats. However fear of a Barack presidency can coalesce amongst those not moved by primary choices, especially Republicans, and vote to deny Obama the Presidency based on such weak credentials. Conversely Obama could become McGovern redux, and Democrats need reconsider the former heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, who will have no fluctuation surprises in a general election, and a resume that warrants the Presidency.

(1) PBS Lehrer News Hour – David Brooks of Brooks / Shields segment

Don’t Let Media Influence Your Vote

                                                                      by David DiBello 

It is preposterous to listen to news shows announce Hillary has given her swan song, or read the New York Times describe Clinton’s recent debate oratory as her farewell address. Liberal media like MSNBC under the tutelage of converted sportscaster Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews thirst for Obama, their displays obvious.

Fox News’ slanted desire for an Obama victory confirms their belief he is more beatable, protestations notwithstanding, because of his inexperience and populist liberalism. They openly claim to admire his oratory and potential, but the hit squad is waiting. Its Hillary conservatives fear because the Clintons are not pushovers. Unlike McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, they fight back and give as good as they get.

Media pundits declare Hillary all but dead, with 27% of primary states delegates yet to be determined, and Barack holding a 69 to 152 delegate lead, roughly one half of one percent. Outrageous! Add to this the fact that Hillary, despite the happy talk advertising by self absorbed Obama supporters, is ahead in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the latter two by large margins.

On March 5th these experts will awake to the same reality the New England Patriots had to accept. This will be true because large states are more pragmatic in their appraisals, and have a fond memory for the Clinton Administration economy, longing for history to repeat.

Obama’s rhetoric of hope and change should be held to a standard similar to Reagan’s “trust but verify.” One should ask regarding his platitudes how we can verify or trust this strategy to be achieved. The answer always comes back to someone with a proven track record – Hillary Clinton.

Remember JFK had youth, style and slightly more experience, yet gave us the Bay of Pigs and Gary Powers Spy Plane fiasco, near nuclear confrontation with Khrushchev, failed attempts to assassinate Castro and the Vietnam War. Can we risk inexperience for "crossing our fingers" on "hopeful" rhetoric when confronting the Mid East, Syria, Iran and North Korea?

The Washington outsider, James Carter, gave us stagflation, rising costs, and high interest rates which culminated with US hostages in Iran. Can we risk our economy getting worse?

The proof is in the pudding, and Hillary has plenty of that, proving she can get the job done. She is the candidate we wished ran in 2000 and 2004, and are paying for that regret. It's time her efforts, “tangible hope and change,” comes to fruition. Don’t let the polls or the media get you down, nor dictate your vote. Follow your heart and own good judgment.

I am no big fan of improper police procedures, methods or mentality, but any case of abuse must be warranted by facts, not inferences of brutality used as a credit card to hedge one’s misdeeds, as done by Larry Davis and Rodney King. These predatory, violent and repeat criminals play communities against one another causing divides, just as Al Sharpton, self proclaimed reverend and former drug toady for James Brown, did with the Tywana Brawley hoax, to this day not apologizing to Stephen Pigones more out of fear of affecting his god, the almighty dollar.

It is said that “many of us get along every day, it’s the rabble rousers who make the news,” and they do this by making puppets of their communities, trying to make incongruent pieces fit, and flaming tensions by playing on fear and prejudice for their own financial gain and notoriety.

It is important to remember that God (you can substitute fate, aura, karma, kismet or synchronicity) is the ultimate judge, and if we are confident our beliefs are correct, they will out in the end, the portion of the story providing the moral.

Mr. King claimed police brutality, yet he didn’t wish to speak of the circumstances not caught on film, namely spitting and cursing at police, and resisting arrest by means of a high speed chase. Later when police apprehended those who mutilated Reginald Deny, caught on news helicopter cameras, their protestations were “not everything was caught on film.” Ironic.

Rodney went on to have more traffic arrests for being under the influence, possession arrests, and more importantly, beating his girlfriend on numerous occasions. This is on whom the militant community hung its hat.

Added to the repertoire is Larry Davis, who like a political candidate, says anything regardless of substance or repercussions to get out of a difficult situation. Criminals “play people,” their nature as a con artist, thief, and worse. Deceit is how he tore apart a city and convinced a jury so as to escape his fate. However, in the end one can’t escape one’s truths, and Mr. Davis, as a repeat drug dealer, went on to commit murder, fortunately someone of his own ilk, and thankfully an innocent person (of any persuasion) was not involved. Yesterday, the Reaper came to collect Larry.

