The Clintons are a breath of fresh air
compared to the republican mess now is
Washington.

Hillary Clinton was treated in a way so disrespectful fro, the media, that I never have seen this in my 60 years of age. They treat her so bad, forgetting that as a woman, as a senator of the U.S. and as a presidential candidate, she deserve respect, these people acted like pigs, like them were not born by a woman, but with Senator Obama they treat him different, it is a shame, this anchors, Olbermann, Mathews, Tucker and Scarborough lose dignity, credibility and respect and the most important thing, viewers.

I'd suggest that Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" would be a great first start, for a taste of equality, and Tobias Wolff's "Old School"--for ethics, as well as "Anna Karenina" "Middlemarch," for great reads and "Macbeth" on the abuse of power, and Yeats' later poems on regret. "The Color of Water", on race. "East of Eden" is simply a terrific classic American novel-why shouldn't these guys have a bit of fun? Also, "The Little Prince" wouldn't hurt for some imagination and spirit, and Victor Frankel's "Man's Search for Meaning" keeps it all in perspective. Oh, and there's always "Atonement"...we don't need to say why for that one!

interesting site man http://google.us/group/xteens preteen models portal 142440

If McCain's trying to woo me, I'll let him get to first base if he reads Stanley Elkin's The Magic Kingdom.

I'll go straight to third if he reads Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man.

And he can go all the way with me if he reads The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas.

For Obama I'll put out on the first date, no reading necessary.

Hey, let's get some html tags in these comments!

How about the United States Constitution? It might be interesting and productive if either or both found it an inspiring guide.

zaney 8 is right.
When President Clinton won the election, the Newt Gingrich Contract With America was formed. On the day he was inaugurated they, the Republican Congress, stated, "He's not my President." They did set in place an ongoing strategy to defame, smear, and find all sorts of bad goods on them; it was a well-funded strategy and people were even hired to either find it or make it up with spin and distortion and "appearance" of wrong doing. Here's why: he was a Democrat in the WH. They were not American Royalty, East Coast eliticists. They were not movie stars. They were referred to as "white trash" or "trailor park". In fact, they were very much like the current couple who is the nominee only without benefit of Affirmative Action. They were educated, lawyers, and she had already began compiling quite a record of public service re social issues, especially on behalf of children. She was the first very public female figure to have a career, and was not accustomed to sit and look pretty so she spoke her mind, looked for meaningful work while First Lady, mostly just trying to manage all the lawsuits provoked by the smear campaign. Which by the way, has been admitted to by someone who said he was paid by that wealthy press guy she agreed to interview with during her campaign, stating she "believed in atonement". Whether or not all those many "bimbo stories" with Pres Clinton are true or not, he did mess up with the intern, which gave them substance, or so they thought, to raise hell with and they did, though it did not reach impeachment standards. There was nothing threatening to national security; nothing anti American; nothing re ideology; nothing racist. But the Republicans spent money and time and effort on this while terrorists were growing and infiltrating the country and planning their attack. Even when he launched strikes against them for Cole disaster, he was accused of "wagging the dog" to deflect attention from their sordid sexual scandal, which was no more sordid than what JFK did in the WH or what FDR did there, as well. That he managed to get as much accomplished with the Republicans blocking all the way and actually shutting down the govt twice over the budget is amazing. The press just loves sensationalism. They like feeling important. They are important but they have misplaced their value and their responsibility. They have lost sight of what their role is in a democracy and what they should, in fact, to inform and educate and protect democracy and instead they are increasing their ratings and feeding the dumbing down of America. I do not know what, if anything, about a woman deciding, with help and counsel of her faith, to remain with her husband, has to do with whether or not she is qualified to be President. That kind of strength and loyalty and ability to decide for herself without concern for polls and other peoples' opinions probably demonstrates someone very authentic and firm in knowing who she is and what defines her. Obviously, she does not define her self worth by whether or not her husband was faithful to her or not.

The incipit of L'Etranger, by Albert Camus is: "Aujourd'hui maman est morte." It already tells a bit about the main character, Meursault; he doesn't say "mother", but rather "mom".

