The events that are happening in Egypt, are the result of a old man, trying to hold on to the money and the power. Mubarak, 82 years old is buying time at the expense of lives lost and intimidation. At this very moment the U.S administration is negotiating with Mubarak to bring this ugly revolt to a end by his ultimate departure.
As day by day goes by the Egyptian people are more willing to die, than to just wait until september when Mubarak is supposed to step down. These recent events have triggered other Arab peoples to protest, and have made their leaders make some tatical changes. President Obama is trying to walk a political tight rope because he can't tell any nation who should lead them but in his cabinet they want Mubarak to leave "Now"!
Mubarak, must look at the entire situation and be honest with himself. First of all if he leaves now he has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts. Secondly its been 30 years on top , he should be running to the nearest jet heading for Dubai ? Thirdly, Mubarak should look at the future of Egypt , the youth and he should ask himself , why ?
Friday, February 4, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obama's "Middle-East" !
This weekends events in Egypt, and in Tunisia is just a preview of the the international dilemma that the Obama administration has inherited. During the cold war with communist Soviet Union and China, the U.S policy was simply this " the enemy of my enemy is my friend "! We used the power of the all mighty "dollar" to support unstable democracies with dictators.
First example Suddam Hussien, in the eighties we armed him with missiles, with the help of Don Rumsfield. Strategically this unusual relationship between Baghdad and Washington went under the radar because our goal was to support government that wasn't friends with Iran. In a ten year war with Iran , millions of people were gased and the Iraqi military and oil reserves increased. Over time Saddam Hussien became one of many dictators on the payroll or i.e, "foreign aide"!
First example Suddam Hussien, in the eighties we armed him with missiles, with the help of Don Rumsfield. Strategically this unusual relationship between Baghdad and Washington went under the radar because our goal was to support government that wasn't friends with Iran. In a ten year war with Iran , millions of people were gased and the Iraqi military and oil reserves increased. Over time Saddam Hussien became one of many dictators on the payroll or i.e, "foreign aide"!
Militarily speaking Saddam became a major player in the middle-east, much to the displeasure of major U.S Allie Israel.
Obama's middle-east he has to deal with unstable governments, high food prices and high unemployment. Also a highly intelligent youth movement that is technically adept on the internet to cause a movement with a click of a button .
Obama's middle-east he has to deal with unstable governments, high food prices and high unemployment. Also a highly intelligent youth movement that is technically adept on the internet to cause a movement with a click of a button .
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The End Game
“Game, Set, Match, Obama!”
This year Democratic nomination process reminds me of the grueling tennis matches back in the eighties between John McEnroe, Ivan Lendel and Jimmy Connors, during matches at Wimbledon open. Each of these tennis legends had distinctive styles and no matter what the score was never gave up during the entire match. John McEnroe was a young New Yorker with a brash attitude, whose style of play was the serve and volley. His attitude and style of play made him a dominate player on the men’s circuit and took tennis to a global attraction. Ivan Lendel was the eastern European player that whatever match he entered was considered the odds on favorite. Lendel’s style could be best described as versatile using serve and volley or his powerful ground stroke game to wear down opponents. Jimmy Connors was a player that was not the most naturally athletically gifted tennis player but used his passion to win every point and his ability that when he was behind to comeback and win the match.
Now you might ask me, “Which player reminds me of today’s presidential candidates?” Let’s begin with Hillary Clinton, if I had to compare her she reminds me of John McEnroe! This is an easy comparison because like John McEnroe, Hillary Clinton argues to the referees. For example when Florida and Michigan decided to move their primaries up to an earlier date all who voted for this action knew it was against the rules and the penalty for their decision would result in their delegates wouldn’t be seated at the convention. Every democratic candidate signed an agreement not to campaign in that particular state and it was announced to the potential voters that their votes wouldn’t count. In Michigan Hillary’s name was on the ballot and in Florida all of the Democratic candidates names appeared on the ballot but known of them campaigned there. In both contests Hillary won but in Michigan 40% of the vote was uncommitted and in Florida she held a symbolic victory celebration although none of the candidates campaigned in that state. Now Hillary’s new attack is how since Obama won’t join her to do a revote in those states that he is responsible for the disenfranchisement of those voters. Since Hillary is behind in delegates, most overall contests won and popular votes, the only strategy she has left is to argue with the refs or change the rules of the game.
