The Reality Check

The US is the main fighting force in Afghanistan. If most of the Middle East are moderate muslims, except for Iran, how come they aren't helping us fight the Taliban and other extremists? The Middle East should take all their oil money and invest in fighting the extremists, if they are indeed against them. If the Islamic extremists win against the West, guess who's next? That's right, moderate Muslims. It's rare that I actually see a moderate Muslim leader speak out boldly against Islamic extremists. Is it because they are scared? If they are, I understand. But as long as they exist, moderate Muslims are in danger as well.

Obama put a timetable on Afghanistan tonight. He said he's adding 30,000 more troops and withdrawing them by July 2011. So, all the Taliban have to do is hold them off until July 2011 and they get to take over. I don't remember the last time a war went on schedule. I guess Obama figures he's different than every leader in world history. Putting a timetable is not going to help anyone except the Democrats in the next election. It will hurt everyone else, including our troops and the people of Afghanistan. To be certain that we'll succeed by July 2011 is ridiculous. We've been there how long? And President Obama thinks this plan will be the end all? I guess he has an out. If they aren't able to pull out like he hopes, he'll be just use an out. I don't know if President Obama would have the gall to pull out before we succeed, to waste both American and Afghanistan lives that have been lost to just give Afghanistan back to the Taliban where it first began. We'd be leaving them off worse than we came and I don't know if that's morally reprehensible. No, it wasn't Obama that decided to send our troops in. But the United States doesn't represent Obama. Obama represents the United States, and it was the United States, not George W. Bush, that decided to go into Afghanistan. This is a democracy. It's a government by the people for the people. And in the end, it was the people the sent our troops to Afghanistan and it's on us, the people, if we pull out before we see success.

Senator Judd Gregg repeats CBO's (Congressional Budget Office) numbers saying that the current Health Care Reform bill will actually cost $2.5 trillion. Why the $900 billion? Because Obama's administration is starting the expenditures in the 5th or 6th year. But according to the CBO, the total expenditure for the new Health Care Reform bill will actually be $2.5 trillion.

It's the typical political ecology of the world. People and institutions act based primarily upon self-interest. Those who don't, don't survive. Health care reform is no different. What is the motivation of the Obama administration to for health care reform? Can't say for sure. It's very likely that health care reform is indeed something he cares about personally, but that care is well serving his interests with the liberal power brokers of the world.

It goes without saying that the health insurance companies have their own self-interest at heart in the whole health care reform debate. What we shouldn't do however is assume that their self-interest is bad for the rest of us. Competition from a public option might whip them into shape, but at what costs? If the government wastes more money than it saves on health care prices at a whole, than we've all lost with us going deeper into debt. For example, a public option might cause a $500 plan to go down to $400 in the health insurance market. That's great, until you look at the numbers and you realize that the government had to spend $200 to save you that $100. What does that mean? For you to save $100 on your health insurance, the government went into debt $200. That's just a grassroots picture of what might and will probably happen with a public option in health care reform. In fact, this example might be conservative in what may actually happen. The government might end up spending $300 tax-payer dollars for $50 of savings on overall health insurance prices. That is the more likely scenario in a health care reform plan that includes a public option. It's yet to be determined if that will be the case once it's all said and done and a bill finally passes in both houses and signed by President Obama, but we'll see. Here's a reality check: saving on health insurance will probably cost us greatly.

Here's a reality check. The US government just announced that it no longer recommends women to get a mammogram at the age of 40. The pushed it up to age 50. Critics are saying that this is just a prelude to the rationing of health care that will come with the new health care reform plan. Insurance companies may indeed use this to keep from paying for mammograms for women under 50. I wonder if the Obama administration knew how this would look, or if they are just oblivious or think that they can pull one over on those who are against their health care reform plan. Many doctors maintain that women under 50 still should get regular mammograms despite the federal recommendations just released.

But the health care reform bill will probably be more the $900 billion knowing how the government consistently has massive cost over-runs. Health care reform at a cost of almost a trillion dollars comes at a time when the unemployment rate and the federal budget deficit is at an all time high. Not only that, our biggest creditors, China, is nervous about the health care reform bill. If they get too nervous, they might start selling off the US debts that they own and cause a financial nuclear holocaust. China is quickly beginning to gain greater leverage of the US, and this health care reform might tip the scales of power. That's not to mention all the small businesses that will not hire as planned because the cost of hiring will sky-rocket. One should wonder if the Obama administration could have waited for a bit better time, like when unemployment is at least on it's way down, to push health care reform. Seems like no one in Washington wants to use any common economic sense anymore.

This is probably not a surprise, but a recent poll suggested that people are more fond of Sarah Palin than they are of Nancy Pelosi. Not surprising, but it's probably making the media angry. The media adores Nancy Pelosi, while they revile Sarah Palin. But the reality is, Sarah Palin might end up outshining Nancy Pelosi in future political battles. Sarah Palin is just waiting for the right moment to go in for the kill. Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue has quickly risen to the best-sellers list. I seriously doubt anything Nancy Pelosi writes will ever end up on the best sellers list. Here's a reality check then not just for Nancy Pelosi, but also for her adoring media.