Obama--The Prince
McCain--What Color Is Your Parachute?

Middlemarch by George Eliot

"Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower by Zbigniew Brzezinski" -- an assessment of the last three presidential administrations foreign policy successes, and, sadly, their more frequent failures.

Recommended reading for John McCain:
*Dreams of My Father* and *The Audacity of Hope* by Barack Hussein Obama

'Collapse,' by Jared Diamond of the World Wildlife Federation and the UCLA Geography Department. A stunning and impressive history of several historical cultures that arose, flourished, withered, and collapsed -- Easter Island, the Anasazi, Norse Greenland, the Mayas, and others less well-known. It raises, but leaves open, the question of 'Are we on the same track?'

'Collapse,' by Jared Diamond of the World Wildlife Federation and the UCLA Geography Department. A stunning and impressive history of several historical cultures that arose, flourished, withered, and collapsed -- Easter Island, the Anasazi, Norse Greenland, the Mayas, and others less well-known. It raises, but leaves open, the question of 'Are we on the same track?'

Sorry, the media didn't move on. Until Hillary conceded to their favorite son, the "impartial" media kept grinding her down. Hillary was treaded more viciously than ever before. Particularly by the TV cable folks like Chris and Keith at MSNBC and Jack Caffertyk at CNN, as well as the NYT's egocentric pair, Rich and O'Dowd.

One book? "The Guns of August," by Barbara Tuchman. The war which defined the 20th century came straight out of the blue. This book teaches several key lessons: that military deployments and timetables create their own momentum which can lead inexorably to war, that technological change can render previous military theory useless almost overnight, and that the human capacity for self-delusion is unlimited.

The prevailing military theory leading up to WWI was a glorification of offensive maneuvering, which led directly to the bright-red uniforms and infantry charges into machine-gun fire which made this war famous. This is a classic work which shows how easily an unsuspecting world stumbled into the most destructive conflict in human history. Every president should read this book...

Hillary Clinton stood in the way of the ultra-far-left wingers of the Democratic party, and with the help of pundits,they shoved her out. Her critics who deny the tide of vicious attacks which were poured on her are composed of a group who either never watch TV, or who can't understand English. The attacks were constant, it was vicious, it was hideous. Keith Olbermann got hysterical, Christ Matthews (MSNBC), Jack Cafferty (CNN) and the vinegar-mouthed Maureen Dowd, said not one good word about her for months. She was accused of EVERYTHING imaginable in an effort to get her out so that the messiah could claim the democratic nomination. Right now Obamalovers are blanketing the US with a cry for support for Obama. These cocaine-user marxists actually think they can manipulate the entire US. Let us wait and see the results in November.

One book: The Castle, by Franz Kafka, an unfinished novel about a man's meaningless and never-ending quest to penetrate an official bureaucracy that has no interest in him or his affairs.

I like the way the media fixed the footage of Hillary getting off the plane and they took away all the gun fire she was exposed to, and I loved the way the media made it look like she was crying.
We know she's strong and truthful!

I'm not sure the Clintons ever walked on water, never underestimate the power of selective memory.

People have a desire to revert back to a strong economy and Democrats who could win and get things done. However, people have forgotten or accepted (as the cost of doing business) how sleazy and power hungry Bill and Hillary Clinton are.

In answer to the question about which books we'd like to assign for the candidates to read, I nominate Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (1971, Robert A. Dahl). While the book is a bit dated, I think it still holds up well. In an efficient and right-to-the-point style, Dahl outlines his theory about the preconditions for successful transition from authoritarian regimes to systems where the opposition is free to organize and challenge the regime in fair elections. If Americans are going to try to encourage democracy in other countries, it would be helpful if our leaders could identify where the effort might have a chance of succeeding and where it is probably doomed to failure until some of the preconditions can be established.

The Media coverage early on actually did claim that Hillary would have this race locked up quickly and tried to back this claim up with some weird polls showing 40% support for her.

Given this fact, I'm not buying the notion that media (a popular punching bag) was engaged in a conspiracy to cause Hillary to lose.

Way to run a piece on suggested reading for the candidates a week after the NY Times book review featured the same thing.

