Obama Summit, Renewable Quiet, Chile Quake,

 

President Obama Lost His VOICE !

The good news is that President Obama has found his voice again.

In what looked like the first bit of public governing the President has ever done, (okay, a few of his speeches have been effective bully pulpit governance, too) President Obama had a “Heath care Summit” at Blair House, across the street from the White House, in which he included key Democrats and Republicans from both houses of Congress. Though it may sound like a liberally biased report (because it, quite frankly, is a biased liberal report) the Republicans did have some key “Health Care Plan” points to offer, limiting physician liability (aka “tort reform”), purchasing health insurance across state lines (a “doozey” that I’ll talk a little more about in a minute), and essentially staying out of the way of private business in the matter of insurance generally. What the President showed, and it was fairly clear that the Republicans were willing participants in their own ambush, was that the Republican “party of ‘NO’” was firm in its commitment to block all progress on the basis that they had “fundamental differences” with the objectives of the Democratic bills that have passed the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that regardless of whatever good it might do, or whatever compromises the Democratic administration and Congress might offer, they would stand firm on those principles they held.

President Obama said in summing up at the end of the summit, that “times up” and that they would work to finalize the legislation in the next month to six weeks, and if they couldn’t get some cooperation and compromise from the Republicans, well, “that’s what elections are for.” President Obama also pointed out that when credit card companies were allowed to market their products across state lines, all that accomplished was a “rush to the bottom”, meaning that all the credit card companies migrated to the states with the least restrictive rules on credit card companies, and the least protection for their customers. The conclusion (or at least the conclusion that was implied) was that without a comprehensive form of Health Care Insurance Reform, in isolation permitting an inter-state trade among insurance companies would likely result in no improvements, and more than likely a repeat of the credit card company example, even though the concept itself has merit and will also be part of the President’s proposed revisions. Indeed the President seemed to fairly deftly handle most of the “talking points” that Republicans reiterated and reiterated and reiterated again. How my wife, Maggie managed to watch all 7 hours of it, I don’t understand. On the other hand, it was one of the highlights of the day when Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the clearly false claim by John Boehner that the existing Senate bill contained the beginnings of federal funding for abortion. As Ms. Pelosi said, the prohibition of federal funding of abortions is the law of the land, and nothing in either bill does anything to change that, “You are allowed your opinion, but you are not allowed your own version of the ‘facts’, Mr. Boehner.”

I “tweeted” a link to the video highlights (from the Democrats’ point of view at least) of the summit yesterday, and here it is again, in fact, here’s the whole tweet: “If you missed the 8 hours of video on Healthcare Summit yesterday, here as some highlights http://tinyurl.com/yfjyppn “ (If you have a really speedy connection to the internet, here’s a High Definition version of some of the same summit meeting

Several parts are available, this one is “part 4” on the deficit/budget issues.)

What was accomplished by this summit? The main outcome, as far as I can tell is that the Republicans’ position is: NO, no matter what; while the Democrats finally come around to my recommended strategy which is to whip their own members into line and pass the legislation because not governing is a far greater failure than failing to please all of the people all of the time. Indeed as former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Donna Shalala said on a Charlie Rose on PBS broadcast this week, there’s a political strategy that makes any complex legislation nearly impossible to pass, it is called a “negative coalition”, in which all of the parties with some particular objection to some particular provision of a bill will form an alliance with all other opponents, and for entirely dissimilar reasons, agree to block an otherwise beneficial law from being passed because it doesn’t suit their special interest. In fact, as Ms. Shalala pointed out, this has got to stop and the recent US Supreme Court decision that corporate money contributions to political campaigns are “protected” as “free speech” the situation is, instead, going to get worse not better any time soon.

Life is Fleeting and So Is Live Entertainment

In this case, it might be more accurate to say life is Quixotic, although the particular instance was NOT the performance of the signature tune from Man of La Mancha the inspirational, “To Dream the Impossible Dream”, which for such a “showy” tune was lackluster at best. The particulars of this instance were last week at the “Pops” concert given by the Phoenix Symphony Orchestra (or strictly speaking I suppose what would more properly be called the “Phoenix Pops Orchestra”) at Symphony Hall in downtown Phoenix, of course. The conductor was Lawrence Golan, and the singer was Sean Carter Campbell. I was amazed, held in disbelief at how well he sang, “If I Were a Rich Man” from the Fiddler on the Roof . I have heard it performed a hundred times before, by actors and singers from Edmonton to New York in origin, and as ethnically diverse as Italian and Jewish, but never before with such flare, such passion and such understanding and subtlety. Even the nonsense syllables could not have been better rendered even if he had affected a Brooklyn Jewish accent. Mr. Campbell is a relatively recent graduate of the Arizona State University in Phoenix with a Bachelor’s degree in Vocal Performance in 2006, but despite his relative youth, he has also performed at Carnegie Hall. The singing was excellent but what made it such an exceptional occasion was that he “acted” the song with consummate skill as well. Mesmerizing, entrancing, incredibly subtle in detail and definition, or at least that’s the way I saw it. Congratulations to Mr. Campbell.