Nancy Pelosi's House Bill for Health Care Reform would essentially socialize 18% of the American economy, and maybe more. First the health care industry, and most likely other areas of life will be next: possibly and probably religion, free speech, the banking industry, academic institutions, small businesses, etc. Most of this is already happening. Nancy Pelosi would start us on a very slippery slope down socialism, big chunks of it at a time. Reality Check: Health Care Then All of Society.

ABC's Terry Moran overheard the jackass comment from President Obama when he was talking to a CNBC reporter off the record about Kanye West's interruption of Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards. Then Terry Moran twitted about the comment setting off a chain reaction that all the news media eventually covered. Under traditional rules of journalistic integrity, journalists aren't supposed to quote people that want things off the record. That obviously wasn't the case with Terry Moran and ABC News.

This comes shortly after ABC News' Charlie Gibson, who was until recently their flagship anchor equivalent to Walter Cronkite, Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings, was quoted as saying the ACORN scandal was a mystery to him. After several days of the undercover ACORN videos having been released, after the Census Bureau announcing it would cut their ties to ACORN and after it being a big enough scandal to instigate the US Senate to cut housing grants to ACORN, Charlie Gibson knew nothing about it saying, "it's a mystery to me."

This is not to mention the fact that this huge ACORN scandal barely made it on to ABC News as well as the other major news networks. These recent major lapses in journalistic excellence makes me wonder if the trustworthiness of ABC News in the days of Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Hugh Downs and 20/20, is over.

I knew this would happen. All the Washington pundits and analysts, the so-called experts, said that Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" comment would hurt him politically. That's still up for debate, but the old saying goes, "even bad publicity is good publicity". Those Washington experts are out of touch with normal people. His comment may have rallied his opponent in the next election to raise $100,000, but it allowed him to raise $200,000. Was this planned? I don't think so. But Rep. Joe Wilson's spontaneous and impassioned statement has surely scored him some points. The question is, is it politically cost-effective to rally your own supporters or the opposition. Just like President Obama's impassioned speech served more to rally his supporters than to rally the opposition, so did Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst served himself more than his opponent, even though both sides were rallied. Look for Rep. Joe Wilson to be one of the next stars of the GOP, and let us all remember this week as when it all started.

So is heckling the President the newest political strategy in giving yourself exposure and promotion? Probably not, but in this case it did. If Congressmen and Senators start doing it regularly, the political value will dramatically diminish and will become like the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Questions where everyone is in an uproar and the Prime Minister gets to be grilled by his opponents.

There's an uproar today about Obama's planned speech to school children in the US which will accompany a new lesson plan by the White House for the nation's kids. Critics are saying that it's a socialist style speech intended to indoctrinate young children for Obama's liberal values. Supporters are saying that it's just a pep talk, not unlike what George H. W. Bush did to encourage kids to stay in school and say no to drugs.

Here's the reality check: we won't know until the speech is made. Now that the critics are in an uproar, President Obama will probably change the speech to seem less like he's selling his policies. The critics should have just kept their mouths closed until the speech was made. If President Obama's speech was indeed just a pep talk, then no egg in the face. If Obama's speech was trying to indoctrinate, the critics would actually have some legs to stand on in their criticisms. Now, it's highly likely that President Obama, if his speech was to indoctrinate, will now neutralize his speech so as to not seem like Stalin or Saddam Hussein.

This does bring up another point. President Obama has been spending a lot tax payer dollars to sell his policies. I wonder how ethical that is.

Senator Joe Lieberman was on CNN's State of the Union this morning expressing his views that it would bode well for the country if a complete overhaul of Health Care Reform was postponed until the economy recovered from the Great Recession. Of course, he makes tons of sense. President Obama is spending and printing tons of money when we're already in a deficit, and now he wants to overhaul Health Care Reform at a time when the economy is in the tank and we're not so sure that his Health Care Reform plans are going to work.

Like Joe Lieberman said today, it would be wise to pass incremental bill to reform sectors of the Health Care system instead of trying to do it all in one shot with a comprehensive Health Care Reform bill.

Now that Senator Joe Lieberman is in opposition to President Obama's plans, Democrats may lose their precious 60 votes to prevent a Republican filibuster. In addition, moderate Democrats have yet to put their support behind any proposals. The craziness at the town halls may have been ridiculous, but it bought some time for people to actually give it some thought. A comprehensive overhaul of Health Care Reform deserves a full debate, and I'm glad it's getting one.

There was a story on CNN Money today about the record sales in existing homes in July and how economists were saying it signaled a recovering in the market. I think CNN forgot about the fact that last week they posted a story of the record number of foreclosure filings in the same month. In today's article, CNN neglected to mention last week's story and how the record number of homes sales might be correlated to the record number of foreclosures in July. If the number of homes sales was due to below market prices from foreclosures, I'm not sure that you could say that's a signal of economic strength. There are a lot of economic losses from a foreclosure sale.

The New York Times reported yesterday that due to the Republican's unwillingness to compromise on the Health Care Reform Bill - HR 3200, Democrats will go it on their own to come up with a bill that at least the Democratic party can pass. Republicans were reportedly unwilling to budge on certain aspects of all the proposals and now the Democrats are giving up on compromise for the Health Care Reform Bill.

