Receive the eNews Reference RSS Feed

Today when Nancy Pelosi raises the gavel, when Oprah donates millions of dollars to a school in South Africa, or when Afghanistan women have a voice in their own wellbeing the words ‘Let freedom ring…' are echoed across the globe; thanks to a larger than life figure who decided to not accept the status quo and rolled up his sleeves for social justice.

We at eNR want to devote some words about a prolific figure who galvanized a nation for change. A lot of people knew the times were ripe for change and Dr. King answered the call. If he rose every Sunday and stood behind the pulpit and delivered a stunning sermon for many this would’ve been enough, but he gave us so much more.

There is a lot that our generation can learn from Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy. His greatness came for his ability to uplift, mobilize, and inspired a nation. I can remember when President George W. Bush stated what is commonly stated every year: that we have come a long way and we have a ways to go to arrive at true racial equality.

King’s Dream has been fulfilled. The power of his message rings true. It was modest in it’s intent because it outlined only the framework by which racial harmony can grow. In communities all over the country we have thousands of Obamas and even more Oprahs; politicians, journalists, fire chiefs, judges and doctors thanks to the Dream.

We have a long way to go before poverty is eradicated or even when slavery becomes a thing of the past, but thanks to Dr. King we have a blue print for working towards a common mission. Today that mission should be about cultivating all of the good work the civil rights movement set out to do. It starts on a small scale by our every day contact with others, tracking and understanding emotions that emerge when we observe someone that might be different from ourselves.

As a person who was born after his brutal death, I want to say his message still rings clear in my mind and even millions across the globe. The 60’s presented a cause and a mission for the young and charismatic leader.

Dr. Martin Luther King exemplified the path one takes for social justice in America and even the world. There was not a more passionate figure of his era. The depth and meaning of Dr. Kings purpose is still reaching across boundaries that exist today - timeless. Decades from now his message will speak to future generations with the same strength that it spoke to hate in the 60s.

The dimmed backdrop and even down to the gestures were reminiscent of the speech Bill Clinton made before the American people during the Monica Lewinsky scandal except during that time it was a matter of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’/a sex cover-up in the White House and today - over 3,000 US soldiers, men and women who gave the ultimate price and thousands more injured and even many more Iraqi civilians brutally killed because of the way this conflict is managed.

The Democrats are vowing not to make the same mistake twice, but they must except some of the blame for supporting and voting for the war and for not being able to develop a clear alternative to Bush’s plan for Iraq. Although they have made it clear they have many tough questions to be answers, they’ve made it equally clear that they are leading with criticisms and not concrete solutions.

The President of the United States is sending 21,500 troops to bulk up the security in Baghdad and in the Anbar Province. One of the things we got out of W’s message is his acknowledgment of mistakes made and his acceptance of the responsibility; a no-no leading up to the November elections.

In the final analysis the American people will respect the side with their sleeves rolled up and not the group with their mouths open and fingers pointed like the Republicans during President Clinton’s administration.

Is oil one of the driving factors of our mission in Iraq? This question and how history will place him among Presidents facing enormous challenges during war influenced Bush’s decision to build up our troops and try a last ditched effort at stabilizing Iraq and eventually stabilizing the region.

Al Sharpton has announced there’s no reason for him not to jumping into the field of Democratic candidates for the 2008 Presidential race during an interview at the Urban Affairs Conference sponsored by Jesse Jackson.

He was definitely what Alan Keyes was to the Republican Presidential race in 2000 in 2004, even though they’re at extreme opposites on political viewpoints. The question is: Is being entertaining and maybe having some thought provoking points here and there on the campaign trail enough?

When you factor in the most effective methods to use in raising the national conscience on issues that are near and dear, they range from a whole assortment of approaches to take other than running for President when you’re a figure like Al Sharpton.

One form is doing what I’m doing right now, writing a blog. The others range from writing a novel and hoping that it gets on the Oprah’s list of favorites, to talk radio and even riding a bike or walking across country.

It is very true that Al Sharpton like the glitter and glamor that only a presidential race can bring. There could be no better soapbox than standing side-by-side with Hillary Rodham Clinton  and the exposure it would bring. It definitely has the potential of producing a great selling book about the ills of this nation and about how wonderful your message is.

The last time Sharpton was in the state of New Hampshire he received 0.1% of the vote during the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary. Are roughly 350 votes worth the airtime?