Eight times out of ten the ones doing the loudest yelling are hoping the volume will conceal the truth, or they can camouflage their guilt. Sadly, the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome hurts those claiming genuine abuse.

A small percentage of the people are prejudiced, sometimes outright racist. It would help to compare the number of African Americans, and other ethnicities, who do catch a cab as opposed to those who don’t to get a finite number as to where we stand on racism. This shouldn’t hurt the mass majority who get along everyday, and we shouldn’t condemn police as a whole, especially in times of dire need, since they are the ones we turn to as they simultaneously run in the path of danger. Their actions should be judged by facts, not by prejudiced, pre-determined innuendo.

As for Larry Davis, may his life show an example to those who jump the gun and manipulate facts to fit their agenda. Rest in Peace Larry Davis; I know we sure will.

                                                      THE DESIRE TO BE A FREELANCER

                                                                          By David DiBello

The best way to determine if freelance employment is beneficial to a worker is to explore “intent.” One should become a freelancer from a standpoint of altruism, an entrepreneurial spirit combined with the desire to be one’s own boss, in charge of fees offered, product or services rendered, and a setting of work schedules and deadlines. A pure freelancer maintains the ability to accept or reject clients.

The first shock a freelancer adjusts is that opposed to receiving immediate pay via timecards or salaries, one must bill a client as a vendor. Vendors render service first, then wait anywhere between “net 15” and “net 30” days for payment, a little time thereafter not unusual. If this were a litmus test as to true status, it would unveil the fact this form of work is a canard for many, since these workers live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford delays in payment, just like regular employees. The mask being lifted unveils they do not meet the accounting standard of a “going concern,” with the financial resources to allow the client a reasonable period to judge their work product.

They are “quasi-freelancers,” accepting this type of employment out of necessity, not understanding the consequences as to billing a “client,” or tax implications affecting them at year end. Often overlooked, they are responsible not only for the 7.65% FICA and Medicare, but also the matching additional 7.65% portion that an employer would pay.

The first issue for any new freelancer is billing, an unknown arena for those accepting any work they can obtain.  They need to know exactly what to incorporate in order to charge the correct hourly rate. As a financial controller, I can inform the potential freelancer they need to obtain the hourly market rate for their services, then add to it the 7.65% FICA and Medicare, an additional 1% for unemployment, a percentage for healthcare, and a percentage for downtime i.e. vacation, sick time.

Freelancers need to extrapolate “benefit” costs over the amount of hours one works in a year, usually 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, or 2,080 hours. Therefore, if health insurance is $300 a month for an individual, or $3,600 a year, one would divide that amount by 2,080 hours to arrive at the $1.74 that needs to be added to the base fee charged an employer. One should allocate a standard vacation and sick time pay into the equation that would be covered if they were a permanent employee. Again, if allotted the standard two week vacation and a minimal one week in sick or personal time, three weeks in total, at a hypothetical rate of $800 a week (40 hours times 3 weeks, or 120 hours) or $2,400 annually spread over the remaining 1,960 hours (2,080 less the 120 hours) for an amount of $1.22 added to one’s hourly rate.

These benefits would be part of permanent employment, the exact fees an employer looks to avoid when hiring variable freelance employees. A perspective employer looks not only to save on not making a commitment; they wish to pay the same salary as a full time worker sans paying the “benefit cost.” The uniformed freelancer, especially someone offering a service highly competitive as to open spots and in desperate need, will not realize this until year end, or at a time when they need to rely on the health or “downtime” benefits never paid.

These additional “tack on” amounts in determining a fee to be on par with permanent employees should be set asides by the freelancer when received, so as to pay for the aforementioned benefits (healthcare, or a provision for downtime) or to pay the quarterly government tax obligation. Not billing for this “reserve,” a freelancer will dip into their “fee income” making what they earned less than a permanent worker.

An employer seeks to take double advantage of freelancers in not making a commitment to control their costs, understandable in fluctuating industries, and avoiding the “benefits” portion of fees, leaving the “quasi” freelancer behind when those costs come to fruition, dangerous because the “quasi” freelancer lives on a feast or famine budget, not knowing when their next pay stream will flow.

