News Snipet 'Blog

Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
Obama a media creation - The Ralph Bristol Show
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Obama a media creation - The Ralph Bristol Show Ralph Bristol October 23, 2006 You know it's a slow news day when the top story of the day is: a freshman U.S. senator says he might run for President in 2008. I'm betting that if Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said he's thinking about running for President, it wouldn't be the top story of the day. Barack Obama (D-IL) seems like a nice enough guy (for a liberal Democrat), but he doesn't deserve the rock star status that he enjoys. Where did that come from? Did Oprah do it? Is it because he's young and black? There are other respected young, black politicians who have a much more substantive background, but don't get nearly the same attention. Congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee is an articulate, young black politician who has gained quite a bit of respect in congress, but lacks Obama's star power." Read more...
posted by Jack Mercer @ 10/26/2006 04:13:00 PM  
  • At 10/27/2006 09:06:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Hi Jack,

    I tried to leave this last night, but the internet ate it.

    You can read chapters from Obama's new book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thought on Reclaiming the American Dream" online at

    Chapter Two: Values

    Chapter Seven: Race

    Chapter Eleven: Family

    I think he's the real deal. But 2008 might be a bit early.

  • At 10/27/2006 09:10:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Good call, Helen! I think you and Ralph have it right.


  • At 10/27/2006 09:52:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    But there is panic in the camp, because Hillary Clinton might not be electable.

  • At 10/27/2006 10:00:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    I'm a firm believer--and made the prediction in 2000--that Mrs. Clinton will be president in 2008.

    Still stand by my prediction :)


  • At 10/27/2006 10:06:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Well, she'll have my vote.

  • At 10/27/2006 10:08:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…


    May I ask why? (just for curiousity's sake:)

  • At 10/27/2006 10:08:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Or Barack Obama, if they go that way.

  • At 10/27/2006 10:22:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Why? Either is a change: a woman or an African American. Both are Democrats. And America needs a spiritual cleansing after the Bush years.

  • At 10/27/2006 10:26:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Ok, so we can nail this down (and hopefully get others discussing) IF you have time, Helen:)

    What changes are needed, and how do you think that a woman or a black man can accomplish them? What do you think they will do differently? What has either said or done that gives you the confidence they can or will bring about what changes you think are needed.

    I don't quite understand the second part--or how election of Obama or Clinton would make a difference.

    Maybe I should create a poll and post it on the site...I'll do that shortly!


  • At 10/27/2006 10:42:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Our country is a mess.

    Conservatives decry the loss of values; liberals often go too far (for me). This is my opinion. We are not all white men, but so far all of our presidents have been. Let's try something different. It can't hurt.

    I think Democrats care about foreign opinion and foreign policy more than the present administartion. I think electing another Republican in 2008 will give us more of the same.

    I don't want more of the same. But I don't think change for the sake of change is the answer. I think Bill Clinton was on the right track. (He wasn't called the "first black President" for nothing. I think either Hillary Clinton or Obama will see that we need to do more for the poor. Bush thinks they should do it themselves or get someone else to do it. But as FDR said, "The buck stops here." We need a president who undersatnds that he/she is the leader of all people, not just the rich.

    Our courty will remain a mess until we stop racism, poverty and war. The and only then will we have a message for the world.

  • At 10/27/2006 11:08:00 AM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    Oh yeah, Remember health care? I do but from the distant past. It's a cool thing to be able to go to a doctor when you need to and pay $25 just like the rich folks do. Or go to any drug store (not just Sams and Walmart) and get medicine for $5 or $10. Instead, many Americans try to figure out what to do without so they can go and pray no one will have a serious problem that will wipe them out. Lack of health care in a rich country is sinful. Cut back on the military and live. Hillary Clinton is all about that.

  • At 10/27/2006 11:18:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…


    I am not an advocate of change for changes sake either. And, yes, I believe we need a change, but the Democrats are not the ones that can give that to us--I sincerely feel they are just as much a part of the problem.

    I am also not an advocate of special interest. Voting in a woman because we suppose her to give preferential treatment to women or the same thing for a black man is unethical.

    Foreign opinion and policy have remained relatively unchanged since George Bush senior. I think the reason that so many people think that it has changed is because of the Iraq war--but that is tunnel vision. If you mean that Democrats care more about what the rest of the world is doing and how we should be more like the rest of the world, then I think you are right. The Democrats resent the fact that we are at the top in so many ways (economically, etc.) and want to bring the nation down to a more common denominator. At least that often colors their rhetoric.

    From my perspective (race) President Clinton was a talker, not a doer. He never placed a black person or hardly any other ethnic or racial group in any position of authority, whereas President Bush has. President Bush has the most diverse cabinet in the history of the nation. Unfortunately, though, many black people still hang their hats on words and promises and rarely deeds. A common flaw as many are still waiting to win the "reparataion lottery" one day.

    Will leave you with a couple more questions:

    How does government end poverty?

    How does government end war?

    How does government stop racism?

    Enjoying the discussion!


  • At 10/27/2006 05:06:00 PM, Blogger Helen Losse said…

    I'll try to pick this up later. I didn't really ignore it, I just ignored it. :-)

    BTW, I think I remember Obama speaking at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Or did the media invent that, too?

  • At 10/27/2006 05:16:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…


    I understand Helen! We only have so many hours in a day.

    It was. As I recall, that is basically all he has on his resume to date. Keep in mind that I think he is a very articulate and educated man, but Harriet Miers was very articulate and educated also, but that didn't make her a wise choice as a supreme court judge (Remember Bush's nominee?)