The AP reported Barack Obama being the other African American candidate in the race and to that I say, as inexperienced as Obama might be he should never never be mentioned in the same breath as Al Sharpton. Obama has put a lot of time in partnering with constructive change, implementing policies and setting the framework for making communities work in the state of Illinois, not just giving speeches and highlighting differences.  

A prime example of Sharpton in action was when Senator Kerry was able to effectively use him to stymie Howard Dean’s political ambitions. The question raised by Al Sharpton about Dean being qualified to be President coming from a small state with a 1% minority population was orchestrated by the Kerry camp as well as the criticism Dean received when he stated he’d appeal to southern voters with the Confederate flag on the back of the pick-ups.

Al Sharpton has never tried to extinguish the flames of racial unrest in America; all too often he’s viewed as a polarizing figure. Never mind the fact that he won’t raise the capital necessary in modern presidential politics, but when it comes to the presidential qualities of coalition building he lacks tremendously.

John McCain had it right, and you won’t ever catch him saying this again, when he made the comparison of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell with Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton; they’re all separatists in their approaches to perceived ills in our society. It is one thing to say what's wrong and rolling up your sleeves to fix it and not saying what's wrong and do not attempt going after changing the root of the problem.

It is not necessary to state all of the 100 reasons why Sharpton shouldn’t run for President. The ones I’ve stated above should suffice and to say that if any Democratic Candidate goes to church with Al Sharpton on the four Sundays leading up to the presidential elections like Senator John Kerry did they would be signing their party’s death wish. The Democratic Party can't afford the divisive shadow of Al Sharpton no more than it can a strong Ralph Nader candidacy.

I'm sure it was refreshing to a lot of folks to see the President of the United States in the Rose Garden of the White House talking about cooperation and even writing a opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal urging all sides to work together for meaningful legislation.

The list of priorities hint a well choreographed message for the up-coming elections. While Democrats and Republicans are battling it out in primaries, The Bush Administration will be observed pushing initiatives that are near and dear to the electorate.

Not everything Bush will be doing in the next two years will be solely to win the hearts and minds of voters. His work is cut out for him in Iraq with Iran's influence in the Middle East at an alarming presence, the North Korean stalemate and balancing some very tough domestic initiatives.

The only way Bush can maneuver through these political straits is with political cooperation and not merely for the sake of cooperation itself, but his legacy and the backdrop of the 2008 is looming like a massive rain cloud over the White House.

At this point he has done the expected, meeting with key Iraqi officials to set the agenda for a heightened awareness on the overall security and stability of Iraq, meeting with and expressing a greater cooperation with Democrats and even as his party and his administration gets badgered by all sides, including Republicans. He is exhibiting the face of calm and resilience in getting his message out, qualities of leadership that were evident immediately following 911.

Pundits, you can look for President George W. Bush to be kindler tough and measured in these last two years. He's building his State of the Union message and will be working hard for meaningful accomplishments. He might be able to campaign for the Republican presidential candidates this go around.

Posted by eNews Reference staff | info@enewsreference.com

Reuters http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspxstoryid=a12e30546019929f3625ae1d8bb4eb8ae3c00394

Google

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521

One of the first thoughts that came to my mind when they said they will turn Saddam over to the Iraqi people was, what if the man escapes and then shortly after I thought about all of the scenarios of a Saddam retake of power if the US cut and ran in Iraq. And, using this hypothetical to determine some of the things the US should do to stabilize the country:

The first thing Saddam would do if a large band of loyalist freed him out of his awaited gallows would unite all of his loyalist and try to bring back all of the bandits who fled to Syria  and other parts unknown during the US takeover. Then he would attempt a brutal and merciless takeover by capturing and murdering all government officials within the US-backed government and old foes in the Shiite camp in a unprecedented bloodbath of civil and urban style warfare; what is currently taking place, but under Saddam a renewed and clear objective to regain power.

What we know now is that as much of a terrible dictator Saddam was and as harsh as the brutality he inflicted to the citizens of Iraq, he knew a lot more about what it took to keep the many factions in harmony. Many Iraqis are not celebrating us in the streets, but saying the sectarian violence, bombing, kidnapping, and hardships under the new government didn't exist under Saddam's regime. Many are arguing what good are freedoms on paper when you don't have the luxury of going outside of your house to exercise them.

A lot of the factions in Iraq are adamant about the US leaving the region, but at the same time opposed to a Saddam-like figure taking control because it would mean the end to their independent quests for fiefdom power grabs. Part of the problem the Bush administration has with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is their faith in his ability to operate with an iron fist and do the things to unite the people of Iraq and negate the many influences from neighboring countries; qualities of leadership that Saddam was a wizard at.