The seasoned professional with years experience, established reputation and consistent workflow knows these requirements to be a legitimate freelancer. They also track work related costs to deduct from gross receipts on schedule C of Tax forms in arriving at taxable income, just like a business. Freelance employment is exactly like a business, criteria that should be met to allow such type of work.

Trouble is our workforce today has a growing number of “quasi-freelancers” unfamiliar to the rules or not financially astute as to billing, their specialty, trade or forte in areas other than finance. It’s a good wake up call to people forced into freelance transition as to what an employer actually pays as total compensation.

 The IRS lists what constitutes “freelance” employment, which mainly focuses on independence of the contractor. A “pure” freelancer works on his own, told what product or services are needed, and then the employer awaits the results. This is not the case in many services, especially administrative, where a freelancer works on premises and there is direct oversight, if not instruction, by the employer.

Full time employees need take notice, especially this campaign season, with the Republican Party espousing tax deductions in return for severing healthcare obligations from an employer under the illusion an individual, not a group, can negotiate better rates. In short, an employer no longer pays the $400 to $1400 a month in healthcare premiums, $ 4800 to $ 14,400 annually, and the individual would deduct direct premiums paid not as a tax credit, but a deduction, which is 15% to 28% savings on a cost they previously had paid in full by employer.

The question is, once the employer has this obligation severed, will he make up in hourly pay the amount saved on abandoned health costs? Logic and greed dictate an employer will seek to save here as well. One need only look at the issue of illegal immigrants, employed to save not only on benefits, but on wages, to predict what unscrupulous employers solely concerned with their bottom line would do.

Freelance employment was geared for the established individual with an entrepreneurial spirit, and as a  first step towards sole proprietorship. They work for themselves, establish their own hours, and market themselves to the highest bidder. These are not the qualities of “intent” maintained by a majority of today’s freelancers who are forced to choose this employment “in lieu” of a permanent position. It is a lifestyle very hard to adapt, like walking a tightrope without a net, and not recommended for those not articulate or established in their professions.

Who doesn’t love Hope and that “We Can!” spirit? Everyone thinks “Change” is all the rage and we know what we have and don’t like, but change into what? What will I look like when, as an American, I am being brought together? What do I gain and what do I lose?

 Witnessing a Barack Obama speech is hypnotic. All the catch phrases are repeated over and over in lieu of documentated procedures and policies. This explains why his debate performance never matches his solo oratory. The Evangelist loses his luster when the spotlight is shone on facts; the snake oil salesman left spinning in rhetoric, if not actually putting his sandals in his mouth. One leaves a Barack speech mesmerized, but days later the hangover of “what exactly does that mean” remains.

Novelty wears off, pray not too late so as to jeopardize the general election, where a hit squad Republican party will tear into a resume that makes John Edwards seem the crafty veteran, and who Hillary fears the third rail of political correctness breeched if by insinuation alone.

Of course when we need to discuss how one actually removes Sadam or deals with a threat of terrorism, confront jobs being outsourced to foreign countries, approach the poverty level minimum wage that masks corporate welfare, or healthcare system that provides based on wealth, we turn to Hillary Clinton, the same candidate we wish ran in 2000 and 2004, but who is no longer the new product on the shelf. Mr. Obama gives us the “woulda” scenario of the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” equation that can’t be proved.

Change is “nifty,” but the mechanics of change require a mission statement on how to change, just like scoring touchdowns as opposed to football practice. Dreams are for the young who have the luxury of time, while reality is for the seasoned who know dreams require actions to become reality. I am reminded of the actor Michael Douglas portraying the American President warning his opponent, “our citizens have real problems which require real solutions; your fifteen minutes are up.”

Barack has won the small states who gain notoriety for the “sake of being different.” Now the primaries turn to mega-states like Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania where people feel the effects of cost of living increases with stagnant wages. While campaigning for Governor in a minority NYC community, Nelson Rockefeller greeted a citizen with “hello” to which he was informed “I can’t put a “hello” in the bank.” The clock is ticking for Barack, and people are catching on that we can’t put “change” in the bank either.