John McCain, I know what you’re going to say he’s not a Democrat but since there are only three candidates left I’m going to include him in this discussion. This is difficult because of his unique personal experiences and his age compared to the other candidates. It seems to me Jimmy Connors fits John McCain style, with his ability to comeback when you’re down in points. Let’s reflect back to the month of June, John McCain presidential campaign had stalled, ran out of money and many of his staff had jumped ship. McCain despite calls for him to end his candidacy and the media scrutiny, he told everyone in a prophetic tone “I’m still in this race and I’m going to win the republican nomination!” He made a believer out of the American electorate by winning the New Hampshire primary defeating heavily favored Mitt Romney. After his stunning victory he officially declared himself the “come back kid” and rode that momentum to secure the Republican nomination.
Barak Obama reminds me of a tennis trailblazer Auther Ashe. I didn’t mention him in my above examples because his tennis career came in a different era and comparing Obama to Lendel would be a stretch of an imagination. The comparison of Obama to Ashe is more appropriate for my application. Auther Ashe ascension in the world of tennis caught the world by surprise. In the world of tennis during this period of history it was dominated by whites and was classified as a sport played by the affluent. In many ways the presidential campaigns in America are the same practice because only very few men from humble beginnings rise up to become the president of the United States. Ashe like Obama came from humble beginnings not having the born with natural advantages like others enjoy but still manage to overcome and play the “game” on the world stage. Once Ashe played on the world stage he captivated crowds with his skill and his court savvy. Like Ashe, Obama has the same appeal as a presidential candidate with his ability of communication and his political savvy which gains him respect by a majority of his peers. The point I would like to make here is that Ashe and Obama are trailblazer in their respective fields, their unprecedented rise tells two stories, one anything is possible in America and that black men can do something more with their life than being pimps or some criminal.
This year Democratic nomination process reminds me of the grueling tennis matches back in the eighties between John McEnroe, Ivan Lendel and Jimmy Connors, during matches at Wimbledon open. Each of these tennis legends had distinctive styles and no matter what the score was never gave up during the entire match. John McEnroe was a young New Yorker with a brash attitude, whose style of play was the serve and volley. His attitude and style of play made him a dominate player on the men’s circuit and took tennis to a global attraction. Ivan Lendel was the eastern European player that whatever match he entered was considered the odds on favorite. Lendel’s style could be best described as versatile using serve and volley or his powerful ground stroke game to wear down opponents. Jimmy Connors was a player that was not the most naturally athletically gifted tennis player but used his passion to win every point and his ability that when he was behind to comeback and win the match.
Now you might ask me, “Which player reminds me of today’s presidential candidates?” Let’s begin with Hillary Clinton, if I had to compare her she reminds me of John McEnroe! This is an easy comparison because like John McEnroe, Hillary Clinton argues to the referees. For example when Florida and Michigan decided to move their primaries up to an earlier date all who voted for this action knew it was against the rules and the penalty for their decision would result in their delegates wouldn’t be seated at the convention. Every democratic candidate signed an agreement not to campaign in that particular state and it was announced to the potential voters that their votes wouldn’t count. In Michigan Hillary’s name was on the ballot and in Florida all of the Democratic candidates names appeared on the ballot but known of them campaigned there. In both contests Hillary won but in Michigan 40% of the vote was uncommitted and in Florida she held a symbolic victory celebration although none of the candidates campaigned in that state. Now Hillary’s new attack is how since Obama won’t join her to do a revote in those states that he is responsible for the disenfranchisement of those voters. Since Hillary is behind in delegates, most overall contests won and popular votes, the only strategy she has left is to argue with the refs or change the rules of the game.
John McCain, I know what you’re going to say he’s not a Democrat but since there are only three candidates left I’m going to include him in this discussion. This is difficult because of his unique personal experiences and his age compared to the other candidates. It seems to me Jimmy Connors fits John McCain style, with his ability to comeback when you’re down in points. Let’s reflect back to the month of June, John McCain presidential campaign had stalled, ran out of money and many of his staff had jumped ship. McCain despite calls for him to end his candidacy and the media scrutiny, he told everyone in a prophetic tone “I’m still in this race and I’m going to win the republican nomination!” He made a believer out of the American electorate by winning the New Hampshire primary defeating heavily favored Mitt Romney. After his stunning victory he officially declared himself the “come back kid” and rode that momentum to secure the Republican nomination.