Wouldn’t YOU like to Attract Attractive Women?

I have entered the “dating business” which does NOT mean I am in competition with Heidi Fleiss, I am an affiliate for several sellers of dating advice, and I am also doing “life counseling” on a private client video conferencing basis. Marketing affiliates are paid a small commission, but in at least some instances they are paid on every purchase for the life of the account, so the earnings can add up over time. (People who sold traditional insurance are familiar with this kind of earning strategy. It is not a lot for any one policy, but they accumulate over the months and years, so that they can be quite a substantial income.) I’ll let you know if it turns out to be a landslide of cash, but if it just helps a few people live happier more productive lives, that will be sufficient reward for me.

That is not to say I’m going to be a dilettante merely dabbling in matters of the heart. I hope that one or both of the new web sites will really lead to some improvements in at least a few lives. I sincerely hope that it could be a great number of people who benefit from visits to the Dream Driver website which attempts to put people in the “driver’s seat” by NOT reacting emotionally to confusing “signals” from their emotional life, whether those are conscious fears or show up in dreams. The website offers access to a free video on how to adopt that kind of attitude and approach, though personal counseling (via video conferencing) is expensive. But I expect that a great number more will be inclined to at least explore better dating experiences through the Attract Attractive Women site (attractattracivewomen.psyrk.us) since much of the advice available is also in the form of free or low cost videos like this one from Heather on one of the quickest way to get a girl’s attention.

The commonest complaint I used to hear from women was that, “all the good men are either married or gay!” It might have seemed that way to them, but the truth is that most “nice guys” don’t know how to create attraction in a relationship with a woman (or “girl”, and there’s nothing wrong with being a “girl” at any age since my wife’s senior citizen girlfriends refer to themselves as “the girls” as did my mother’s friends when she was alive). There are a lot of dating guru’s out there and most of them tell us that society has trained out of men the basics of “alpha male” attractiveness, with the very inconvenient exception of dumb, insensitive men who have little or no respect for women in the first place. On the other hand, there is also the problem that many women don’t know a “good thing” when they see it. Many men just turn all “puppy dog” they are so eager to please a women who appeals to them that they become non-mating material the moment they open their mouths. They have to re-learn how to be themselves in a way that women find more appealing, thus the nearly unlimited demand for good dating advice.

If by any chance you are one of those guys who is not happily in a relationship with a woman, by all means, check out those websites.

Party Anyone?

For some reason (or possibly no reason at all) my wife received a “survey” form from the Republican National Committee a few days ago. Since she’s a registered Democrat, she was in the process of throwing it away when I caught sight of it, and postponed its trip to the re-cycling bin. The “survey” is, in fact, fairly obviously only a minor part of the document’s function. You see, it is really a solicitation of funds form, that asks the kind of leading questions that attempt to persuade you that you support the objectives of the Republican Party, should probably “fear” the Democratic Party, and therefore you NEED to support the financial health of the Republican National Committee, preferably with the urgency and instantaneous delivery of an online registration and donation opportunity, too.

I don’t know what intelligence or education level they expect to be addressing with this “survey”. Presumably the majority of readers, like the majority of the population, are non-high-school-grads, so perhaps they assume they can pull the wool over your eyes and you won’t notice the distortion in perspective away from any facts that might surround the real issue. But let’s examine some of the questions and just how they distort.