Saddam would take back most of the freedoms in Iraq until there is some measure that it would stable enough to begin pillaging the wealth and institutionalizing the subjugation of the citizenry. What is evident today is as harsh as secret prisons, tough interrogations and the Abu Ghraib situation was  it's no comparison to what Saddam has done and what he'd do if he regained power.

When reporters questioned Russian President Vladimir Putin about the loss of liberties and the retreat of the democratic process in the old Soviet Union he chided the US backed government in Iraq as not being an example of how a democracy should be and hinted we're naive if we think our approach to democracy could be implemented all over the world. At this point we admit some naivety in going in and even our ability to build the forces necessary to secure the country in a timely fashion.

Taking all of this into consideration, no wonder it is widely believed that the US underestimated the amount of force needed going in Iraq. American forces has served heroically with its first real hand-to-hand urban style combat operation greater than its test in Somalia, but unfortunately commanders and upper echelons in Defense have not put them in positions to succeed. Under Secretary Gates leadership this might be possible.

The reality however is, Saddam in hours it will be a very sad sad day for you and a joyous occasion for many who suffered under your regime.

eNews Reference - http://www.enewsreference.com

eNews Reference - http://www.enewsreference.com

One of the basic propositions on Iraq today is that we were ill prepared in our intelligence to win the objective. Our mission has failed due to improper planning at the top. One of the most notable culprits was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This cannot be more evident in the Senate's fast track hearing on the incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Having said that, one of the other entities that have not stepped up to the plate is the US media. Most of the political rhetoric has evaded sound thinking and sound analysis on our airwaves. The media has been on a roller coaster ride during the Bush Presidency. The average person has neither the capability nor the tools to scrutinize the intelligence presented to the world going into Iraq, but the media stood by and hid behind so-called reporting and not investigating the truth.

The worlds of our past has never seen the conglomerate media empires of our time, and even though we have more information at our disposal than history could fathom the media have failed to deliver sound and reasoned coverage to the public for fear of loosing the ratings war.

All of the talk shows will fineness critical issues by quoting politicians and arguing mundane points like, should be talking to Syria and Iraq or do we need more troops on the ground. We are overloaded with political jargon like 'cut and run' and 'stay the course' without knowing the full cataclysmic problem we have on an International scale in the Middle East because it's not glamorous enough.
It is sad when other national medias throughout the world are providing the intellectual and moral analysis that the US media doesn't seem fit to distribute.

eNews Reference - http://www.enewsreference.com - Reposted

When Vice President said Senator Clinton would be a formidable candidate for the White House I must admit part of me was thinking where is the rabbit in the hat. A fear that many Democrats have expressed is Hillary's ability to win. Republicans have stated that she is one of the most polarizing figures in America today. Some have even celebrated the fact that she seems to be at the head of the pack after winning her reelection for US Senator of the state of New York.

All of the pundits have pretty much given Clinton the Democratic primary race on a silver platter without considering the fact that Clinton's camp is looking at their list of supporters and checking it twice. Victory is of the utmost importance. Second place and a good running at this stage in the Senators career is not an option. The choice to run hinges on whether or not she can compel the many moderates and independents that she has a viable chance of winning the crucial votes necessary and coming out of the fire a victor.

My suspicion is that there's a sizable odd that she doesn't throw her heels into the race because she wants to win and all of the strategy session are formulated based on that question alone. When she was said to be calling potential supporters it was measuring her support and a possible tough primary and the ability to get out of the it with enough stamina to take on a strong Republican challenger.

Bush will do a better job in two years of being the kinder and gentler arm of the Republican party. Many voters might have remorse over the dishing they issued. All of this might boils down to Hillary Clinton's ability to be likable. She has evolved from the Tammy Wynette comment, but have to go a long long way on the road to a possible victory.

Clinton haven't made the decision. She craves it and all of what the race entails. If the forecasts show she has many mountains and valleys to conquer she is gladly willing to do it if it shows the hint of winning the ultimate job. I have never found any strategist on the talk shows asking, how would the field look without Hillary?