Barak Obama reminds me of a tennis trailblazer Auther Ashe. I didn’t mention him in my above examples because his tennis career came in a different era and comparing Obama to Lendel would be a stretch of an imagination. The comparison of Obama to Ashe is more appropriate for my application. Auther Ashe ascension in the world of tennis caught the world by surprise. In the world of tennis during this period of history it was dominated by whites and was classified as a sport played by the affluent. In many ways the presidential campaigns in America are the same practice because only very few men from humble beginnings rise up to become the president of the United States. Ashe like Obama came from humble beginnings not having the born with natural advantages like others enjoy but still manage to overcome and play the “game” on the world stage. Once Ashe played on the world stage he captivated crowds with his skill and his court savvy. Like Ashe, Obama has the same appeal as a presidential candidate with his ability of communication and his political savvy which gains him respect by a majority of his peers. The point I would like to make here is that Ashe and Obama are trailblazer in their respective fields, their unprecedented rise tells two stories, one anything is possible in America and that black men can do something more with their life than being pimps or some criminal.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Clinton's Last Stand
“The Clinton’s Last Stand”
It is clear that in these last primaries the Clinton’s are going to use the strategy of “scorched earth!” This is a military strategy that basically to bomb anything and everything and leave nothing alive whatever the cost. At the same time the Clinton’s have claimed to be the victims of negative media biased and said Obama gets a “free pass!” Excuses on why the “Clinton’s” campaign mistakes appears to be the real strategy that has been pushed on the American electorate. In the same instance, Clinton’s campaign also stress that Obama doesn’t have the political experience to be the president of the United States of America. No matter what the Clinton’s strategy might be at this point in the nomination process it is clear that every political trick in the playbook to derail Obama’s momentum to the Democratic nomination.
Hillary two weeks ago said “Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are her firewalls.” In the same breath they claimed that Obama has been treated like “velvet gloves!” If Obama had lost eleven straight states in a row would the press still give him any chance to win the Democratic nomination? The political savvy of the Clinton’s is very clever playing the victim and the bully role at the same time. Senator Clinton uses her natural advantages to her favor by raising up her gender and her years of Washington D.C experience. One question to ask is the mud slinging really helping the Democrats or the Republicans?
Let’s face reality, we as citizens of America enjoy gladiator fights to the death. We have arenas all over our land where we go out for entertainment and watch two human beings male and female beat each other to a pulp. Usually men and women don’t fight each other in professional fights unless in a domestic violence scenario. In this Democratic nomination process we have the best of both worlds a black man fighting a white woman for the right to represent the democrats for the presidential nomination. Hillary has always been the pre-coronated nominee and the democratic nomination was just a mere formality to become the first women U.S president. Barak on the other hand was always a long shot to win the democratic nomination, given the fact that no black candidate male or female has run a successful campaign to become eligible to run for president.
It appears to me for the rest of the way Hillary is going to be like the mythical characterization of the pelage mask that is half side with a smile but the other half a frown. Really Senator Clinton has to go negative on Obama because she has squandered her opportunities to become the unchallenged front-runner. Obama’s challenge is to not be pressured by the media, pun dents and Hillary’s trap to become negative with her. He needs to stay his message of change and turning the chapter on the political dynasties of the Clinton’s and the Bush’s. Most of the critics so far want Obama to get more negative and attack Hillary but with his lead in most states won plus more pledged delegates, with a possibility of the popular vote lead, what’s so wrong? Here’s my advice to Obama, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”
It is clear that in these last primaries the Clinton’s are going to use the strategy of “scorched earth!” This is a military strategy that basically to bomb anything and everything and leave nothing alive whatever the cost. At the same time the Clinton’s have claimed to be the victims of negative media biased and said Obama gets a “free pass!” Excuses on why the “Clinton’s” campaign mistakes appears to be the real strategy that has been pushed on the American electorate. In the same instance, Clinton’s campaign also stress that Obama doesn’t have the political experience to be the president of the United States of America. No matter what the Clinton’s strategy might be at this point in the nomination process it is clear that every political trick in the playbook to derail Obama’s momentum to the Democratic nomination.