Here's a Reality Check: Republicans have disincentive to compromise on the Health Care Reform bill. And here they are:

Disincentive #1: Republicans have nothing politically to gain by supporting a Democratic sponsored Health Care Reform bill. If and when the Congress passes a Health Care Reform bill, it will be touted as a victory, no matter what's in the bill. Because no argues that the current Health Care system is in shambles and in desperate need of reform, any bill that even remotely addresses some of the problems in Health Care will seen as a victory and touted as such by the media. The credit will all go to President Obama and the Democratic party. If you're a Republican Congressman up for re-election, you have more to gain to demonize the Health Care Reform bill and to say that you opposed it, than saying that you supported a Health Care Reform bill that everyone gives the Democrats credit for, which would make the Republican Congressman look weak. In essence, it makes the Democratic candidate running against you look better and like he's a part of the winning team.

Disincentive #2: There is a high probability that any Health Care Reform bill that passes will be a failure. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid. They are almost bankrupt and 50 million Americans are still uninsured. This Health Care Reform bill will most likely cost more than projected and will not work as well as people project. Also, because the Health Care Reform bill is going through so many iterations with a number of different authors from different sides and varying interests, the bill will probably be an ineffective mish-mash of stuff that won't work efficiently and will be confusing to navigate due to it's multiple authors and multiple intentions. Health Care comprises about 1/6 of our nations spending and the likelihood of one Health Care Reform bill fixing it is highly improbable. Republicans will have tons of fodder of attack for the election cycles, but only if they oppose the bill and end up not voting for it. Republicans may act like they are trying to compromise, but I doubt they have any intention to.

Disincentive #3: It is unlikely that the situation in the US, especially the economy, will be in good shape during the mid-term elections or even by the Presidential elections. This doesn't have to do with Health Care Reform specifically, but the Republicans really have no incentive to ever vote with President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they do, their constituents might as well have voted in a Democrat.

Politically, they're thinking ahead to mid-term elections and eventually to the next Presidential elections. It's a chess game, and the default move of the Republicans is not to compromise and to vote against every Democratic proposed bill. Of course there are certain instances where they might for specific purposes. But by the 2010 elections and the 2012 elections things will probably still be a mess, and the Republicans need to position themselves to be able to blame President Obama and the Democrats and they can't do that if they vote for major bills like the Health Care Reform bill.

The White House sent signals through Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary, on Sunday that the White House is open to compromise on the Heath Care Reform Bill, going as far as nixing the Public Option of having a government run insurance company that competes with the private sector and settling for non-profit insurance co-ops and reform in regulation of the private insurance industry of things like forcing them to accept people with pre-existing conditions. The White House also signaled that they would nix the end of life consulting benefit in response to the death panel frenzy that has overshadowed the debate.

It's incredibly telling that President Obama has to compromise to get a Health Care Reform Bill passed. The fact that a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate and President Obama still can't get his bill passed shows how much the American people are opposed to the underlying philosophy of the Health Care Reform Bill. The Senate doesn't even have enough Senators to filibuster, and yet, the Health Care Reform Bill still cannot get passed.

This is one obvious example of how distant the Obama Administration is from the desire of most Americans. He was elected not on policy positions, but on charisma, personality and the state of the economy. Now he's showing his true colors. But President Obama is such a good salesman. He'll still get his way far more than most would be able to and he'll get policy through that most people are against because of his charisma and personality. The Health Care Reform Bill may be one of those rare issues that are mitigated by public opinion, although, it may serve to cause the public to pay closer attention to President Obama's policies in the future.

Reality Check: the 'System' is broken. The average Joe will never have the time to read every page of every bill that is ever proposed, especially ones like this Health Care Reform Bill that's a 1000 pages long. Even if they were to get through it, they won't sufficiently understand what the it says nor it's implications. Congressmen and Senators didn't even read the Health Care Reform Bill until it became a blazing hot topic and they were asked by their constituents at town halls if they'd read it. Even then, I bet most of them really didn't understand what they were reading unless they were lawyers in their previous life.

By the 'System' I mean our political machine built by a complicated mix of politicians, pundits, the public, interest groups, and the news media. Each has a part and all are co-dependent. To use the current Health Care Reform Bill as an example, President Obama proposed this bill to Congress, hoping to quickly pass this bill on the backs of his Democratic House and Senate. Obama may have succeeded like he has on many other issues so far, but this time, somehow, there started a groundswell of passionate opposition from conservatives. Why did this issue get ignited when many others didn't? Some say because it's a very personal issue that touches every single American, even those who currently have health care. Others say interest groups, especially health insurance companies, instigated the commotion, even to go as far as hiring the angry mobs, giving them pitch forks and sending them to the town halls.

This, of course, is the point where the new media enters the scene. They now have a choice. They can choose to focus their coverage on the issues, get experts on to talk about the facts and details of the bill, or they can get caught up in the town hall circus. They did a bit of the former, but they did a lot of the latter. As I watched the coverage, there were tons more coverage on the sensational instead of on the actual Health Care Reform Bill.

I'm in a perpetual debate with my wife. She blames the media for not doing it's solemn duty to objectively inform the public on important issues. I have a more cynical view. I see the news media as primarily an entertainment business and a news business second. Money makes this world go around. Walter Cronkite, in his later years lamented what the news media had become. It's a circular system. The news media exposes issues to the public, but it's the public that picks what they show. In the Health Care Reform Bill issue, they had a higher viewing with the town hall frenzy than they did with the discussion of the facts and important details of the bill.