The top challenger would undoubtedly be John Edwards without Hillary in the picture, but that's like a huge cloud over the Democratic field. If Hillary Clinton looses the Democratic Primary it boosts the winning candidate to greater heights than a victory without someone of Hillary's stature in the race. The Democratic Primary needs Hillary if not for President Clinton's constant presence and his world stature. As much as Bill will try to be low key during the race to not take any light from Hillary and good gauge of Hillary's race will be when and if the media takes the focus off Billy and puts it squarely on Hillary's shoulders.

The first First Lady in the White House to run and become a US Senator and get reelected, the first First Lady to ever be in contention for President of the United States (Eleanor would be proud), and if she's successful the first First Lady and female to ever be the President of these United States.

The Republicans want Hillary because she represents everything that they have been beating for a while now, but maybe the VP's comments about her chances represent a view of those who understand the process a little more. It is hard to attack a female candidate and especially one of Hillary's prominence. For some female candidates it is easy to say they're not tough enough or experienced enough. It will be hard to dismiss a Hillary Clinton. She doesn't go away after being pricked.

I find it pretty ironic that the same people who rail against how others inject politically correctness into Christmas really don't celebrate the true meaning of the day and adhere to any religious view, but are discomforted when others ask for inclusion. There are those who firmly believe their religious version of their holiday season and would try to block other forms of expression; as crazy as I think these folks are, I'm not referring to them.

I was listening to a radio station where one disc jockey sarcastically said, have a nondenominational holiday season. And there are more extreme experiences of the need to be inclusive for Christmas. There was a major metropolitan airport that took down Christmas trees to prevent having to include Jewish holiday celebrations (I'm sure they also consulted their legal counselor and they advised that it might be costly and complex to acknowledge all forms of expression and the subdivision association that made a resident take down a symbol that stated something to the effect of peace on earth because it was viewed as being too political.

We all know that first amendment rights are enjoyed when they don't infringe upon the rights of others and when you factor in the legalities of public facilities and contractual rules between neighbors it becomes a different story, but I believe this day is big enough to include all forms of expression and in fact it is the celebration of all mankind..."Joy to the world;" not just Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religions, but the entire world. I think it was what made America great.

For those of you who can't find time to go to church and understand the redemptive and reconcilatory meanings of the day, please don't perceive other religious symbols as being intrusive into your season of shopping and glutton abandonment.

eNews Reference - http://www.enewsreference.com

Even though President Bush admittedly stated he had to assemble the advisors around him that would offset his shortcomings on foreign policy and provide the wisdom he needed when making tough decisions, we loved the idea of electing the son of a former president. At times eNR was embarrassed for W when he made made mispronunciations on world leaders and countries while Condi Rice  tutored him on some of the complex policy issues facing the nation at the time.

We were content in our pre 911 mindset that issues concerning morality and matters pertaining to our wallet and the excesses of government were the most important issues of our day, not the threat that loomed right after Bush's inauguration. In 2008 we wont have the luxury of being so lofty in our puritan ideology.

As eNR posted before, the next Commander in Chief will have to hit the ground running on foreign policy. James Baker has stated our standing around the world will have to be repaired since making the decision to launch the Iraq war.

There is no end in site in the middle east and especially the global war on terrorism. Today the Security Council approved a resolution allowing sanctions, that gives Iran and excuse to effect world markets in its oil production. All the things occurring is a direct effect with what we knew or the lack there of going into Iraq. They didn't celebrate us in the streets and there were the masses left out of the process for so long that they are now willing to revolt against the current government and even US forces considered occupiers.

The next president will have to have the ability to understand what happened and why to get a sense of how to fix the problem. Respectfully he will also have to come in operating from a clean slate unattached to Bush and the dogma that operated with the theory that some policies are ok hidden far away from the American public and even congress as long as it's in the interest of winning the wider war on terror. This logic would be hard to scrutinize if we were winning decisively. Potential candidate like Secretary Rice and former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia knows the quagmire we're in and probably believe now would be a good time because of the mess.

Finally we have a Secretary of Defense who's not going to Iraq for picture ops but his chief goal is to win for the troops on the ground and even for the Iraqi people. The first step in doing that is acknowledging we're loosing. It is unfortunate that we haven't been able to stabilize the situation, and protect the people of Iraq, but one of the more tragic events is politicians trying to seize on the opportunity of so much devastation; everyone has a plan now, but when it was time for true leadership and the ability to scrutinize the intelligence and our justification for going into to Iraq, too many of the same folks were willing to sign off on the blank check.

