Cynthia McKinney And The Presidency

Cynthia McKinney is back, and she’s back with a vengeance. You see, no matter what you think of Cynthia McKinney, she has now made history. For the first time in the history of our country we have two black presidential candidates. Of course, one of them is going to get about 100 million more votes than the other, but it is historical.

The liberal environmentalist Green Party nominated former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as its presidential candidate Saturday. Cynthia McKinney represented a suburban Atlanta, Georgia, district for six terms as a Democrat.

McKinney, 53, held off three rivals to win the party’s nomination during its convention in Chicago, Illinois. She picked journalist and activist Rosa Clemente as her running mate.

Green Party spokeswoman Scott McLarty acknowledged McKinney was a “long shot” for the White House, but said, “Every vote that she gets helps the Green Party.”

Every vote she gets helps the Green Party? How? The most a political candidate from the Green Party has received is 3% isn’t it? Wasn’t it Ralph Nader who grabbed that many votes in 2000? Unless she gets more than 3% of the vote, which I can pretty much guarantee she won’t, how do those votes help the Green Party?

Funny thing. She stands to do best in her own former home district, you would think, right? Too bad it won’t help her. That’s right, the Green Party failed to collect enough signatures by the deadline to get her name on the ballot. Now we won’t even know if she would have received 3% of the votes in her former home district.

A Flip-Flop Of John Kerry Proportions

Last October, Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman Bill Burton said,

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

In December, his office issued a written statement,

“Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies… granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster [blocking] of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.”

Yet today, just eight months after he claimed to have serious concerns about retroactive immunity, and just six months after he claimed that same immunity undermines the constitutional protections of Americans, he completely flip-flopped and joined 68 other Democrat and Republican senators to pass the measure.

That’s right. There is no mistaking this one. There is nothing to refine with this one, it’s a blatant flip-flop of John Kerry proportions.

For the record, Hillary Clinton voted against passage, and John McCain was out there somewhere brown-nosing the Hispanic community.

(Photo courtesy of www.changewecanbelievein.com)

Constantly Refining Barack Obama

Many things in this world are refined. Metals, sugar, petroleum, and even our behavior can all be refined.

Refining metals makes them more valuable by removing the impurities within them.

Refined sugar is what many people define as just plain old regular sugar. If they ever saw raw sugar, or tasted it, it may change their opinion dramatically.

Until it is refined, petroleum is of no use to us. Refining it purifies it from a big sloppy gooey mess into a highly efficient fuel that powers our automobiles.

We have read about refined women throughout history, and without them who knows what civilization might have become.

Reading books helps you refine your knowledge.

But what about our politicians? Should they be refined? If so, how much refining do they need before they reach a “pure state”, or become more fine and polished?

It seems one of the candidates for President is in constant need of refinement, since he’s been doing it for the better part of a year now.

Obama Refines His Position on Coal (06/26/2007)

Obama Refines His Closing Argument (12/27/2007)

Obama Refines Foreign Policy Position After Backlash (05/22/2008)

Obama Refines Iraq Attack On McCain (06/12/2008)

Obama To ‘Refine’ Iraq Plan (07/03/2008)

Obama Refines Plans for Germany Trip (07/05/2008)

Obama Refines the Blame on Iraq Miscue (07/05/2008)

Based on the way the press has treated Barack Obama over the course of the past year, I was under the impression that he was near perfect and was not in need of such constant refinement.

How, exactly, does a politician refine his position? Isn’t that like changing his mind?

And what about an argument? Once he makes it, how can he refine it? Changing his argument after the fact makes him just like all of the other politicians, doesn’t it?

When a politician speaks out on a subject, such as foreign policy, and he suffers backlash because of his position, how is changing his position considered “refining” it? The mere definition of the word “refine” says nothing about change. In fact, refining is not changing, it is making something more pure, more elegant, or more cultured. If changing positions because people don’t agree with him makes him more cultured and refined, then he, and just about everyone else in Washington D.C., must be cultured beyond belief.

So, why does the press keep using the word “refined” every time Barack Obama changes his position? Why do they consider him “refining” his position when he sometimes changes his entire direction on a subject? Maybe he, and his campaign, want it that way.

Here’s a quote from Barack Obama,

For me to say that I’m going to refine my policies I don’t think in any way is inconsistent with prior statements

I beg to differ. “Refining” his policies is completely inconsistent if he is simply using the word refine instead of change. His stance on an issue takes on a whole new meaning if he changes any part of that policy. Many people call that “flip-flopping”. Why is John McCain considered “flip-flopping” on an issue when he changes his mind or alters his policy, but Barack Obama is simply refining his position? I see no difference at all, and that’s coming from someone who has a refined way of thinking.

Think about it. Refine does not mean change. But if you take the word ‘change’ and replace it in every one of the headlines above, each headline is still pertinent and on topic with the included article.

The official motto of the Obama campaign is “Change we can believe in”. How can we believe in that change, if it’s constantly being refined? Something tells me that the ‘change’ people believed in earlier this year, is no longer the same ‘change’ we’re supposed to believe in now. Unless of course, that’s changing too.