The Collected Works of Chuang Tzu and
the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. People need to put things in some perspective and calm the hell down.

Chip M's comment on the media's need to frame (complex, chaotic) reality with a (simplistic) narrative is very wise. That really is the crux of a lot of the falsity of the coverage.

By the way, travelgate was important as an example of the Clintons' willingness to destroy people with false accusations of misconduct in order to do something the Clintons could have done legally and openly, which was simply replace the staff with the Clintons' friends. It was a very telling moment.

You notice that Hillary Clinton made a lot of false and sometimes malicious arguments during this campaign, such as comparing her own party to Zimbabwe, when all she really had to say was the truth, which was a stronger argument: Obama and I are are virtually tied; the superdelegates should feel free to vote for me; here's why I think I am more electable than Obama is.

I, for one, am not buying the Clinton spin that Hillary was treated unfairly in the media. Yes, there were a few tasteless remarks made by certain pundits, but, overall, the media was negative about BOTH candidates. That's what the media do; they report negative, controversial aspects of stories, all day, all the time.

Hillary kept the media fed with a constant stream of blunders. How were the media to do anything but report negatively on the following aspects of Hillary's campaign:

*she boasted the contest would be over by February 5th--it wasn't
*she was forced to lend her campaign millions of dollars after February 5th, the first big contest
*she's in debt to the tune of millions of dollars to small vendors
*she fired two of her top aides because of incompetence and infighting
*she polarized her own party by extoling "hardworking white" voters and denigrating voters who lived anywhere except the states she won
*she lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia
*she misspoke about Robert F. Kennedy, accidently implying that she was staying in the race in case an assassination occured.
*she refused to recognize her opponent's victory on more than one occasion, failed to note his winning the Democratic nomination and had to be pushed to concede at all

I could go on. But I think I've proven that much of the negative coverage Hillary got was her own doing.

None of the pundits,not one, called the Democratic nomination for Obama, not even as recently as Jan. 2008.

Yet we are all being asked to believe that all of these overpaid Wrong-All-The-Time (Iraq War, Anyone?)Talking Heads were working night and day to force Hillary to drop out of the race and put an end to their NUMBER ONE SHOW:
What Does Hillary Have To Do To
Beat Barack?

Please Don't Make Us Go Back To
Covering That War!

Oh, No! Not John McCain! How are We Going To Keep This One Close???Help!
Lorne Michaels?? Can you get Will Farrell to play John McCain?

Who among the Talking Heads wanted Barack Obama to clinch the nomination in Feb? After the eleven wins, the MSM grew desperate, wall-to-wall Rev. Wright and a Bittergate special, amid profuse apologies for being so unfair to women.
The MSM were 90% behind Hillary, the MSM audience was primarily older white women, not young black men, and certainly not Muslims, so who were they pandering to? Obama or Hillary?

And of course both candidates are completely honest on "Facebook"

I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I believe the media absolutely did treat her unfairly, and I think I know why. The media used to actually report news as facts and let the reader make up their own minds about it. That's not the case anymore. The media tries to wrap up the news into some kind of narrative. Why that is I can't fathom because it's a disservice to readers, usually wrong, and it ends up influencing events.

When the race began the narrative was that Clinton had already won. No one was going to stand a chance against her. That was, as it turns out, utterly, ridiculously, embarrassingly, wrong. Suddenly the media found itself in a quandary. How to save face for being so pathetically off the mark? Easy. Cast Clinton as a monumental screwup and shrew. Clearly she must be a heartless, cold, and evil person for making the press look so foolish, right? That became the new narrative. Did the Clinton campaign make some tactical errors and say some petty things? Yep, they did, but so did every other candidate from both parties.

It seems pretty clear that when the press is gagging on its own embarrassingly bad prognostication skills, it lashes out and changes the narrative, never stopping to think that maybe they should just drop the narrative altogether and go back to doing what they're supposed to do, which is just to deliver the facts. Hey, I can dream can't I?

Susan Jacoby's recent book, "The Age of American Unreason." This book gives a historical overview of world views of America's various social groups and is useful in understanding why people believe and vote as they do.