George W. Bush talked about the consequences of failure and about how grave the mission was at his press conference. I remember thinking, this President would've went on the books as being the greatest President since the first George if we weren't in Iraq right now; if either we overthrew Saddam and secured the borders or if we would've never went in there in the first place. I think the W. Presidency had the potential of being Regan-like in his ability to appeal to people. There has been no President to connect in press conferences with journalists like W since JFK (yeah we said it) aside from the many botched terms.

George W. Bush, even with his Yale and Harvard pedigree is something of a Jesse 'The Body' and Arnold like in his plain spoken manner.

Transparency will cure a lot of ails with the American people. As much as some would like to talk about our electorate not being knowledgeable enough, there are a lot of things they can articulate that the media wont dare to. When W starts to reach across the aisle and inform American you'll see his number going up.

There is nothing more exciting up here in New Hampshire than the up-coming primaries. If you're political junkies like eNR, every little tid bit about the candidates is monumental. Lately, former majority leader Senator Frist and distinguished Senator from Indian, Evan Bayh have removed themselves from the field.

When everything is factored in and when examining the cost in blood, sweat and and tears, too many potentially good candidates are thinking twice about it; former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is in this mold of leaders.

At this point Senator Hillary Clinton is said to be checking her listing and checking twice to stack up all of her supporters and donors. The truth of the matter is, you can have all of the enthusiasm, but if the support and the donors are not aligned you better think twice about the process. At this point Senator Clinton is starting this race on her terms...quite different than when Bill started his race. Many viewed her as the master mind, but at the same time some of the turmoil within the campaign was between Bill and Hillary on strategy. A Hillary Clinton campaign will be a more organized operation. She and her strategist would have to be measuring her support among moderates and independents. During these hours and many phone calls, she wants to know if she can win. For Hillary and even Edwards its not about making a strong showing as it is for Obama and the second tier candidates. She is a polarizing figure that would have to run her campaign to the center, this is the true chess match with her would-be Republican opponent.

That opponent is shaping up more and more to be McCain or Giuliani-like figures who are already in the center of the political spectrum. Giuliani would have to do a lot of prove he can play on the national stage, he has a lot of support at this stage in the game, but voters want to see a candidate shaking the flesh and taking a tough stance on an issue; something that Giuliani or Romney have yet to do on national issues. The two have been more like, yeah I'm for that too figures.

McCain has been doing his homework over the years and building his base of supporters. At this stage in the game he would have to be measuring how beautiful Romney is and fact that there are no photos with his hair out of place. The true test will be McCain ability to ruffle his hair and keep him off balanced on the issues. Romney likes to be on point and have a populist's view on every issues and this might be his undoing. You can't be all things to all groups. For a long time he has been in the bed with a lot of liberals and when the light is shined on those relationships voters will decided if he's a true conservative.

In the end two candidates will emerge from both primaries and battle to the end on the tough issues of our day. The candidate who's standing last will walk away with the title. Get ready for a lot of surprises.

Having said that, one of the other entities that have not stepped up to the plate is the US media. Most of the political rhetoric has evaded sound thinking and sound analysis on our airwaves. The media has been on a roller coaster ride during the Bush Presidency. The average person has neither the capability nor the tools to scrutinize the intelligence presented to the world going into Iraq, but the media stood by and hid behind so-called reporting and not investigating the truth.

The worlds of our past has never seen the conglomerate media empires of our time, and even though we have more information at our disposal than history could fathom the media have failed to deliver sound and reasoned coverage to the public for fear of loosing the ratings war.

All of the talk shows will fineness critical issues by quoting politicians and arguing mundane points like, should be talking to Syria and Iraq or do we need more troops on the ground. We are overloaded with political jargon like 'cut and run' and 'stay the course' without knowing the full cataclysmic problem we have on an International scale in the Middle East because it's not glamorous enough.

It is sad when other national medias throughout the world are providing the intellectual and moral analysis that the US media doesn't seem fit to distribute.

I have not purchased any of his books, but the excerpts that I read in Time Magazine was very moving. The Obama story is definitely a movie in the making. His mother was a fascinating person in her own right. To be very blunt about it: you don't think of white woman having those experiences in the 60s and her message needs to be heard. Senator Obama spoke of her lesson to her son quite eloquently in the passages I did read..

Not many US officials, not even President Clinton would receive the reception he received in Kenya this past summer. We can talk about some of the problems that seem insurmountable in Africa, but to have our President an American and African National would say more than any policy or position speech ever would.