Top 10 Reasons Huckabee Should Drop Out

10.   More interested in getting the old band back together

9.    Dukes of Hazard marathon on TBS this month

8.    The additional delegates make the math confusing

7.    Old food cravings are acting up

6.    V.P. is more his speed

5.   Wants to DJ Christian Rock Network

4.   Mistakenly thought this was for Student Body President

3.   As long as there’s Romo, there’s no shot at Jessica Simpson

2.   Plans to vote for Hillary in November

1.   Always the bridesmaid never the bride!

                                        Conservative Delusion     

                                             By David DiBello

The Conservative party is done, for now, which is very difficult for them to accept. Rather we have candidate Mitt Romney, the chameleon conservative, and conservative talk show hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh, whining about the effects of a split vote caused by Mike Huckabee. This is nonsense.

I underscore Huckabee’s angst of such pompous pretention on behalf of Mr. Romney to suggest that supporters of Huckabee would immediately support Romney, or that the former Arkansas governor should withdraw from the race. After yesterday’s results, Mike won five states to Mitt’s seven; couldn’t it be said that Romney has maxed out, and Huckabee should be given a shot at his supporters?

First, I would also suggest to Mr. Romney that supporters that can be swayed to vote for another are not loyal or that committed. Why vote for someone if you really want to vote for someone else, especially if that someone else is ahead of you in the polls?

The real reason this is a ludicrous suggestion befitting of whining losers, like coach Belichick worried about an opposing player’s foot on or off the field rather than with beating that player while he was on the field, is that Huckabee’s views are in direction opposition to Romney’s and more in line with McCain.  Huckabee aligns himself with the worker, as opposed to the man who will lay him off; Romney was a turnaround specialist that lays people off, and a believer in less taxes and less government, which will also lead to layoffs.

Huckabee, as McCain, wants tax cuts for forgotten middle class Americans, while Mitt wants another round of Bush tax cuts focused on the well off. Romney was pro choice, then pro life, supporter civil unions, now opposes, while Huckabee has been consistently pro life and against civil unions, like McCain. Romney hates illegal immigration, that is now, while Huckabee and McCain want corrective measures to secure borders and steps to citizenship for those here.

The suggestion is, in the absence of Huckabee his supporters would chose McCain, as witnessed by the southern state vote last night won by Mike, with the silver medal going to McCain. Half of Romney’s wins have been small uncontested caucus states like Wyoming and Maine that other candidates forgone due to lack of financial resources and the small delegate count.

The biggest litmus test as to where supporters would go is in the selection of a Vice Presidential candidate. If Romney where smart, he would make a deal with Huckabee to be his running mate, allowing Mike to drop out. However, Huckabee’s supporters will go to McCain based on symmetry of policy and beliefs. The worst case scenario is they will split Mike’s vote, leaving it a “push.”

Romney is too smart to play that hand for revealing the fraud of his conditional statement. It also shows that conservatives are history for this election cycle because if they were really close, Romney would be in the lead, McCain and Huckabee fighting for the other to pull out. It’s easier for Romney and conservatives to complain about a fictional possibility that does not exist to cover their deficiencies, and the fact that they are finished.

                                                 Corzine Budgeting for Corruption

                                                              by David DiBello

If every man, woman and child of New Jersey’s nearly 9 million populace sent in a dollar a week to Trenton for 52 weeks a year, it would take seven years to pay off the projected $32 billion deficit. This approach seems more feasible than to double and triple thruway tolls, singling out drivers both home and out of state for past legislative mismanagement.

We can tweak the contribution levels so little Timmy and Jane, or Rasheesh and Shaquana don’t get unduly burdened and rudely awakened to NJ economics. Of course there will be the clamor of discrimination of the wealthy if they have to pay $2 for this shortfall, but at these levels we can risk it.

Segregating the debt and eliminating it will not alleviate the real problem going forward.  Like teaching a man to fish instead of handing him a carp, it would be unwise to hand a new credit card to spendthrift legislators, especially ones still in the throngs of addiction. 

It’s time to address the waste in this city’s government, that is, if we can keep an elected official out on bail long enough to make a “town meeting.” New Jerseyans should question the need for an “ombudsman,” a window dressing office as old and irrelevant as the New Hampshire primary, or the countless dog catching titles that add to the fiscal mess. How difficult can these jobs be if one can hold dual titles, and matching pensions?

Then we approach perks given to “gift” office holders, along with Part Time employees (phantom jobs?) who receive full time benefits for life, including expensive health care and pension to boot. These employees work as little as 10 to 15 hours a week, equivalent to watching two Seinfeld reruns a day for six days; something to break up the monotony of doing nothing.