A few must-reads:

Jared Diamond's "Collapse", and "Guns, Germs, & Steel"

Thomas Malthus' " An Essay on the Principle of Population".

The Clinton White House treated the press poorly, as it did anyone else in the house. In Gary Aldrich's book, he described that in the White House there were standing orders that one should not initiate eye contact or address the first lady and only respond if she acknowledged you. It went so far as to indicate that if the first lady was walking through the halls of the White House, you were to duck into your office to allow her to pass without having to talk to you. Remember how General Barry McCaffrey was told by a top aide to the president, "We don't like uniforms here"? Barry was clever enough to forego naming the prized aide and appeared a few days later with POTUS on a MacDonald's run. Barry parlayed this into two more stars and, to his credit, never gave up the name of the person in the White House who made the infamous comment. Well, as Rev Wright might say, the chickens have come home to roost. The B-team of the press corps that was covering the White House on a daily basis then is niw the A-team and it did not forget the mistreatment of the Clintons. Oh yes, they had their Tom Brokaws, Dan Rathers, and Peter Jennings and they romanced them well enough. But they are gone now and the Triple AAA players from that era are now in the majors. They did not forget what they learned.

"Autumn of the Patriarch" is a novel-length poem about the solitude of power, according its inimitable author, the Columbian magical realist and Nobel Laureate, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. [any relation, Andres?]

An very old, ill dictator, a half century earlier, had faked his own death to better learn whom he could trust. He was so chastened by the celebrating even among the peasantry, whom he had liberated from serfdom, that he never again went out in public. The body doubles he sent out were picked off by assassins like flies, reinforcing his sense of power and solitude, that worsens, as he realizes, he, himself, is dying.

After Bush - The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy by Timothy J. Lynch and Robert S. Singh. Published by Cambridge University Press. Regardless of your position on Bush's foreign policy, it is a good way to see it in context of history as observed by two British scholars.

So the conclusion is the Hillary brought the wrath of the media on herself for correctly realizing that you are all a bunch of barely literate jackasses. This is precisely the problem: America is now getting its news from the stupidest people in the country.

The Book of Common Prayer.

Ever since I first read it over a decade ago, I have firmly believed that any American who plans to involve themselves in foreign policy in the Middle East would do themselves a favor in reading Paul Bowles' "The Sheltering Sky". A great cautionary tale for anyone who believes they can just blithely impose their way of life on the Arab world.

I don't know what to say about people who judge other people based on how much they read and what they read. It sounds arrogant to me. I imagine this person has serious problems relating to people and gets very little sunlight. I prophesy a Vitamin D deficiency. Who in the heck cares what the presidential candidates are reading ? Some people have a life. I am going to start judging people based on their social calendars. Everyone on the bottom of his list will be on the top of mine.
Anyway, to answer the question- some interesting readings that I like are Faulkner, David Eddings (an interesting fantasy writer)...Catch-22 was funny... and I could read Animal Farm anyday. Favorite Shakespeare play- A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Both Hill and Bill have been lambasted and beatened down more than their fair share in the press and other media. For that reason, I discovered that I supported her even more with each Hillbilly bash attack the press/media took at her/them.
After this election and its consequences, the electorate will reflect and see that the best candidate was denied the highest office in the land, because some in the press/media forever hated her. I just think they are deep down jealous of her brainpower and intelligence.
This isn't the first time the media swayed the public into an inferior decision. Adlai Stevenson was an intellectual, but was no match with the pressboy's favorite, Ike. At least they, the press wasn't that powerful to deny Wilson the presidency. Teddy Roosevelt made the 1912 election a mandate of his policies, and in a three man race, Wilson won.

First, I would recommend Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." This is a classic book from the revolutionary era. Actually they have probably both read it, if so, then I would recommend Sam Harris' "The End of Faith." Sam is a revolutionary philosopher with boldly prescient notions of morality and philsophy.