  1. Do you agree with Barack Obama and the Democrats that taxes should be raised for the sake of “fairness” regardless of the negative impact it is likely to have on the economy?1. Commentary: Raise whose taxes? They don’t mention that the raises proposed (for the sake of “fairness”) are taxes on those earning more than US$250,000 per year adjusted gross income. Other people’s taxes have been lowered (slightly) and this increase only kicks in later to remove the tax cuts George W. Bush and his administration gave to some of the wealthiest 1% of the country in the first place.
  2. Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass?6. Commentary: What expansion of welfare? What bill?
  3. Do you believe that Barack Obama’s nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate?7. Commentary: Notice that it says, “immediate and unquestionably approved”. No one is suggesting that the U.S. Senate be a rubber stamp approval of federal appointees, but neither is there ANY excuse for the outrageous behavior of Republicans of blocking nearly 80 of President Obama’s appointees, just to “call attention” to some minor issue.
  4. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?8. Commentary: Let’s see that would refer to the “no child left behind” program which was an UNFUNDED federal mandate for all states to establish standards and to show progress towards achieving those standards, without one-red-federal-cent to pay for these programs, not to mention that insisting that their only be one type of education, aimed at putting every high school student on the path to higher education (regardless of intelligence or ability, or, for that matter, disability, mental or physical) was a really BAD idea in the first place, and that “streamed” education worked rather well for 70 years of more before this “modernization” dragged the top students down while failing to bring the low and unmotivated students up.
  5. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?9. Commentary: Let’s see, Medicare is administered by “bureaucrats” of the federal government, and it operates on an “overhead” cost of about 3% versus private insurance companies which are taking home billions in profits each year, yet apply approximately 30% to “overhead” expenses from their income. Medicare is in financial trouble, I am told, largely because it was designed to accommodate a population that was predominately young, healthy working people paying their premiums in advance of their needs for care, goods, and services and that those who did survive to an age where they were eligible to collect (as with Social Security itself) would be relatively few (a small percentage of the total population) and not live very long anyway (average age expectancy was approximately 70 years when I was a child. That has risen in the U.S. to 75.6 for males and 80.8 for females (and 78 years overall). Which isn’t a huge percent of total length of life, but when Medicare (and Social Security) begin at 65, the increase in average age has doubled the length of eligibility period for men, and tripled for women. Quickly phasing in older retirement/Medicare eligibility ages would correct a good deal of the imbalance, whether that is completely “fair” or not.

Happy Thoughts

There may not be any earth shattering breakthroughs in the world of renewable energy recently, but that is to be expected from time to time. The good news is that although Chile experienced a truly earth shattering event of an 8.8 Richter scale earthquake, comparatively few people died (something like 200 times as strong a quake as the Sylmar quake in California some 40 years ago). So the other good news is that there were no earth shattering disasters in the renewable energy field in recent days (not that I am aware of, at least) either.

Love and warm wishes,

Sincerely,

Stafford “Doc” Williamson

http://daochienergy.com

All rights reserved Williamson Information Technologies Corp.  2008




Perversity & Inertia, Soy Futures v WVO, Diabolical Diebold? Election 2000 v 1876

It seems perverse if not downright self-destructive to develop a passionate dislike for one of the laws of physics, but I am doing it none the less. Strictly speaking, it is not Newton’s First Law with which I have so much trouble, it is the fact that society and economics seem mired in it. Carefully considered conservatism, is only sensible. Idiotic investment inertia is unconscionable, and yet the law of the land, or at least the slope of the economic landscape.

News items are starting to appear about the business failures in Germany of their still nascent biodiesel industry, just because the tax break went away. Well, that and the rising costs of vegetable oils. But ringing the death knell of the industry is certainly premature at best.

On the other hand, it seems like pure leverage that Brazil is seeing in their biodiesel industry. Just as the B2 deadlines are approaching (government policy that all diesel will be blended with 2% biodiesel), prices are spiking for soy beans (the majority of Brazil’s biodiesel is produced from soy beans) (Brazil is the #2 producer of soy beans in the world and soy is also one of Argentina’s largest crops, by the way). Producers are claiming that the price for biodiesel, set by auction, is no longer viable based on their costs. Government officials are reportedly unsympathetic, or rather, perhaps just not too quick to respond to what they consider a rouge by producers to force prices higher. ANP, Brazil’s national oil and petroleum products market regulatory agency spokespersonEdson Silva, told Reuters news agency that, “Producers are interested in gaining a foothold in the market, which has an extraordinary potential, so they may work with reduced profitability now for a while. We believe they will deliver everything that was contracted.” He also indicated that he thought prices of soy would ease with the approaching February harvest season. However industry spokesmen say that prices will have to become “realistic” at the next auction or subsidies will have to be created. Defaulting on deliveries could see the producers barred from future auctions, but the government spokeman was not concerned and expected that they will deliver the contracted amounts for the program.Still, in Brazil, the Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress (BSPC), has announced they are creating a network of small local biodiesel plants to convert WVO (waste vegetable oil) to biodiesel in order to help meet the B2 initiative goals. Local citizens are expected to contribute their waste oil to these local plants. But if you think that sounds too “third world” and impractical on a larger scale, well, you might need to revise your thinking. In Kilmarock County, Scotland, they have come up with a system of trading a bucket of used cooking grease for a bus ticket, according to an article in Autogreen Blog. The bus company distributed collection containers to homes all along the routes it services. And in Murcia, Spain, in order to keep the sewer water clean enough to be used for the usual grey water purposes, a local company has distributed funnels to the citizens so that they can now take used cooking oil and grease to any school or grocery shop to be redeemed, which also recycles the plastic soda bottles they use as the standard containers for their deposits.