As it stands today, he has a very compelling life story and he appears to have a very thoughtful insight into a lot of what we need in a President, but is that what it takes to be President? We all know that if words and debates are what wins the presidency, Senator McCain would be in his second term. He was obviously a more polished leader than Bush was or even is today. Being President takes an enormous amount of luck, charisma, and a US President have to be a figure of his or her times.

When you put it in this perspective and understanding that Obama will go through the process with all of its scrutiny and examination you would have to see the obvious questions. The media has asked, is America ready? The truth of the matter is, the very fact that the question is being asked today speaks volumes. Obama himself said there is a "threshold" for minority candidates that white candidates do not experience. Looking at recent elections, in Tennessee for example you had a candidate who repeatedly stated a long term African American US Congressman candidate for Senator did not represent Tennessean values. Some took that as a code to mean you're not white. In the same race Harold Ford ended up besting most polls and expectations even after stomping on a more conservative platform than most Democratic US Senate Candidates across the country.

The recent Massachusetts Gubernatorial election had both an African American male and a female representing the Democratic and Republican tickets respectively; both representing what would've been firsts. Governor elect Deval Patrick won in a very decisive primary and general election with a very sizable portion of the vote. Given our times and entanglements in the Iraq war, Steele was able to make a late challenge to a liberal Democratic challenger in the Senate race in Maryland.

In terms of the political environment, this could be the most opportune time for a bi-racial candidate considering the media's, it would seem, early coronation celebration. When you examine Obama's position on issues like Affirmative Action and when Republicans begin to delve into his Illinois State Senate record, Obama will have to be able to use his Clintonesque charm to keep the focus on the issues and his ability to be a leader in the here and now. What is that striking quality that makes him stand out, besides the fact that he's Afro-American and even then is that in and of itself make him Presidential material? Again, I would make him king, but does American share my view. If George W. Bush is the bar we all know that early on there were issues surrounding his lack of foreign policy experience and personally I believe the Senator would be a lot more capable than W in his articulation and knowledge of complex issues given his academic credentials.

I imagine the Republicans will love seeing Hillary having to be soft and cuddly, but hard on an Afro-American challenger. She can't risk talking too much about his inexperience for fear that it might anger Blacks and keep them away from the polls when she'll need them against her Republican opponent in the general elections. They know they have nothing on her senate record, but they will be YouTubing her during her primary run to see how far to the left she'll have to go to come out ahead. This is where the Obama question confuses the matter.

When it is all said and done my belief is Senator Barack Obama will still be Senator, but if he played his cards right he will be in the running for a possibly VP selection and in a lot better standing, with a Presidential race behind him, to be President in 2012. It is very clear that the new and improved look and feel will tank out like it did for Dean in Iowa. He will need the guts and brawns beyond that point. The true success in all of this like it was for Secretary of State Colin Powell is, there are many Afro-Americans like Obama in this day and age who can be President because of intellect and the charisma to transcend the complexities of race in the United States.

It really gives you a sense of the state of politics when the first things we hear over the airwaves about this tragic situation is the effect it will have on Senate and not the effect it will have on the individual and his family first. News becomes the makeup of the Senate and not the wellness of the South Dakota Senator.

I know I'm a little naive to think that politics and news should be different, but to see the CNN news desk seeing the anchors examine the brain and in the same breath talk about his ability to continue based on what party will be in control and not what a horrific and tragic incident this is on the person and the life effect it will have on those close to him is stark.

To Democrats:

If you're a Democrat and hoped to have control of both the Senate and the House please don't blog this incident with the many misfortunes since the 2000 Presidential elections. You said you were willing to work with Republicans; as unfortunate as this situation is it might give you the opportunity to work across party line in a genuine way.

I'll never forget seeing him in New Hampshire and his supporters who appeared to be more from Senator Robert Kennedy's campaign era. I'm not implying that the times have left them by, but their are many Americans, even Democrats who believe that taking away the funding from our men and women in battle is absurd at this stage in war; not Dennis or as some calls him "Dennis the Menace".

Observing him at the Democratic debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH, when the late Peter Jennings ask Al Sharpton a very tough question on monetary policy that he fumbled through without even answering, Dennis walked over to his podium during the break and sort of patted Sharpton on the back and whispered the answer.

Up here in these part I look forward to his injection in the debate. And I look forward to seeing him glowing in the light of the public spectacle in this rigorous process.