Also, If I may briefly respond to the previous (unnamed) post:
I think you are asking the wrong questions. Also, I sense a bit of anger in your post. There is no need for that.
It is not practical or prudent to look for someone or some group to blame for the unfortunate circumstance many black people grow up in in this country. It is not a question of "who is to blame?" rather the question we should be asking is "how can we solve the problems faced by young black people?" These include, as you listed, low regard for education, a dearth of caring and committed fathers, crime and gangs as an outlet, etc.
What the white community can't do, if you truly want to live in a peaceful and integrated society, is point the finger at the black community and say 'this is all your fault, you caused this, now fix it.' No.
However, solutions DO need to come from within the black community, and what whites can do is encourage reform. You, as a white person, should be delighted to see a black leader like Barack Obama reaching popularity in the black community as opposed to Al Sharpton or others like that. Barack talks about how black fathers need to be there for their children, he talks about how parents need to be responsible and make sure their kids are doing their homework. He demands accountability, and he can because he's black. White people can also, but only from a position of peace, understanding, and respect.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for blacks.

It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against whites. -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances.

Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.

Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes.

But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

The book I'd suggest for McCain and Obama is "Defeat: Why America and Britain lost Iraq" by Jonathan Steele. His simple thesis is that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is the problem, not the solution, there.

WHERE IS THE REPORT ABOUT KUCINICH'S ARTICLES FOR IMPEACHMENT?

THERE'S YOUR PROOF THAT OUR MSM IS CORRUPT. THERE'S YOUR PROOF THAT THEY MANIPULATED THE PRIMARIES BY INCESSANTLY VILIFYING HILLARY, BY THEIR EFFECTIVE USE OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

THESE ELECTIONS ARE RUN AND DETERMINED BY THE MSM.

WE ARE NOT VOTING, WE ARE ZOMBIES DOING WHAT THE MSM TELLS US TO DO.

WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOVIET UNION.

It wasn't who read the most books, it was who colored the most books.

I'm impressed that two of Obama's favorite books are Melville's Moby Dick (a book about the meaning of literally everything) and Emerson's Self-Reliance (the third Morrison's Song of Solomon I regret to say I haven't read, but sounds intriguing.

Emerson in his essay on Self-Reliance points out what I think is at the core of bottom-up reform, the importance of finding the authenticity of one's own voice, which is often dinned out by the forces of conventional thinking and a foolish consistency to one's announced views. George Bush anyone? Excerpt below:

Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so, and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being. And we are now men, and must accept in the highest mind the same transcendent destiny; and not minors and invalids in a protected corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers, and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort, and advancing on Chaos and the Dark.

What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behaviour of children, babes, and even brutes! That divided and rebel mind, that distrust of a sentiment because our arithmetic has computed the strength and means opposed to our purpose, these have not. Their mind being whole, their eye is as yet unconquered, and when we look in their faces, we are disconcerted. Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it. So God has armed youth and puberty and manhood no less with its own piquancy and charm, and made it enviable and gracious and its claims not to be put by, if it will stand by itself. Do not think the youth has no force, because he cannot speak to you and me. Hark! in the next room his voice is sufficiently clear and emphatic. It seems he knows how to speak to his contemporaries. Bashful or bold, then, he will know how to make us seniors very unnecessary.

The nonchalance of boys who are sure of a dinner, and would disdain as much as a lord to do or say aught to conciliate one, is the healthy attitude of human nature. A boy is in the parlour what the pit is in the playhouse; independent, irresponsible, looking out from his corner on such people and facts as pass by, he tries and sentences them on their merits, in the swift, summary way of boys, as good, bad, interesting, silly, eloquent, troublesome. He cumbers himself never about consequences, about interests: he gives an independent, genuine verdict. You must court him: he does not court you. But the man is, as it were, clapped into jail by his consciousness. As soon as he has once acted or spoken with eclat, he is a committed person, watched by the sympathy or the hatred of hundreds, whose affections must now enter into his account. There is no Lethe for this. Ah, that he could pass again into his neutrality! Who can thus avoid all pledges, and having observed, observe again from the same unaffected, unbiased, unbribable, unaffrighted innocence, must always be formidable. He would utter opinions on all passing affairs, which being seen to be not private, but necessary, would sink like darts into the ear of men, and put them in fear.

These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs...

Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world...