Hillary two weeks ago said “Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are her firewalls.” In the same breath they claimed that Obama has been treated like “velvet gloves!” If Obama had lost eleven straight states in a row would the press still give him any chance to win the Democratic nomination? The political savvy of the Clinton’s is very clever playing the victim and the bully role at the same time. Senator Clinton uses her natural advantages to her favor by raising up her gender and her years of Washington D.C experience. One question to ask is the mud slinging really helping the Democrats or the Republicans?
Let’s face reality, we as citizens of America enjoy gladiator fights to the death. We have arenas all over our land where we go out for entertainment and watch two human beings male and female beat each other to a pulp. Usually men and women don’t fight each other in professional fights unless in a domestic violence scenario. In this Democratic nomination process we have the best of both worlds a black man fighting a white woman for the right to represent the democrats for the presidential nomination. Hillary has always been the pre-coronated nominee and the democratic nomination was just a mere formality to become the first women U.S president. Barak on the other hand was always a long shot to win the democratic nomination, given the fact that no black candidate male or female has run a successful campaign to become eligible to run for president.
It appears to me for the rest of the way Hillary is going to be like the mythical characterization of the pelage mask that is half side with a smile but the other half a frown. Really Senator Clinton has to go negative on Obama because she has squandered her opportunities to become the unchallenged front-runner. Obama’s challenge is to not be pressured by the media, pun dents and Hillary’s trap to become negative with her. He needs to stay his message of change and turning the chapter on the political dynasties of the Clinton’s and the Bush’s. Most of the critics so far want Obama to get more negative and attack Hillary but with his lead in most states won plus more pledged delegates, with a possibility of the popular vote lead, what’s so wrong? Here’s my advice to Obama, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!”
Sunday, February 17, 2008
"It wasn't supposed to be like this"
In the 2008 nomination process early on the press and pundits agreed that Hillary Clinton was the clear front runner candidate of the Democratic Party. Her credentials are unmatched by any other candidate, just by the simple fact that she was a former first lady for eight years and a senator for the state of New York for the past seven years. Another factor that played as a factor to her automatic front runner status is former president Bill Clinton, and his political machine for generating enthusiasm to get out the vote.
We are now near the half way point through the Democratic nomination process and surprisingly Hillary Clinton hasn’t won the nomination and hasn’t generated momentum toward securing her party’s nomination. Instead a little known senator from Illinois have has slowed the Clinton machine to a stand still and is poised to take over the front runner status of the Democratic Party. The Question to ask right now is “what happen, it wasn’t supposed to be like this?”
One factor into this tight Democratic nomination was a miscalculation of strategy by Hillary Clinton campaign to win the nomination by Super Tuesday. Hillary hedged all of her bets on the fact that her political machine would topple Obama and she could cruise to Denver, Colorado as her party’s nominee. Well after Super Tuesday it was clear that Barak Obama wasn’t a fairytale candidate and he had enough resources to stay in the race for the long haul.
Another factor was the strategy of Barak was to focus on smaller states that hold caucuses. In stark contrast Hillary put all of her resources into bigger states with more delegates and super delegates. Well this strategy backfired because Hillary didn’t win more states than Barak and lost the popular vote in the process. The process should have been winning as many states as you can than just focusing on the big prizes. As a result of Hillary’s strategy blunder allowed Barak to surge past her and gained what seems to be unstoppable momentum to the nomination.
It seems to me that the final factor of Hillary’s stalled campaign was obvious blunder and that was she under estimated her opponent. Bill Clinton during the New Hampshire primary had a Freudian slip when he referred to Barak’s vote on the Iraq war as a “fairy tale!” The question every intelligent person should ask is why he used the word “Fairy tale” to criticize Obama’s anti- Iraq war vote. We cannot predict what Bill Clinton actually meant but we can summarize his statement as a point of public frustration by his wife’s campaign. Let’s face the harsh reality Hillary wasn’t prepared for a challenge at all to win the democratic nomination. Four years ago when it was apparent that senator John Kerry was to when the Democratic nomination, many Democratic party insiders ask senator Hillary Clinton to run for president but she declined because it wasn’t the right time for her candidacy. Fast forward to this year Hillary Clinton coming into the Democratic nomination was not only the front runner but the odds on favorite to win the nomination. Presently Hillary has to recalibrate her campaign strategy that has to involve focusing on bigger states with more “super” delegates. It is also clear that if Hillary or Barak doesn’t have the necessary delegate count to secure the nomination then the Clinton campaign might asks that Michigan and Florida delegates be counted to break the dead lock. Whatever happens from here on out it is clear that Hillary is on the ropes and if she doesn’t watch out what was a “fairy tale”, can become a harsh reality!