Biodiesel Magazine reports that the Galveston Bay Biodiesel plant that started with a 20 million gallon per year output capacity, only to immediately start expansion plans to 100 million gallons, seems to have settle US$6 million in liens from contractors for just $2 million, as well as having a US$15 left from the contribution of a new investor to apply to the expansion efforts. Meanwhile Galveston Bay Biodiesel is also suing Chevron for pulling out of the deal last year, claiming that Chevron misrepresented their intentions. Biodiesel Magazine characterizes the suit as more like a domestic dispute than a contractual issue.

Chrysler, being one of the “victims” (as well as perpetrators) of the myths that create corporate inertia in the world, points out that all of its current models of diesel engines come out of the factory capable of running fuel that is 5% ASTM biodiesel. Now I grant that with “variable geometry turbocharger” technology, your engineers might get a little nervous about whether the still ruggedly frontier-like industry of biodiesel production might jeopardize the peak performance of your carefully tuned torque. But on the other hand, here in Phoenix, Arizona, the Deer Valley Unified School District had already completed 4 million miles of proven reliable transportation in their buses and other vehicle BACK IN 2001 using biodiesel blends. And it was recently announced that one of their suppliers has won another contract to supply them with fuel, including what they call OXyG B-60, which is a little deceptive since it is “only” 20% Biodiesel blend. What is innovative (relative to the Deer Valley contract) about this sale is that OXyG B-60 is that this is a product made from WVO, not purpose produced vegetable oils.

Speaking of “on purpose”, although there has been a lot of speculation about Senator Clinton’s “near tear” the day before the New Hampshire Primary, and I am not coming down on either side of that fence, I did find that Bill Maher’scomment onHBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher somewhat … (I’ll save “offense” for the next subject) … disturbing. It seemed that Bill was stuck in the 50’s, comparing Mitt Romney to the Leave It To Beaver character Ward Cleaver, but also implying that Hillary Clinton’s crying was inappropriate for a presidential candidate. Specifically he mocked the concept that one might choose to be, “electing a president you want to have a good cry with,” while finding acceptable the “want to have a beer with,” as an electability criterion. Okay, Bill’s job is to be a comedian. (Bill Maher, not Bill Clinton.) (And by the way, Mike Huckabee really CAN tell a joke well, as proven on the Tonight Show recently.) But that was a blatantly sexist remark. Women, given the chance to vote for an equally qualified candidate who happened to be female, would find it completely normal and even “intelligent” to choose the candidate with whom she could imagine she might have a good cry. Heck in the last gubernatorial race here in Arizona, I would rather had sat down for a beer or any other beverage with Janet Napolitano that any of her opponents (and I liked one or two of those guys too). Still, she’s endorsing Senator Barack Obama.

While in political mode, I am sorry to say that (former) Senator John Edwards has fallen from my list to even consider, though it isn’t even his own fault. No, this one I blame on his lovely wife, Elizabeth. Elizabeth seems to have picked up the bad habit from somewhere of pronouncing “nuclear” as “noo kew lar”, and I swear I would vote for a Republican candidate who pronounced it correctly before I would put even a spouse of someone who cannot in the White House again.

then there is THIS, a video of Republican Fred Thompson on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes talks about the assassination of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. He is critical of Governor Huckabee’s comment that, following the assassination, “it is a police matter, now.” He ratchets up the rhetoric, and beats the drum for the “global war on terror,” the standard “party line” for Bush Republicans. But while that is understandable, it clearly reveals that Governor Huckabee has a more realistic idea of how to deal with terrorism.