Evidence against the controversial Rep. William Jefferson appears to be open and shut, but $90,000 dollars in comparison to the thousands that have lost their home and hundreds killed due to an even larger corruption was no match. I'm sure folks all over the country will question the people of New Orleans and their votes to have this figure represent their values if they don't understand their experience, logic and loyalty. In the runoff where Rep. Jefferson won by over 50% of the vote voters were sending a message to Washington about evils in our society greater than taking $90,000 bribes.

Unfortunately the right decision wasn't made in this election. Jefferson will be expelled from office if the Feds are right,  but in the end New Orleans guiding principals will always be different from conventional wisdom.

The rap sheet in congress is very long it seems. Representative  John Murtha chosen unsuccessfully by the Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi as the majority leader and who is arguable one of the central figures in the Democrats winning in November is a part of the sheet, seen on video footage turning down a bribe by saying not right now. It appeared as though he was open for corruption and dishonoring his district, but the opportunity was not hidden or concealed enough. Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter, elected by 30-point margin, has decided to throw his hat into the presidential race even with the stench of corruption after receiving over $40,000 from defense contractors involved in the former Representative Cunningham scandal.

Representative Jefferson will join the good ole boys club where deals are done behind closed doors.

If you like politics now is the best time! There is a lot of maneuvering and phone calls in these weeks. Before we know they will be stomping the pavement and shaking the flesh with smiles glued to their faces. Please join eNR for up to the minute headlines about Campaign 2008 and other world news at: www.enewsreference.com.

President George W. Bush will have to heed the message of the bipartisan study group and then implement it into a concise message to the American people and the Iraqi Government.

One of the key areas of the reported 70 recommendations includes a “benchmark” for withdrawal; of course there are several scenarios to accomplish this. Ultimately Bush is correct in stating that he will not leave until the mission is accomplished. In theory if there is one soldier on the ground we haven’t left yet. A force of a couple thousand on the ground imbedded with Iraqi security forces and others stationed immediately outside of Iraq to respond in crisis situations meet Bush’s wording of the issue of not leaving until the mission is accomplished. A phased withdrawal could start immediately of reservist troops.

The Study Group also recommends we talk to Syria and Iraq and other regional nations to get involved in the security of Iraq. Nations deemed “The Axis of Evil” could be active participants in the cleanup of Iraq. Who knows this could possibly be the scenario to allow Iran to develop "nuclear technology"… for energy purposes of course.

What is very striking is the fact that all of the things occurring within the last week, if implemented months ago, would've totally changed the election results and even spared hundreds of civilian and US trop injuries and deaths in Iraq. The Bush administration was protecting US security interests in not budging from his stubborn stance on the war in Iraq leading up to the election. Now dad has stepped in and now things are changing.

Condi

There is a tremendous possibility that when all is said and done, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will emerge as one of the players perceived as fixing the situation in Iraq. She has stated that she will not be a presidential candidate, but she has never mentioned anything about a Vice Presidential selection. This will have far reaching effects on the other party that boasts being the Party of all Afro-Americans among other issues.

The thought of having to Rice and Obama on both tickets would have a huge impact on this country and Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream. eNR predicts "glass ceilings" crashing down (more entries on this).

With all of the battle plans and information from the ground in Iraq and presumably the capability to make informed decisions why didn't you Mr. Rumsfeld? Much can be blamed on W for not saving the 2006 elections from the thumping he mentioned on the day after the elections, but there is much criticism to go around. A lot of it rests on the shoulders of the Defense Secretary.

The memo is striking in and of itself because of the tone and the blunt scope of the situation on the ground in Iraq, but it is also striking in the sense that it is a total deviation from the rhetoric Rumsfeld has been espousing for the last year and a half. How convenient of you Mr. Rumsfeld to get the memo out at this time with your legacy already beyond repair.

Forget all of the political punditry, all of the millions going to ad space and political strategists in the 2008 Race. The candidate who has the ability to smile the most will be the next President of the United States. Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush Sr., Dukakis, Mondale, Carter and Nixon lost on likeability. And, if you look at all the campaign footage you will notice one profound truth: the candidate who smiled the most and thus connected with the electorate won the election.

The polls show former NY Mayor Giuliani has the edge over Senator McCain (Gallup, Pew and CNN shows Giuliani with a slight advantage). This is perplexing considering the media coverage lavished on McCain during the Bush administration. Of course we have a long way to go. Each week will be long in the battle for the White House, but Giuliani has to enjoy the slight lead and the credibility it gives a candidate who has never ran for national office. It is striking that both candidate represent a page out of the Democrats book in racing for the center.