We are now near the half way point through the Democratic nomination process and surprisingly Hillary Clinton hasn’t won the nomination and hasn’t generated momentum toward securing her party’s nomination. Instead a little known senator from Illinois have has slowed the Clinton machine to a stand still and is poised to take over the front runner status of the Democratic Party. The Question to ask right now is “what happen, it wasn’t supposed to be like this?”
One factor into this tight Democratic nomination was a miscalculation of strategy by Hillary Clinton campaign to win the nomination by Super Tuesday. Hillary hedged all of her bets on the fact that her political machine would topple Obama and she could cruise to Denver, Colorado as her party’s nominee. Well after Super Tuesday it was clear that Barak Obama wasn’t a fairytale candidate and he had enough resources to stay in the race for the long haul.
Another factor was the strategy of Barak was to focus on smaller states that hold caucuses. In stark contrast Hillary put all of her resources into bigger states with more delegates and super delegates. Well this strategy backfired because Hillary didn’t win more states than Barak and lost the popular vote in the process. The process should have been winning as many states as you can than just focusing on the big prizes. As a result of Hillary’s strategy blunder allowed Barak to surge past her and gained what seems to be unstoppable momentum to the nomination.
It seems to me that the final factor of Hillary’s stalled campaign was obvious blunder and that was she under estimated her opponent. Bill Clinton during the New Hampshire primary had a Freudian slip when he referred to Barak’s vote on the Iraq war as a “fairy tale!” The question every intelligent person should ask is why he used the word “Fairy tale” to criticize Obama’s anti- Iraq war vote. We cannot predict what Bill Clinton actually meant but we can summarize his statement as a point of public frustration by his wife’s campaign. Let’s face the harsh reality Hillary wasn’t prepared for a challenge at all to win the democratic nomination. Four years ago when it was apparent that senator John Kerry was to when the Democratic nomination, many Democratic party insiders ask senator Hillary Clinton to run for president but she declined because it wasn’t the right time for her candidacy. Fast forward to this year Hillary Clinton coming into the Democratic nomination was not only the front runner but the odds on favorite to win the nomination. Presently Hillary has to recalibrate her campaign strategy that has to involve focusing on bigger states with more “super” delegates. It is also clear that if Hillary or Barak doesn’t have the necessary delegate count to secure the nomination then the Clinton campaign might asks that Michigan and Florida delegates be counted to break the dead lock. Whatever happens from here on out it is clear that Hillary is on the ropes and if she doesn’t watch out what was a “fairy tale”, can become a harsh reality!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Hillary Hedging All of Her Bets on Super Tuesday Primaries
Hillary’s defeat in South Carolina was according to their campaign a minor “upset” on there road to the nomination in Denver , Colorado. It was amazing because during her concession speech she acted like nothing happen and said just only four words of congratulations toward Barak Obama’s victory. Then “slick willy” Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson by saying he was victorious in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. Bill and Hillary are banking on Super Tuesday because of their strong national machine and their pandering for the latino vote. The tag team approach by Bill and Hillary seemed to be in formidable combination but Barak has teamed up with a heavy weight in the Democratic Party Ted Kennedy.
The contest between Hillary and Barak reminds me of the rumble in the jungle, the fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Ali was the peoples champion and Foreman represented the establishment champion. During this time in Ali’s career he was on the comeback trail because he was incarcerated for not registering for the draft for the Vietnam War. On the other hand Foreman was the Olympic champion who refused to raise his fist along with the other black athletes in a public display of protest during the Black Power movement, but instead waved his American flag while winning a Gold medal. Barak is one of a few politicians that opposed the Iraq war, while Hillary supported the war that up until now can be called a “colossal mistake!”