Just in case the embedded version of the video clip can’t be seen here, you can download it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NROUayHtd3k.
It is not often that you can say that a comedy is inspirational. Occasionally a good comic movie has a serious point to make, and oddly enough, despite former White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow’s claim that “none of us” know what is really happening inside those voting machines (and Mark Cuban’s legitimate claim that he REALLY DOES — he was a computer guru before he was a billionaire, and because a billionaire because he was a computer guru) (in the most recent HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher) Robin Williams 2006 movie, Man of the Year where the plot hinged on a hacker tapping into the voting boxes from Diebold (though as [former Judge, now broadcaster] Catherine Crier pointed out Diebold has now changed its name). It is a serious issue and should get some attention before we embark upon another national election, unless we want to actually live with results far more dire than those in the Robin Williams movie. At least in the Hollywood Happy Ending, they CAUGHT the tamperers.

Now hold that thought for a second. Back to politics.

E.J.Dionne, columnist for the Washington Post (and Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institute) pointed out that the Republicans haven’t been in such disarray in terms of putting forth a presidential nominee since the election of 1836 when the Whigs had put forth 4 candidates in hope that at least one of them would appeal to each of the 4 geographical constituencies that would play a role in determining the next President. Politics repeating themselves is just another aspect of that old cliche that “history repeats itself” (since we seem to refuse to learn from past mistakes). That point came home to me a few weeks ago when I was called upon to teach a history class that focused on the Presidential election of 1876, which was filled with both similarities and contrasts to the election of 2000. Ohio and Florida played pivotal roles then and now, the support or lack of public support from the incumbent president and accusations of corruptions of the outgoing administration also seemed to have significant effects on the results, and the outcome was eventually decided not by the voters (winner of the popular vote did not prevail in the electoral college due to political party partisanship regarding the certificates of the electors) but by the members of Supreme Court. Even the impending inauguration date played a role in both dramas.

On the subject of inspirational comedy, perhaps the comedy of errors in both 1876 and 2000 should inspire us to action on the voting machine issue, but that is not the only inspiration I came upon this week. I had the true pleasure of watching The Bucket List, directed by Rob Reiner, and starring Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. The concept, the “bucket list”, if you haven’t seen it revealed in the publicity already, is that before you die, you should keep in mind that life is finite, and that whatever you feel you want to do, or just HAVE TO DO, should be put on a list, “before you kick the bucket.” For anyone too young to recognize that phrase, it means, “before you die.” The movie is a delight, and I hardly need mention that the three named individuals are master craftsmen at what they do, so quality is never in doubt. What amazed me was that it actually inspired my wife to want to create her own bucket list. That’s pretty high praise from her, and I agree.

Love

Stafford “Doc” Williamson

p.s. check out the free ads from Google, Yahoo and elsewhere
at the Google Ads For Free page.

Politics Waits for No Man – New Hampshire PRIMARY today

To Ron Paul’s “fans”, I apologize for “promoting” him from Congressman Paul to “Senator Paul” in my previous post.

If you needed proof, Ron Paul and the courts just may provide it. The “proof” I am speaking of is that there has rarely ever been so blatant a mis-use of journalism as the slogan of “Fox News” when it claims, “fair and balanced” news coverage. CONGRESSMAN Dr. Ron Paul appeared on the Monday night edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno saying among other things that in response to being left out of the Fox News Republican Debate on Sunday (Jan. 7, 2008) that he was considering taking them to court because this was clearly an instance where they were showing bias against his campaign. He made it clear that after his showing in Iowa caucuses and still ranking ABOVE Former NYC Mayor Giuliani in public opinion polls in New Hampshire that (though he could only “speculate”) that Fox did not want their listeners and viewers to hear the message he wanted to deliver.

He also delivered his most popular and inciteful platform plank that terrorists (Islamists or not) did not target Americans and New York’s World Trade Center because we are free and prosperous, the stupid bumpersticker explanation and jingoistic clap trap the Bush administration has been feeding us for years. He is aware, as he states, that over 50 years of political meddling and “occupation” as he puts it, of Middle East countries and puppet dictatorships, and CIA sponsored violence (not to mention the Afghanistan War – no not “OURS”, theirs against the Soviets)(aka Charlie Wilson’s War in the movie version) is what make the USA a target, not only here, but at our foreign embassies and military bases, too.

To those who might have seen “American Woman’s” blog who seemed to assume that I was attacking Dr. Paul, I assure you, I genuinely admire him for bringing these truths to light. There is also some value in what he says about monetary policy, especially in the month after the Fed decided to increase the M4 money supply by some 40 billion. Yes, of course that contributes to some degree of inflation, but that is far from the principal reason the Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar (as Dr. Paul implied on the Leno Show).

