A Look in My Mirror

Now the news networks and papers are telling stories about the “hit-lists” Clinton supporters are creating to target people they thought were loyal or should be loyal to Hillary during her election campaign.  The lists seem to target all the women in the democratic party that didn’t support her.  Was it expected that women would support Clinton solely because she is a woman.  Where is the idea that you support the candidate that best suits your political beliefs, despite race, color, gender, religion, etc…  It is absurd to target people simply because they are of your gender but didn’t support you.  Of course Obama supporters seem to be doing the same thing to blacks who did not support Obama.  Does he have a right to all black votes because he is black?  No, he should expect support from the people who share his views, or even those who despise McCain’s views.

The media, of course, feeds this idea.  They point out that states with a large black population are probably going to swing to Obama, as if the voters are lemmings that follow even though they don’t agree they should jump off the cliff.  Same with the idea that white working class voters will not vote for Obama because he is black.  It is a disgrace the way media and supporters of different candidates spin things.

The question I have is this, if white working class voters have been traditional Democrats, don’t you think they will support the Democratic nominee?  Many people seem to think that Clinton should be on the ticket because she carried certain states in the primary.  This is a fallacy.  The two candidates were both Democrats and the primaries, for the most part, included only Democrats, and in a few states Independents, and in even fewer states other registered parties.  Most though were solely Democratic.  So the point is, you can look at the number of people who voted in the states and assume at least 90% of those people will vote for which ever won the nomination, because they are Democrats and share the values of the Democratic party.  If they didn’t share the Democratic values, then likely they would not be registered Democrats.

I am a registered Republican.  I personally supported Mike Huckabee.  I will vote for John McCain because I share more in common with him than I do Obama.  Do I agree with everything John McCain stands for? No, but I agree with enough.  The only other person I might consider voting for would be Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate.  I do not think he will win and McCain might just need every vote he can get in my state.  But my support for him is not based on him being a white male.  Personally, I would love JC Watts to run.  Everything I have seen about him, I like him and everything I have ever heard him say, and you know what, he’s black.  I think McCain should select him as running mate.  It would be a great ticket.

The following article Prisons Said to Skew Jobless Rate, in the News and Observer, incensed me so much I had to take a day or two to write about it.  The article basically says that if you included prisoners and military to the number of of unemployed people it would increase the jobless rate.  No duh.  If you add a million and a half, or more, people to the number of people looking for work you it would increase the jobless rate.

If you add the number of illegal aliens, wait, undocumented workers I mean, then it would affect the job market too.  I think this is an attempt either point out the researchers belief too many people are in prison or an attempt to show the economy is weaker than we think.

The problem with the report, prisoners are not eligible to work so they can not be include in the jobless rate.  Military people are already working.  If anything they should be added as employed workers.  They are working after all.  But they are not eligible to be included in the employment rate also.

So to sum up, when you include all categories that are eligible to be counted, the jobless rate is 5%.  You can not get around that number by adding people who are not eligible to be counted.  The economy may be weak but it is growing.  We are not in a recession, we are not growing at a fast rate though.  Nothing will change that fact.  When the oil bubble bursts and the housing market corrects itself, the economy will start growing faster.  So right now, we have to deal with what is given to us, not what a person wishes was the story.

If I was incoherent in the post I’m sorry, my blood began to boil again thinking about the &*$%@#@ (bad word) research.  Hey, they could have given me the money they spent on the report and I could have told them in a couple of days, I would draw it out for show, that if you add prisoners to the the unemployment numbers it would show  a larger percent of unemployed.  Sheesh, such idiots, such lack of common sense.  Give me a break.

I think part of my anger comes from the fact they spent good money to such a stupid research.

I am puzzled over the allegations of sexism many Hillary Clinton supporters have been making the past week.  Many have said the media is responsible for the comments.  I am wondering where the are the examples?  I watch Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN fairly regularly.  I don’t see any of sexism.  I have seen people question her ability based on voting and past performance.  I have seen people question her personality and integrity.  I have seen many reports along those lines.  But I have also seen similar reports about the other candidates.  I am worried that the race will devolve into a scenario where any criticism of Clinton will be termed sexist.  Just as any criticism of Obama is considered racist.  I believe that voting records in all levels of government and business dealings, and even personal relationships should be open for discussion.  They all give us insight into the type of person the candidates are.  To deem a legitimate questions racist or sexist because of the person they are directed at is dishonest and disingenuous.

And to answer some specific allegations about Obama, the church he attends is a legitimate target.  The preaching at the church and the tolerance he gives to the messages shows the type of person he really is inside.  Just like Bill Clinton lying under oath showed the type of person he was.  If I was involved in a church where constant hatred or racism was being taught I should be questioned about it, because I have aligned myself with an organization that is questionable.  I am not as concerned about friends candidates have.  There were many friends I have had whose politics I despised but they were nice people.  That is different.  But, if I align myself with an organization then there is valid criticism.