Foreman going into the fight was a dominating character in and out of the ring. He had a reputation of being able to knock you out with either hand and was merciless once you step into the ring. Ali was not the odds favorite to beat Foreman but Ali was the people’s favorite by chanting “kills Foreman, kill Foreman”. Days before his fight, Foreman wanted to forfeit the fight and Don King discourages him for doing so. In contrast Hillary conceded South Carolina primary to Obama and instead of campaigning to the day of the primary she went to other states to get a leg up on Barak before Super Tuesday.
When the fight began Foreman beat Ali like a punching bag a left to the body and a right to the body. During the primary Hillary and Bill hurled combinations of distortions that at times made Barak go on the defensive. At times during the fight in Africa, it seemed like Ali was allowing Foreman to hit him without counter punching. Later on Ali would describe his defensive tactic as the “rope a dope!” The simple theory of this strategy was to allow your opponent to hit you so much that while you relax on the ropes blocking shots, that eventually your opponent would tire himself out. Bill and Hillary over zealousness to beat up on Obama, began to tire out potential voters when the time came to cast ballots.
The way I see it is Barak used the” rope a dope “technique on Bill and Hillary during the South Carolina primaries. I forgot to tell you how the “rope a dope “technique ends. It ends when you sense that your opponent is dead tired, and then you execute a surprise counter attack and knock your opponent out. This is what exactly Ali did and his upset victory over Foreman and it secured his place in boxing history as the “greatest of all times”. Obama’s counter punch came in two phases, phase number one happen when he won South Carolina by 28 points. Phase number two came when the patriarch of the Kennedy family, Ted, gave Obama an endorsement to be president and rebuke every distortion that the Clinton’s said about Obama. These two events had to knock the Clinton’s back on there heels but not entirely out. George Foreman bounced back after the rumble in the jungle by becoming the oldest to win a heavy weight title and to sell over 1 million indoor grills that bear his name. Maybe Hillary can do the same on Super Tuesday by winning over a million ballots that bear her name.
The contest between Hillary and Barak reminds me of the rumble in the jungle, the fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Ali was the peoples champion and Foreman represented the establishment champion. During this time in Ali’s career he was on the comeback trail because he was incarcerated for not registering for the draft for the Vietnam War. On the other hand Foreman was the Olympic champion who refused to raise his fist along with the other black athletes in a public display of protest during the Black Power movement, but instead waved his American flag while winning a Gold medal. Barak is one of a few politicians that opposed the Iraq war, while Hillary supported the war that up until now can be called a “colossal mistake!”
Foreman going into the fight was a dominating character in and out of the ring. He had a reputation of being able to knock you out with either hand and was merciless once you step into the ring. Ali was not the odds favorite to beat Foreman but Ali was the people’s favorite by chanting “kills Foreman, kill Foreman”. Days before his fight, Foreman wanted to forfeit the fight and Don King discourages him for doing so. In contrast Hillary conceded South Carolina primary to Obama and instead of campaigning to the day of the primary she went to other states to get a leg up on Barak before Super Tuesday.
When the fight began Foreman beat Ali like a punching bag a left to the body and a right to the body. During the primary Hillary and Bill hurled combinations of distortions that at times made Barak go on the defensive. At times during the fight in Africa, it seemed like Ali was allowing Foreman to hit him without counter punching. Later on Ali would describe his defensive tactic as the “rope a dope!” The simple theory of this strategy was to allow your opponent to hit you so much that while you relax on the ropes blocking shots, that eventually your opponent would tire himself out. Bill and Hillary over zealousness to beat up on Obama, began to tire out potential voters when the time came to cast ballots.
The way I see it is Barak used the” rope a dope “technique on Bill and Hillary during the South Carolina primaries. I forgot to tell you how the “rope a dope “technique ends. It ends when you sense that your opponent is dead tired, and then you execute a surprise counter attack and knock your opponent out. This is what exactly Ali did and his upset victory over Foreman and it secured his place in boxing history as the “greatest of all times”. Obama’s counter punch came in two phases, phase number one happen when he won South Carolina by 28 points. Phase number two came when the patriarch of the Kennedy family, Ted, gave Obama an endorsement to be president and rebuke every distortion that the Clinton’s said about Obama. These two events had to knock the Clinton’s back on there heels but not entirely out. George Foreman bounced back after the rumble in the jungle by becoming the oldest to win a heavy weight title and to sell over 1 million indoor grills that bear his name. Maybe Hillary can do the same on Super Tuesday by winning over a million ballots that bear her name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)