Like I said, the 'System' is broken. The news media tells us what we want to hear not what we need to hear. We're finally starting to hear real debate on the facts of the Health Care Reform Bill, but not before we had 2 weeks of nonsense about death panels and lack of clear messages from the White House.

Okay, I'm not saying I won't ever read a bill or go beyond the political sound bites on important issues, but on this one, I need to experience it like the public experiences it because of it's importance to the public, at least until politicians, leaders and experts start talking about the facts and details of the bill civilly. And at least until the media starts focusing on the issues instead of the crazy and sensational stories out there.

It's unsustainable to expect the American public to read every bill, especially ones like the Health Care Reform Bill. And we need the news media to put expert analysts on their shows to discuss and debate this issue with facts and details. Reality check: if the news media fails to do this, we will end up with an uninformed public and get a warped Health Care Reform Bill and more.

Here's a summary of the death panel issue. There are influential people that have said that Obama's Health Care Reform bill would institute death panels like in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia to decide who lives and who dies. Of course, that's absurb.

What they were saying is that Obama's Health Care Reform bill would have panels to decide who gets what kind of care depending on their condition. The truth is, this already happens with our current health insurance companies. Currently, health insurance companies decide what kind of treatments you get, not doctors. Yes, it's a problem, but the government run insurance doing it won't be much different than what's happening now. In fact, the government panels might be better since they don't have a profit motive like the insurance companies. People still might not get the treatment they need, but with the government it'll be because a lack of money or lack of available services and resources. It won't be malicious like it is now with insurance companies.

The other place they get this death panel idea is the elderly end-of-life counseling the new health care reform bill would provide. I'm not really sure how they inferred death panels from this unless the bill specifically states that these counselor should advise people to commit euthanasia. That's possible, but it's possible now, and it's not in the bill.

I'm not in favor of passing a health care reform bill but I at least want people to tell the truth. We need to reform health care, but we need to do it with concerted discussion of the facts and implications of those facts. Trying to get this health care bill passed without hashing out the details won't be helpful, and neither is spewing poisonous lies about what is in the bill.

How about some civil debate and discussion about the facts and then let the congressional votes fall where they may?

Finally, the White House is starting to put together a semi-effective message campaign. Instead of being in defensive mode all the time, it's actually starting to tell us what's in the bill and what they are intending to do. The actual facts are yet to be confirmed, but at least they've started talking.

Yesterday, the White House began to explain that the Health Care Reform Bill would really be a Heath Insurance Bill and would offer a public option, a government run insurance company as an alternative option for health care consumers. The Obama Administration does not want to create universal health care, well at least not right now. They just want a health insurance option that would be accessible to the 40-50 million Americans who can't get regular health insurance.

President Obama was doing a town hall yesterday explaining this and he compared this to delivery services and how UPS and Fedex competes with a government run Postal Service. Then he explained how the US Postal Service is always the one with problems. Ooops. He just proved government run services aren't as good as private companies. It was a funny mistake, but I still see his point. Even inefficient health insurance is better than nothing at all when you're poor or have a pre-existing condition.

Although, David Axelrod, a Senior Advisor to the President spammed America yesterday with an explanation of the Health Insurance bill, I don't know that he mentioned a public option. Anyway, at least their talking now.

I think there are many people with a genuine interest for people and health care in this debate. Unfortunately, I believe most of those people aren't the people in power.

The Obama Administration is trying to quickly pass this bill before it's fully debated and the details hashed out to please his liberal supporters. The insurance companies are infusing the public with nonsense. Yes, many on the opposition have legitimate concerns, like how health care reform will affect things like abortion and the elderly, but there is incredible amount of self-interest on the side of the insurance companies that is being under reported. The insurance companies are being smart and staying silent, but their invisible hand is ingrained in this process more than we know.

For the insurance companies, this is a business, and this health care reform bill is not in their interest, but they can't show their hand or it'll help their opposition.

Today President Obama launched a new White House website called Reality Check. No, it is not connected to the Reality Check blog, but it does try to clear up misinformation that has gone out about the new Health Care Reform bill.

The whole Health Care Reform issue is probably one of the worst handled political issues in recent Presidential history. No one really knows what's in the bill and that has given opportunity for everyone and anyone to make up the details that are in it. And the main responsibility for that falls on the Obama Administration. They have failed to effectively communicate what is actually in the bill. Besides constantly stating that the Health Care Reform bill would provide health insurance to the currently 40 million uninsured, they have failed big time on how it would effect the rest of the 250 or so million people. And in that big communication gap has come all kinds of facts, both accurate and flat out wrong, to enter into the debate regarding the Heath Care Reform bill.

Again, this is President Obama and his Administration's fault. They failed to have an effective message campaign. President Obama is now on the defensive. Because he failed to tell us what was in the Health Care Reform bill, now he has to constantly tell us what is NOT in the bill in response to the misinformation out there. And it's getting worse. At every turn, he is on the defensive and not on the offensive.

This is mostly due to the fact that President Obama tried to sneak this bill through Congress like he did on the other previous bills. He failed to construct a solid message that would speak to all Americans, not just the uninsured, and he failed to build a solid consensus among even the Democrats in Congress before moving forward with this bill. Now he's trying to talk his way through it through town hall meetings, but that's back firing too.