McCain's core support is much more organized at this stage in the game after going on a whirlwind campaign trail for candidate throughout the country and courting the Religious Right. What is questionable is his staunch support of many of Bush's now unpopular policies in Iraq and his support of sending 50,000 troops to this day. Given what happened to Howard Dean in the Democratic Primary any front runner would have to be nervous right about now. It would seem more advantageous to emerge with terrain to cover as opposed to looking behind you.

The question is, does Giuliani have staying power, if his early tough Mayoral races were indicators, he's in it for the long haul?

All this talk about Obama...

I was watching the Sunday Morning Talk shows when someone finally spoke some realism about all of the Obama hoopla. One of the analysts finally stated the obvious gigantic herd of elephants in the room. When Howard Dean ran for President the so-called "establishment" of the Democratic party started talking a lot about electability. I'm sure that when Obama comes to New Hampshire the Democrats will say, if I knew he could be elected President I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I just don't think other people are ready for it yet.

Other African American candidates with great poll numbers have stepped out in statewide races and the actual results on election day have showed something totally different in past races. Recently, we've seen results reflecting the actual polling as in the Harold Ford, Michael Steele, Kenneth Blackwell and Deval Patrick races.

The question is, when all is said and done, when all of the stuff come out of the closet and Obama gets attacked for his short US Senate and his Illinois State Senate record,  will he emerge as a viable candidate strong enough to defeat a Republican challenger on the merit and conviction of ideas? Even though we are probably light years away in political time from former Secretary of State Colin Powell's retirement from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the long book tour and fascination with how "he's very smart" accolades, Obama should definitely ask Powell what his advisors were saying when he was pondering the decision and consider and reconsider the uphill battle of a run for the presidency.

The advantage is he lose nothing in running if there are no monkeys in the closet or huge gaffs similar to Howard Deans fiasco and John Kerry's "botched joke" of late.

What will they say about W

Any historian in fairness will have to analyze Bush's Administration with a hypothetical: what would've should've happened without the looming shadow of the Iraq War. Why? It is important to note the fact that we voted for W knowing that he was no real genius when it came to foreign policy. The talk shows joked about the fact that he couldn't pronounce or in some cases even know major world leaders. His reply was always, he would assemble the cabinet to tutor him and formulate the options that he would eventually decide. Rice was especially chosen to perform such a task. Americans put him back in office with a resounding victory when major operations of the war's planning were accomplished. Generals, intelligence types, former government officials  and John Kerry put forth a very compelling argument about how sound the policy and planning was going in Iraq and we (The American people) still chose Bush and he acted on that mandate.

Second what should neutralize some of liberal academia's views on Bush's challenges is the fact that poll after poll showed the American people supported Saddams removal and the Congress gave him a blank check. Knowing what we knew and other major superpowers about Iraq's will and capability to do harm to the US in the near future, the Bush administration acted on it in the aftermath of a major attack on US soil. Lincoln and FDR faced a common enemy and used mostly conventional tactics to overthrow the enemy. Bush on the other hand is arguable facing a greater threat, a global challenge encompassing the cooperation of many nations to combat an enemy that can live right next door to us.

Third the intelligence did not just pop into existence during the early part of the Bush administration. The intelligence Bush used to go to War was the same intelligence that the Clinton Administration had. He acted upon it with a bold forward thinking policy to protect the lives of Americans and to prevent such a disaster on the scale of 911 from ever happening again. Will historians acknowledge this accomplishment thus far, howbeit, like Lincoln and FDR in their times, with great costs?

Republicans I'm sure will argue that there is no question that Bush would've dramatically invigorated our fight on poverty and other social problems with his 'Faith Base' initiative. And moderates and 'Reagan Democrats alike would've celebrated a fully funded 'No Child Left Behind Act' if just for Bush's ability to reach across party lines to gain Senator Kennedy's support. Some of you may have forgotten the Bush and Kennedy sailing into the sunset together shortly after the election, not eNR.

Week IN Quotes ►►

"I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security. If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly,"

"It's amazing to see the progress over the course of the year." Truly the digital decade is happening. We see it everywhere we look."

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ►►

EDITORIALS ►►

POLITICAL CARTOONS ►►

International News Sites ►►

MSNBC Interactive  PlanetSun  Russia Today  China Morn. Post  Times of India  Toronto Star

Favorite Pundit Speakers ►►

other Pundit Speakers ►►