To be blunt about it, as a general proposition, the media ganged up on both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

It is as if they had a score to settle with the Clintons--and got their chance to do so in Hillary's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

On the contrary, the media were not only soft on Obama: they not only avoided focusing on his blemishes and warts; they rhapsodized over his many failings both as a state senator and as a U.S. senator.

"Change we can believe in?

The media will probably have a hard time defending their present attitude toward Obama once Obama gets to the White House and stumbles and bungles and breaks a lot of china.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

"A Sideways Look at Time" - excellent philosophy, not especially political in a current affairs sense, but profoundly so in a visionary sense...

Isn't it "Aujourd'hui ma mere est morte", not "Aujord'hui ma mere est morte"?

If Hillary Clinton genuinely began this saga to help our nation, then she should not quit the race. Rather, she should quit the Democratic party and join the presidential race as an independent candidate. Read "Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate" @ http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#8706393981159671199 .

Her true political views are the ones that she expressed in vote after vote in the Senate, not on the campaign trail. Those views resonate with mainstream America.

Those views will not prevail if she serves as vice president. The president, not the vice president, sets the policy of the executive branch. Anyone claiming other wise is a political operative emphasizing the survival of the political party over the survival of the nation.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama enjoy broad support in mainstream America. If Clinton declines to become an independent candidate, then another moderate pro-universal-health-care politician should step into the 3rd-party limelight to score a relatively easy win in the general election.

If Hillary Clinton does not run as an independent candidate and if an acceptable 3rd-party candidate does not step forward, then the best thing to do is the following. Grab the voting ballot in November and write her name on the ballot. By law, the state goverment must report the percentage of votes to each person -- including an unofficial write-in candidate. The aim is for Fox News and CNN to report the following percentages of the popular vote.

1. 50% Hillary Clinton
2. 30% John McCain
3. 20% Barack Obama

Though Clinton cannot win (because she is not registered with the relevant state departments of elections) even with a plurality of the votes, a strong showing (like that above) will essentially make her the de-facto president of the United States. Before President John McCain initiates any policy, he will unofficially seek the approval of Senator Clinton.

Remember that, in a democracy, you are 100% responsible for the actions of your government. You must choose wisely. If you are unwilling to acceptable responsibility for any policy that a candidate may support, then do not vote for the candidate -- regardless of what the political operatives in the Democratic party (or the Republican party) tell you.

Write the candidate of your choice if the ones on the ballot are unacceptable.

If Hillary Clinton genuinely began this saga to help our nation, then she should not quit the race. Rather, she should quit the Democratic party and join the presidential race as an independent candidate. Read "Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate" @ http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#8706393981159671199 .

Her true political views are the ones that she expressed in vote after vote in the Senate, not on the campaign trail. Those views resonate with mainstream America.

Those views will not prevail if she serves as vice president. The president, not the vice president, sets the policy of the executive branch. Anyone claiming other wise is a political operative emphasizing the survival of the political party over the survival of the nation.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama enjoy broad support in mainstream America. If Clinton declines to become an independent candidate, then another moderate pro-universal-health-care politician should step into the 3rd-party limelight to score a relatively easy win in the general election.

If Hillary Clinton does not run as an independent candidate and if an acceptable 3rd-party candidate does not step forward, then the best thing to do is the following. Grab the voting ballot in November and write her name on the ballot. By law, the state goverment must report the percentage of votes to each person -- including an unofficial write-in candidate. The aim is for Fox News and CNN to report the following percentages of the popular vote.

1. 50% Hillary Clinton
2. 30% John McCain
3. 20% Barack Obama

Though Clinton cannot win (because she is not registered with the relevant state departments of elections) even with a plurality of the votes, a strong showing (like that above) will essentially make her the de-facto president of the United States. Before President John McCain initiates any policy, he will unofficially seek the approval of Senator Clinton.

Remember that, in a democracy, you are 100% responsible for the actions of your government. You must choose wisely. If you are unwilling to acceptable responsibility for any policy that a candidate may support, then do not vote for the candidate -- regardless of what the political operatives in the Democratic party (or the Republican party) tell you.

Write the candidate of your choice if the ones on the ballot are unacceptable.