The cold hard reality check for the Obama Administration is that most people aren't going to take the time and energy to look at the entire bill and come up with their own opinions. They will be swayed based on how compelling the experts and political leaders are. So far, the GOP has done a much greater job at inducing a compelling message to the public. But it's not to their credit. Really, all they did was exploit the huge gap in the message coming from the White House. The Obama Administration asked for it by trying to sneak this by without much conversation. Now they're trying to have too much conversation.

So far, in all the press coverage and speeches I've seen from President Obama, he still hasn't clearly or compellingly told me what is in the Health Care Bill nor how it will affect the normal American who already has health insurance and are pretty happy with it.

Sadly, putting up a website won't help things. Actually, using the official White House website as a propaganda tool for something that is already very unpopular will cause the White House website to lose credibility. The Obama Administration should have used a stand-alone website without the .gov domain extension. This is not a government issue, it's a political issue and the Obama Administration should have used a separate website.

The new Reality Check website will not help Obama's Health Care Reform bill. People will just look at it as just another propaganda and will be skeptical about whatever they say on it.

The only thing that will help President Obama clear the air is to have a televised debate with a member of the GOP about the Health Care Reform Bill. And whoever wins that debate will own the destiny of the Health Care Reform Bill as it stands now and possibly the entire Health Care Reform issue.

President Obama has to use a very different strategy in the next presidential election cycle. President Obama won based one two things: his charisma and the economy. Those two things overcame what I think was an obstacle, his race.

Although Obama's campaign used the race card effectively for his favor, I believe it was more of a liability than an asset, and it's going to be an even more liability this next time around. It was more of a liability because although any trace of racism is erased from the media and although it has become a huge cultural taboo to maintain any racist tendencies, it still exists in America. Ask anyone of a different race that has lived for any length of time in a rural area, where most Americans still live, or the South. They will testify that racism still exists and is still a strong presence in these parts of the US.

There were a couple of reasons Barack Obama was able to overcome this still very present obstacle in the last elections. One, him being the first potential African-American president and the optimism and hope he was very effectively able to engender motivated and inspired many young Americans and many African-Americans who would not have normally gone to the polls.

Secondly, the downward spiral of the economy was a huge win for Obama. Of course he nor his campaign will ever admit it, but that might have been the knock out blow for McCain. As many have said before, "it's the economy stupid." People are more concerned about the economy and their jobs than they are about race. There were many Americans who may have had racist tendencies who voted for Obama because they thought he would be better for the economy.

Culturally speaking, it was a huge victory to have the first African-American president. It was inspiring and a genuinely joyous time. I believe that momentary sense of bliss is giving way to reality.

President Obama is facing many obstacles that he and his campaign will need to figure out how to overcome in the next election cycle. These are challenges that are both inevitable as a candidate up for re-election, but some of these challenges were created by the Obama campaign itself. In other words, the very things that got Obama elected will now be the very things that may keep him from getting re-elected.

The race issue will still be there in 2012. I still believe it's more of a liability than an asset, and it will be even more of a liability in 2012. What remains to be seen is if Obama's charisma and the economy issue will help him overcome it.

First, Obama's charisma. The hope of a promise is always more exhilarating and inspiring than reality. This will be one of President Obama's self-inflicted challenges. Candidate Obama set such high expectations and such high hopes during his campaign that it is virtually impossible to attain. Of course, everyone was thinking short-term, get him elected for the first term. But in doing so, they set themselves up for a huge potential failure in the second term elections.

Secondly, candidate Obama promised to fix the economy. Okay, he didn't verbatim promise he would fix it, but that is what was implied and that is what people will remember they heard and understood from him. Economy is always issue number 1, especially if it's not going well. If people voted for him because they thought he could fix the economy, Obama will almost surely lose those votes this next time around. Although the economy is stabilizing, it has a long way to go to make up for all the jobs that have been lost in the last several months. President Obama won't be able to ride to coat-tails of the economy on this next election cycle.

In addition, President Obama's race card will lose it's luster. We've had our first African American president and now the novelty is gone. Also, if the Republicans are able to get a minority through the primaries to become nominated, Obama's race card will be even more diminished, especially if the GOP nominates someone who is 100% a different race. People seem to forget that President Obama is only half African-American. For the record, I'm not saying that the Obama campaign overtly used the race card. Technically they didn't, but it was still a huge factor and no one can deny that.

One last potential obstacle that may or may not happen is President Obama's relationship with the African-American community. Although Obama's black, he was raised by white people and went to predominately white schools. I wonder if his non-blackness will eventually come out.

Additionally, the African-American church community still needs to reconcile itself to the abortion issue. Assuming that most African-American churches are pro-life, which I think they are, and the fact that most of the overwhelmingly supported Obama, they'll have to reconcile the logic of that decision. Almost a million babies are aborted in the US every year. If life begins at conception, as most Evangelicals believe, than they are also saying that abortion is a biggest act of genocide in the history of mankind. If African-American churches believe that life begins at conception, they just voted in someone who supports this genocide. 87% of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama. If and when they come to grips with this abortion issue and the fact that a disproportionate number of these abortions happen in African-American communities, I wonder how many of those African-American votes will still go to Obama next time around.

No one argues that getting the two American journalists out of North Korea was a good thing. North Korea is not known for their just justice system nor their humane treatment of anyone, let alone prisoners. In any case, I'm glad the two journalists made it out, regardless of how they got out. But there will be political consequences just like any other move, subtle or overt, in the world of foreign relations. There was a political cost to the Obama Administration and many say, to the US in general, but still, Clinton wins again.

