Fantasy Politics USA

Hillary Clinton told a group at a house party that she is the best Democrat out there to deal with the terrorist, but if an attack happens before the election it will help the Republicans. “It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.” Then Clinton added, “So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that.” She bases this strength on the fact that she has beaten back the GOP attack machine for years. I know that the GOP is ruthless when dealing with a Clinton, but do they really compare to terrorist? Chris Dodd called Clinton’s comments of a possible terrorist attack tasteless. “Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” Dodd said in response to Clinton’s comment. If Clinton is doing a good job of explaining why she would be the best candidate if such an attack occurs, then the Republicans shouldn’t have an advantage should one occur. Is she trying to say the Democrats would fall apart if an attack occurred? Doesn’t she have faith in her own message?
Alan Cosgrove

John Edwards has a new stump speech saying the old Washington establishment is corrupt and rigged. He didn’t mention Hillary Clinton by name but implied she is part of this old corrupt establishment. “Small thinking and outdated answers aren’t the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia,” Edwards said. “The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn’t. It’s not just that the answers of the past aren’t up to the job today; it’s that the system that produced them was corrupt — and still is.” “Real change starts with being honest, and I want to say something again: The system in Washington is rigged, and I’ll say it again, it’s rigged and it’s rigged by greedy powers,” Edwards said to a crowd at Dartmouth College. “It’s rigged by the system to favor the establishment.” “The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,” Edwards said, which is clearly a reference to the Clinton era. He said anyone tied to the past will not be the answer for the future. “Those wed to the policies of the ’70s, ’80s or the ’90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.” This is another reference to Clinton, since Bill was in charge through most of the 90’s. Edwards also warned the crowd to not, “replace one group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.” Edwards not only did a number on Hillary, who is without a doubt a part of the old establishment, he also saved some attack for newcomer Barack Obama. Obama has been talking about it is time for a change. So Edwards said, “How many times have voters in New Hampshire heard politicians come rolling through here saying that they want change? That’s great. What do they really want to do as the president of the United States?” “I don’t think just the word ‘change’ means much to people,” Edwards said in an interview. “I mean, what is the policy of the word? In my case, it’s been a very aggressive set of very substantive ideas … because otherwise the change rhetoric all sounds the same.” Edwards has remained third in most polls, and this seems to be his newest strategy. He is going to take on the the two front runners at the same time.
Alan Cosgrove

Barack Obama wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Miami Herald Tuesday that said the Bush administration’s policy on Cuba is a failure. “The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways,” Obama wrote. He says that the Bush administration has tried to promote democracy in Cuba the wrong way. In 2004 Bush pushed through tougher restrictions on Cubans wanting to travel back and forth from Cuba. Since the 1960’s there have been travel restrictions, but since 2004 Cuban-Americans can only go back once every three years, and can only send $300 back to their families every quarter. “Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba.” Obama added that Bush’s decision to limit travel and money, “has not only had a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of the Cuban people. It has also made them more dependent on the Castro regime and isolated them from the transformative message carried there by Cuban Americans.” The Cuban embargo for the last 45 years has been a failure. We have pursued it to the appease the Cuban-Americans of Miami, but they have changed. The early Cuban immigrants were fleeing the political process with their whole families. All their wealth was stolen by Castro’s regime, and they hated him. Now they are fleeing in boats and leaving some family members back on the island. They desire more contact with their families in Cuba. According to Obama, “Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.” This should have been done 40 years ago. Obama also wants to, “use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades.” Up to this point our policy regarding Cuba has been a failure. If we really wanted to get back at Cuba we should have opened up trade and travel years ago. If we had flooded Cuba with what the USA has to offer Castro would have been gone long ago. But instead, we gave him an enemy, and the strength to continue his dictatorship. Obama is trying to move in the right direction on Cuba. To read Obama’s whole article in the Miami Herald click here.
Alan Cosgrove