New Jerseyans are in a state of massive kickback and corruptions, and stolen funds never recovered, that it would be unwise to hand over a clean slate before Corzine confronts the fiscal hemorrhaging going forward for fear of another new deficit in ten years.

Credit Corzine for making his proposals, unlike Gov Florio, while New Jersey was awake. However we fear Corzine’s budget already takes into account future corruption as part of the state’s operating costs, explaining the toll hike request. Suspicious if it only takes a dollar a week from every citizen to pay off this debt.

We elected Corzine because he was a shrewd financial manger, but like driving without a seatbelt, he seems accustomed to the “old way of doing business,” especially allocations for frivolous projects and bureaucratic misadventures. If the Governor can’t adapt to prudence, then the electorate should consider its own drastic cost cutting measures – Impeach Corzine.

The only looming problem is explaining to your child as they break into their piggy bank why they have to pay for someone else’s misdeeds. It will be time for the “life isn’t fair” speech, to which they might reply “nonsense – it’s their fault; make them pay.”

Political Hypocrisy     

 By David DiBello

Like witnessing a loved one with an addiction problem, we have to stand back and let nature take its course to get a cure. The Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest is now taking place in the Republican Party as they weed out the weakest link to see who is the last man, or policy, standing.

 It is equally interesting to witness participants like deer caught in headlights. Journalist William Kristol of the Standard and Fox News, openly admires Obama every Sunday, talking about his charisma and loquacious oratory, much in the same way a cat initially shows fond affection for a mouse.

Kristol, along with the likes of Dick Morris, Fred Barnes, Hannity and Limbaugh sing praises of Barrack, a man they would slam the door on if he ever showed up at a Conservative Party rave, and gleefully warn Clintonians their candidate’s days are numbered. A vast conspiracy, if you will, of hypnotically trying to convince people Hillary is the weaker candidate, despite her experience, which they railed about in the 90’s, her organization and the fact that they have the best “two for one” scenario in that equation’s history – a former President as spouse who already knows the road travelled, and can render advice for the kinks along the journey.

They will point to Hillary’s negatives, constantly inflated by the barrage of right wing claptrap covering Whitewater, commodities futures, alleged pandering and connections, the sound of her voice and other quirks either proven nonexistent or overstated from a party consisting of Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Grover Nordquist and Dick Cheney. These embellished negatives dissipate once her competition moves from a generic opponent to a specific name. As the economy further deteriorates, people will overlook the “ice queen,” which has since been debunked, in favor of someone who will tend to their needs.

It is also amusing to listen to their utter disgust at Bill Clinton for his campaigning tactics, despite the fact that the former President merely stated facts people need to hear if not want to hear. Its true Barrack lacks experience and would be a gamble, like the one we had with Jimmy Carter. It’s true that the South Carolinian primary results will be seen as an aberration, or a source of frustration for Democrats angered Clinton wasn’t considered in such a monolithic vote.  It is also true the media has given a pass to Barrack, never questioning his resume or associations, fearing they need tippy toe around the first legitimate African American candidate. In 1984, the Democrats had no problem saying “show me the beef!” Why not now; isn’t dishonorable to treat someone as less than equal?

This is irony at its best, since this is the party that backed Lee Atwater and Carl Rove, Republican hit men, the latter orchestrating the McCain “black baby” rumor in the 2000 campaign, and placed flyers on windshields of evangelicals warning them of Ann Richards “gay quota” hiring during Bush’s Texas Gubernatorial campaign. The alleged mudslinging Kristol and crew claim to find abhorrent will be child’s play come Fall, when these journalist will hem and haw, and remain tacit as henchman play their part. We will hear of Barrack’s inexperience, drug use or sale, and ruminations over fear of his middle name along with perpetration of the fraud that he “really is a Muslim,” playing on people’s fear.

Come Fall, we will hear that the Californian fires were started by a massive flag burning, the gay life style is an abomination while they court their vote, Democrats will require at least one abortion before registering to vote, and Iran will become our 51^st state. They will lie, cheat and distort, whatever works to regain control of the White House in their quest for more tax cuts further widening the class divide.