So how will the Obama Administration move forward in the light of this? Well, let me first spell out what the Clinton visit did politically, and then the options that President Obama now has in light of that.

First of all, Former President Clinton's visit was not purely humanitarian and was not purely a private, isolated mission. It can't be. He's a former President that was intimately involved in the North Korea crisis. If Former President Clinton's visit was purely a private humanitarian mission that was completely separate from the Nuclear issue, he would not have been asked to come by the North Koreans.

Clinton's visit was not insignificant. Kim Jong Il got what he has wanted since he came into power, legitimacy. He's been desperate for the affirmation and acknowledgment of the world of the legitimacy of his administration and has sought for it with nuclear arms. In this journalist crisis, he got what he has always been after. In exchange for the two journalists, Kim Jong Il was legitimized by a popular former President in front of the watching eyes of the world and his own country. He gave up two pawns and got a firmer grip on power in exchange.

Ok, so what does President Obama do now? He has a couple of general directions he could go. The New York Times and other media outlets are already crediting President Clinton for opening up a diplomatic dialogue. So now, if the Obama Administration decide to open up unilateral diplomatic talks, which would be a huge, not insignificant step, then President Clinton will get the credit, not President Obama. If President Obama continues using sanctions and the six-party talks as his sole diplomatic channel, he just continues what President Bush did, and may get the same result. He's in a bit of a jam.

Regardless of what President Obama now does, and no matter how much both President Obama and Former President Clinton denies this, Former President Clinton will surely get the credit and glory for any successes with North Korea. And unfortunately for President Obama, he will be blamed for any failures or lack of changes in progress.

It seems like Former President Clinton wins again. He's a political genius for sure and knows exactly how to line up his political chess pieces, but this time, I don't think he even tried. The thing about Former Presidents is that they can't ever fail as Former Presidents. Not only does history remember President Clinton's time as President well, he will surely outshine even President Carter in his legacy as Former President.

John Bolton is a realist. He doesn't shade foreign policy in diplomatic subtleties and code, well I guess because he doesn't have to anymore. John Bolton was appointed as the US Ambassador to the United Nations by George W. Bush. After John Bolton left the UN, especially in the last couple of years of the Bush Administration, he became one of it's biggest critics.

John Bolton is now at the American Enterprise Institute writing and speaking on foreign policy issues with a sobering reality that is much needed. John Bolton sees the end game and like most things in the real world, you don't get to pick from a positive or negative solution. In foreign policy, they all have negative consequences, you just have to decide which ones you're willing to live with.

In this interview with John Stewart, John Bolton is talking about the choice of whether or not to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. In his view, although bombing anyone always has negative consequences, having a nuclear Iran is far worse. If Iran gets the nuke, it will overturn how the world, especially Israel, relates to them. It's a huge card to hold, even if you never use it. The strength of a nuclear weapon is not in it's use, but in it's potential.

There's a human rights group called the Enough Project that's currently doing a video campaign called Raise Hope for Congo. They are raising awareness of the new blood diamond problem in Eastern Congo. The main solution everyone is pushing is to pressure electronics manufacturers to ban using blood minerals used in their electronic devices. It's basically a carbon copy solution used in the blood diamond problem in Sierra Leone. This proposed solution includes a certification program to certify minerals from legitimate mines, like they certified diamonds during the blood diamond era. There are good things and bad things regarding this strategy, but more bad than good I'm afraid.

The blood diamond certification program in Sierra Leone didn't directly end the conflict. Blood diamonds were still smuggled out and it continued to fuel the conflict. Diamond companies pressured by public sentiment regarding blood diamonds didn't do much. Diamonds were certified, but how do you know if the blood diamond is smuggled into neighboring country like Liberia? I'm sure a lot of people got really nice Liberian diamonds, although no one's really found diamonds in Liberia yet.

Another big issue is that the blood diamond certification program was relatively simple compared to this issue. Diamonds are traded in a lot less volume than minerals like coltan and copper. In your household, you may have one, maybe two diamonds. But how many electronic devices does your household own? How many cell phones do you have?

Additionally, it was simple conceptually to draw a line on the map of an area to ban diamond exports. Not so simple with Eastern Congo. There are many legitimate mineral mines in Easter Congo. To draw a line and ban all minerals from that region would cut off the economies of many legitimate mining communities. On top of that, it's usually the bad guys that figure out how to smuggle things out.

So what worked in conflict areas like Sierra Leone with it's blood diamonds and Liberia with it's blood timber? And what will work in Congo? To find out, read The United Nations Solution to the New Blood Diamond Problem.

There's a mineral called Coltan that is in abundance in the Democratic Republic of Congo and it's being called the new blood diamond. It is a highly valued mineral that is fueling the civil conflicts in Eastern Congo. 2.7 million people have died so far and an estimated 45,000 people die each month. This is not to mention the frequent rape of women by all sides of the conflict in Eastern Congo. I would say it's probably under-reported and lives in the shadow of Darfur, which has had far less deaths than the Congo conflicts.

Coltan is being widely used in many electronic devices, especially cell phones. The odds are good that you have a blood diamond in your cell phone. And just like the blood diamond issue of a few years ago in Sierra Leone civil wars, there is an international effort to try to keep these new blood diamonds off the market. This may be a much more complicated thing to do than with diamonds. First of all, diamonds are rare and it was easy to maintain a ban on a single country. In Eastern Congo, there is a mix of legitimate Coltan mines and 'blood diamond' mines, which make it difficult to isolate the ban in a single region. The blood diamond certification program in Sierra Leone didn't directly help the whole issue either. Blood diamonds were still smuggled out with great frequency and it's not what ended the bloody conflicts. So what did? That's the subject of my next post Solutions to the New Blood Diamond Problem.

It may have been miscalculation on the part of the Democratic leaders, just a plain foolish mistake or a deliberate act prioritizing based on the values of the Democratic party. The Obama Administration's healthcare bill is at a standstill in the House and Senate, partly because of the political capital used up by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leaders on the cap and trade bill on climate change last month. The cap and trade bill squeezed by and passed by a very small margin, indicating that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership had to probably call in favors from their friend with a little arm twisting. Now that Nancy Pelosi is trying to push President Obama's healthcare bill through before the August recess, the not-so-compliant Democratic representatives are hesitant to pass a bill that they've hardly read.

Yes, it may have been a political miscalculation...or it may have been a deliberate strategy. The Democratic leaders probably knew that these two contraversial bills would have a hard time passing through Congress, even with a Democratic majority, because a majority of Americans are opposed to them. So they had to decide which one they thought was more important and pass through while there was a wealth of political capital. Delibaretly or not, they chose cap and trade and climate change over healthcare.

If it was deliberate, that basically means that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership cares more for the health of the environment 50 years from now than that of over 40 million uninsured Americans.

Link to Foxnews video on this story.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 6 today to endorse the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Of course all 12 Democrats on the committee voted to endorse her. So who was the sole Republican Senator? I guess it's probably a moderate Republican, one of those guys that has the potential to pull an Arlen Specter and jump ship to the other side. Nope, it was Senator Lindsey Graham from the great liberal state of South Carolina. What was he thinking? Wasn't he the most avid opponent to Judge Sotomayor's nomination? Yes, he was and that is precisely why Lindsey Graham voted in favor.

Everyone knew, even by Lindsey Graham's admission at the beginning of the hearing, that Judge Sotomayor was going to get endorsed and probably get confirmed. But the Republicans couldn't just give her an easy ride. They had to get as much political gain out of the whole thing as they could. So the Republican Senators probably got together in closed-door meetings and strategized about how they were going to approach these hearings. They probably discussed what questions they could and should ask, how aggressive they were going to be and how they were going to handle Sotomayor's infamous 'wise latina' comment. Although it was a ridiculous issue, and calling Sotomayor a racist from that comment was obviously a gross overreaction, it drew the public attention unlike Sotomayor's views on the role of the courts would have. So, although the Republican Senators know she's not a racist, they implied that maybe to get press coverage.

Back to the point. Lindsey Graham probably nominated himself as the attack dog, because he's still very popular in South Carolina and has some political capital to gamble with. In addition, Lindsey Graham has the clout in Washington to take leadership as well. Okay, so back to the question, why did he vote in favor? Well, precisely because he was the nastiest to Sotomayor. It was probably decided before the hearings even began how they were going to proceed and how they were going to vote. Lindsey Graham voted to endorse Sotomayor to soften the blows of his accusations and harsh questioning during the hearing. Why? Because Sotomayor's going to get confirmed either way. Lindsey Graham's harshness with Sotomayor pleased the conservatives. Conservatives understand that she's going to get confirmed anyways, so Graham's vote doesn't matter anyways. In addition, Lindsey Graham's favorable vote for a Democratic nominee hedges him for future votes against Democratic nominations and this vote that's in the offical record keeps the Democrats from using this as ammunition for retaliation.

The Obama Campaign for re-election in 2012 has already begun. The Obama Campaign began the day Obama got elected. It's not just Obama, it's just the way presidential politics works. The first term of any presidency is all about getting re-elected. Presidents only care about their legacy in their second term, when they no longer have an incentive for re-election.

President Obama himself began to set expectations low for his first term. There are two strategic implications for that. If Obama doesn't come through with all the promise and hope he inspired the nation with during the election, he can say "I told you so", and explain that it's difficult to turn a situation around, especially the economy recovery, in just one term. Then President Obama will say that he needs another term to not cut short what he started so that it will actually work.

Secondly, if the economy does turn around, Obama will overdeliver on his promises, and wow the nation by exceeding his own low expectations. But every political economist knows, the President has little to do with the economy. Studies have shown, the President has little to do with the successes of the US economy, and they are little to blame when things go sour. Yes, the Bush Administration could have done a lot to mitigate what happened int he Mortgage Securities industry that brought our economy to it's knees. However, at the time, he has little political capital and almost no political will in himself, the Congress, nor the nation to do anything about it at the time.

So the Obama Campaign of 2012 is hedging it's bet early on by setting expectations low.

The Obama Campaign 2012 Strategy

Strategy #1 - Pleasing The Liberal Base Not The Masses
Most Americans are moderates. If you look at the liberal-conservative spectrum, a wide majority of Americans are in the middle somewhere. But the ones who control the government and politics in this country are not. So who are the power brokers of American Presidential Politics? Is it the moderates? Is it the centrists? No, it's the people on the out extremes of the spectrum. They are the ones who are passionate for their views. They are the ones who will donate the money. They are the ones who will go door to door to hand out literature. They are the ones who will pull strings to help you get elected. Right now, the Obama Campaign 2012 cares mostly about this group - which for Obama is the liberal base. When election time rolls around, they are the ones Obama will count on to donate the money, man the get-out-the-vote phones, and get the other pro-Obama moderates (those who say they will vote for Obama but may never actually make it to the polls) out to the polls to vote for him. The liberial base is also the ones who will endorse Obama and tell everyone how great he is when election time rolls around. It's the leaders of ACLU, NAACP, NARAL and others who will not only publically support him to their members, but will use their resources to push a pro Obama campaign.

President Obama is acting super liberal right now, and maybe he is. His critics are slamming him for running as a moderate. Well, that's how you get elected. Watch for President Obama to move back to the center as the next Presidential elections approach.

President Obama cares little about approval ratings among the masses right now. The Obama Campaign knows that the masses have a short term memory, while the liberal base has a very long memory. President Obama knows that approval ratings can change on a dime and that the only approval rating that really matters is the one that comes out the day of the election. Of course, it becomes more important as it approaches election day, but as of now, President Obama is using his still pretty good approval rating and his stock pile of political capital to quickly push forward very liberal bills, like the Freedom of Choice Act and Healthcare Reform. Why? Because he's quickly trying to get the liberal base in his back pocket for the next elections. When election time rolls around, NARAL will remember that Obama pushed forward FOCA and reward him for it. Also, in 2012, most people, even the pro-life ones, will forget that FOCA ever happened.

Strategy #2 - Keep Michelle Obama In The Kitchen
It's freakin' ridiculous. Michelle Obama graduated from freakin' Princeton and then from freakin' Harvard Law School. What the heck is she doing prancing around just looking pretty and doing empty public relations crap and pretty much staying out of her husband's way. Check out the latest news about the First Lady Michelle Obama from the Chicago Tribune - First Lady Michelle Obama's hair: Was that a bob or not? Or check this crap out from ABC News - Designer Alert: Michelle Obama Celebrates More Than a Great Outfit.

Everyone expected she would be a different kind of First Lady because she's so educated, brilliant and successful in her own right. What happened? Well, the Obama Campaign for 2012 happened. They don't want her to steal her husband's spotlight or do anything of significance that could cause Barack to be viewed as weak by the Amercan public. So instead of using her brilliance and education to do some real good, she's out there looking nice and pretty. I know Michelle Obama probably hates it. She has to, she's a freakin' Attorney from Harvard Law School. I guess she knows that this is what it's going to take for her husband to get re-elected, and if and when he does, Michelle Obama will finally be her own person and do what she's capable of.

The most recent AP-Gfk poll showed a downturn in Obama's approval ratings since his election, after which he had some of the highest approval numbers in presidential history. Of course the news outlets and pundits talk about it as if it's a surprise and as if the Obama administration should be alarmed.

The reality is that the Obama administration not only new that his approval ratings were going to dip, but they were already planning for it immediately after his election. Obama, even in his early speeches, was starting to hedge and set people's expectations for the first term of his Presidency pretty low. He knew that the euphoria of his historic elections would eventually fade into the reality of our current economic situation. Obama never promised he would turn the economy around in his Presidency.

In fact, he did say that it would take more than 4 years for his policies to set in and make a difference. This is a true statement, but he conveniently didn't mention it until he was elected. It was a political calculation. Had Obama said this sobering but true statement before he was elected, it wouldn't have help the momentum that was created by an economic downturn under a Republican President, as well as the hope and optimism Obama was engenduring on the campaign trail. Now that he's elected, he needs to set expectations low so that he can say, "I told you so" or he could exceed his own low expectations. There's really no downside political downside to him saying this.

President Obama's approval ratings are going down, but he expected it. Not only that, he's taking the hit on purpose for some of it to make some of his base happy and keep them in his back pocket for the next elections...but that's for another post.

Fox News reported today that John Holdren, Obama's director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, once offered forced abortions and sterilization as a means to control population growth around the world in a 1977 science textbook. It was never brought up in Senate confirmation hearings.

It's extremely unsettling that the head of Obama's science office would even remotely consider eugenics to control the population, especially after seeing how the Nazi's used this line of thinking to justify the holocaust. Yes, the US and Britain around that time was having legitimized conversations about eugenics as well, but when they saw the practical and horrific implications of such reasoning, all public discussion on the subject stopped, with good reason. It's appalling that someone would suggest such a thing, especially post-holocaust.

Although the conversation about eugenics is no longer discussed as a legitimate strategy, it’s certainly being implemented in a huge way, and the Obama Administration's agenda is to quietly keep it that way. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, out-rightly stated that abortion should be a means of controlling the population, especially the reproduction of African Americans, immigrants and the poor. Margaret Sanger was suggesting that we should use force abortions as a means to control the population growth of certain groups of people. That is exactly what is now happening. They are not forced abortions, however the overwhelming percentage of abortions involve pregnant teenagers who are poor and African American. You’ll find a majority of abortion clinics located in poor, African American neighborhoods. The vision of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood is being fulfilled, even though forced abortions is not the method.

Although population control is still not a popular discussion to have in the general public, public policy is being made by those, like John Holdren, who see it as a problem and may be quietly considering it in their policy making.

Here's a link to the Fox News article.