    Holler when you have time.


  • At 10/27/2006 05:37:00 PM, Blogger chickenhawk said…

    Holy youknowwhat Jack! I have been saying for the past 3 years or so that Hilary would be president in 2008- not as long as your prediction, but I too stand by it. People are like no way, youre crazy, and I am just like, "watch and wait my friend- no one thought that some inarticulate, seemingly simple-minded Texan who only made it in life because of his father's wealth and friends would be either... or that he would serve two terms."

    And I have spoken with a few conservative women in my days- friends, or when I was a phone rep and one thing these ladies have in common: they dont necessarily agree with Hilary ideologically, but she is a powerful, outspoken woman and that is something they 'deeply admire.' Hilary will keep reaching and stretching closer and closer to the middle- I dont think she has to worry about conservative men, when she will have all of the left behind her, and many right of center/left of far-right women.

    I have this theory about a Bush-Clinton conspiracy/dynasty somethingorother haha.

    Which is why we the people must rise up and find Ross Perot and lure him off his island (Perot owns/or at least used to his own island near Bermuda- it was in the yellow pages when I was on vacation there about 10 years ago) and resurrect the reform party. Correct me if Im wrong, but was that the best 3d party performance this country has ever had? I know in my lifetime it was. Ill research and advise.

    And this will get me in trouble, but as someone who finds himself smack dab in the middle of things politically, I am an enormous fan of Pat Buchanan's. People think he is a racist this and that, but I think he is a man who has it right: he worries about this country first and foremost.

    I will now be taking cover.

  • At 10/27/2006 08:11:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi CH!

    A true understanding of politics renders the point moot. At least I see it that way. People in this nation still believe that they have freedom, that what they do makes a difference (remember my previous post)--everyone out to influence events on a global scale. This is part of the ultimate ME culture we now live in--a world of man's inflated self-importance. The reality is, that politics is what drives the ruling class of this nation, and it doesn't matter how one votes the winner is predetermined one way or the other. I am not being negative, just realistic. Looking to politicians or government for the answers is living in a fantasy world, and I'm not willing anymore to be that naive.

    I am currently working on an article comparing Senator Hillary Clinton to President George Bush. Politically they are identical--they only differ somewhat philosophically and in terms of ideology (Senator Clinton is much more the ideologue). I also think that Mrs. Clinton is much more ambitious than President Bush (He's a fairly simple man in all reality) and that should never be discounted.

    When I had my previous website I actually had a Hillary page. It was not particularly a critical one, but it was one where I chronicled my assertions about her ambition (and my prediction) to be president. It even contained her quote that she would never consider running for president. :)

    I think you are on the money about the Clinton-Bush machine. Its a larger political network than we probably imagine. As a matter of fact, the company I now work for was a conduit of sorts for funds funneled to both the Clintons and Bushs'.

    As far as fearing what she can do...I'm not particularly worried. We still have a system of checks and balances--we still have a Constitution that, even though abused, holds our nation and its politics in a reasonable amount of check. (I am also working on an article titled "George Bush the Fascist"--the premise that anyone who knows what fascism is or has lived under it would know to be untrue--first premise being that our constitution will not permit fascism, and there is still a separation of powers in this country--in spite of all the alarmists and fear mongers out there are saying.

    Now in my discussion with Helen, I want to point out that I have developed over the last several elections a very tight voting principle. I refuse to vote for someone who believes in things that I consider immoral. For example, it is a core belief to me that abortion is wrong morally, so I would not vote for a candidate who supports it as a free practice. I couldn't support them any more than I could someone who said that they believe in people's right to run a child prostitution ring. So that is my first criteria. I also can't vote for someone who is affiliated with a party that I feel promote immoral ideals. So since the Democrat Party has chosen abortion as a platform position and issue, I don't feel that I could vote for a Democrat because it would strengthen that platform. This is what I call a turnkey voting issue--one that is absolute and rigid, and not open for compromise no matter how many "larger" issues there are out there.

    There are some (very few) Republicans that I can vote for because they do not embrace abortion as a party platform--even though there are Republicans that advocate abortion.

    So what I am left with is the principled choice (which may be no one!--and I am not saying that all people who have principles differing from me are unprincipled--just that this is an issue I feel strongly about), but one that leaves me at peace with myself.

    I am not saying that who I vote for has to be perfect, but that there are things within a candidate that disqualify my voting for him.

    Hmm..have gotten way off track here, which I do when I'm tired :)

    Real quick though I want to share a personal story while I have a chance. I mentioned this over at Neolibs, but it reaffirmed how I feel.

    A young friend of mine and his wife just had a baby who was 30 weeks old. She was tiny--and precious. She is coming home this weekend. While I was at the hospital visiting, there was also a baby who was born in the early 20 weeks--the baby had been there several months and was going to be going home with its jubilent parents. He was precious too. Beautiful and perfect in every way, and looking forward to a life of love with his parents. In this nation, both Alice and the other child are subject to execution--unborn eagles in the egg have more protection. I challenge any abortion advocate to go spend a day at the local NICU--if one can come out of there the same--that person is indeed a hard person, I would even say unhuman.

    Indeed a wonderful experience, CH. Just wanted to share.


    BTW, the mother of Alice was an abortion advocate--she has two other children, one 11 the other 2 years old. When Ally was born, she changed her mind.

    Take care,


Post a Comment
<< Home
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".

Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.

Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.

In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Template by

Free Blogger Templates


free hit counter