The ovations and adulation currently uttered will fade as we hear of displeasure over Obama’s theories of universal healthcare, open borders and raising taxes, making one wonder why all the praise now? A Kennedy endorsement will be portrayed as kissing a leper. The facts are simple; Clinton is the candidate Republicans fear, Obama being the weaker challenger. This explains the glee over one dimensional attacks on her by her own party, and the fraud conveyed by Republicans as to who they fear. Like a sports fan, they are silently rooting for the weakest competition to assure victory.

This plan of attack and desperate measures are just staving off the inevitable for Republican Conservatives. Any course of action based on playing up negatives is doomed for failure because the electorate is only interested, rightfully so, in positive plans as to what the next administration will do for the working class. This is now obvious based on the rise of not Guiliani and Thompson, but McCain and Huckabee, a candidate who consistently states he is unlike the man that will lay you off.

Every party needs a good bloodletting as the pendulum swings away, but lessons need to be learned. The new GOP needs to address the concerns of the socially conservative Republican middle class who are being harmed by a falling economy and turning to a brick wall Republican administration for help. The redundant diatribe of tax cuts are now seen for what they are – short term fixes that result in long term pain once those remedies start to fail, as they did in October 1987 and are now.

The recreated Republicans need to stand for the American family; they need to address and change substance, not the style of subterfuge to sell their old "tax cut cure all" product. Middle Class Republicans are fed up with a socially Conservative veneer masking anti worker policies, and not addressing rising costs for healthcare, tuition, pensions and living costs, being told to wait for the Capitalist gravy train to trickle their way.

This is the reason Huckabee (whose voters would gravitate to McCain, not Romney, in his absence) and McCain survive, and Republicans are revolting against the extremist of their party interested in big business and corporate profits, denying the middle class to the ash heap at the altar of Global Economics. The constant distortion of facts and canard being played out is evidence of frenzy in the Republican Party, and signals the Conservative Party death unless they adapt to the changing climate. Otherwise their party will go the way of the dinosaur, their new party mascot.

Bill Clinton stays “this side” of Fine Line

by David DiBello

It would be wrong for anyone, let alone the African American community, to think that they have to be treated with kid gloves in this political contest.  Since we are all equal, we are entitled to all the perks and responsibilities that come along with being equal, as we should.  Mr. Obama must lose the hands off perception of his candidacy and play hardball politics, which is what all this back and forth rhetoric would be considered had this contest been between two candidates of similar race or gender.

Bill Clinton must be tough but not offend, lest it come back to haunt the Democrats in the fall. He never said a black man can’t be President. Quite the opposite, he thought Barrack could very well be nominated. He had every right to question his inexperience, having only 1 year as senator prior to campaigning with no discernable accomplishments. Bill simply pointed out it would be a gamble, but we had inexperienced candidates with great vision before. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter, a one term governor and decent guy, proved from an accomplishment standpoint to be a disaster for which we got stagflation and hostages.

Obama also needs to say something more substantive than “hope,” a hard topic to argue pro or con, but hardly an economic policy or political platform. And when he does say something provocative like “Reagan was influential,” he needs to include the caveat that he disagreed with the influence but admired the motivation, much in the same way that change is only appropriate when it is good. Without further explanation he only opens the door to justified criticism.

If African Americans, or any race, wants to be treated with respect, than they will value being told the truths good or bad in honesty, albeit with dignity. Now is the time to get all the dirt out in the open and resolved, because come the fall, just as John McCain was besmirched by the Bush campaign in 2000, or Ann Richards was accused of a gay hiring quota in her Texas governor’s battle with George Jr., Obama’s omitted drug use will be made an issue by these Republicans, and Billy Shaheen, as ill conceived and translated as his message was, will be proven correct.

In the Democrat family it is important to air dirty laundry and come to a conclusion. Obama must lose the deity persona and fight for his nomination with dignity and no apologies. I will be voting for Hillary because if this were a job interview she has the best resume, but if Obama or Edwards are nominated, I will support their candidacy because the Democrats are the only party that will support the working class, the neglected faction which provides the hard labor to make profit for others.

If we hold a grudge we will insure another tax cutting Republican who doesn’t have a clue as to the struggles of the middle class and low income workers. As far as workers concerns, they wake up and say “good morning” to the night.

David DiBello

25 Nicole Court

Lakewood NJ 08701

646-275-7534

daviddibello32@yahoo,com