Does Hillary Clinton Have Enough Experience?

IF experience really was the question as to whether or not a candidate will make a “good” President, there is little question that she is at least as qualified as most of the people who have held that office.

THE question of Hillary’s candidacy is does her position on the issues match yours on those issues that are most important to you. Better yet, are the kind of policies that she is likely to implement (Universal Health Care, International Cooperation and Development, Debt restructing for poor nations, cap and trade carbon markets) are GOOD for the nation and the world.

Is it likely that Senator Clinton will be strong on campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of lobbyists, ending pork-barreling “earmark” budget items? Can she, with or without a majority in both Houses of Congress, be able to bring about the rather sensible concept of line-item veto to prevent earmarks if she can’t get those eliminated in the first place. Senator Obama’s campaign does have a point that as part of the LONG ESTABLISHED Washington political machinery, can we really expect her to work hard for those kinds of reforms.

I think that the answer is a resounding YES, but will it really be working hard enough for her to succeed on every front? It cannot possibly be that easy. At least not unless we also give her the kind of OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of elected members of CONGRESS, too. It may take that kind of solidarity to reform and reverse the damages done by the current administration, but we need to act swiftly. We need immediate action on the “War” in Iraq (remember, we cannot BE “at war” without a formal declaration from CONGRESS, not just the actions of the President and the military), and with repect to Climate Change. We need strong legislation and decisive policies and we need them as soon as possible.

If you could pick today: Obama or Clinton?

Tough question.

I’ve been watching the debates, and some of the candidates positions, and I think that Hillary’s experience in dealing with the Washington process, which is, after all, a process of compromise to arrive at the best solution that can be achieved which is acceptable to both sides, is a really important factor. When she is “accused” of falsely claiming to have represented the US in foreign trips, and the claim is made that Madelaine Albright (as Secretary of State) was the “real” voice of our country in the rest of the world, these attacks are essentially unfounded, and worse, the attackers know that they are unjustified slights on the work Senator Clinton did as First Lady. She was the soft persuasive voice, one of the “back channel” channels the news people like to talk about who often are the “real” diplomats that bring about compromise on the more visible side of the world stage.

We recently saw picutres of Mrs Clinton and Mrs Benazir Bhutto walking together. I doubt that either of them could bake a pumpkin pie, nor were they likely to be exchanging recipes. Yes, clearly they could be talking about raising their children (and the special nuances of doing so with millions of people watching), but I rather suspect that they were more likely discussing microfinance and its ability to provide economic opportunities to impoverished women to start businesses that not only sustain families, but can bring about relative prosperity rather rapidly. Both of the Clintons were very active in this field for decades now.

That is not to say that Obama is not appealing, and for some similar reasons. He too has been working (or did, in the past) to better the lives of less fortunate citizens. He too got things done by “political” means of compromise and forging agreements between groups with conflicting interests. He also brings his youthful enthusiasm and eloquent speaking style. He can be very persuasive on the mass scale of public speaking, which, as many people know, is what brought him to national attention through his speech at the Democratic Party National Convention. I like, too, that Senator Obama comes as half of a highly capable couple. Michele, like Hillary, is a highly educated, articulate and dynamic partner in their marriage, as we have already seen on the campaign trail.

So how would I vote? Well, I recognize that there are those who will have negative reactions to each of these two candidates, but given an absolute freedom to vote the way I would want, I would “VOTE” for a Presidential “ticket” of Hillary Clinton for President, with Barack Obama as her Vice-President, and hope that we might see President Obama emerge from the 2016 election.

I have not doubt that Obama can be a GREAT President, but I would like to see him take on that task after an apprenticeship under the very capable tutelage of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton. With 8 years of that kind of guidance, and experience, I truly believe he could be the greatest US President of ALL TIME, or at least maybe second after Jefferson.

Love

Stafford “Doc” Williamson

p.s. If you didn’t catch my posts elsewhere, I am tickled pink (some of my more conservatives friends think I’m a little pink, tickled or not) that we now can get Arabic language television via satellite in the USA through DISH Network

p.p.s. I am also really pleased to have found a new diet, even though I am planning on opening a website at http://undietlifestyle.winfotech.com soon. (It may not be working yet, but it should be “soon”)

%d bloggers like this: