Best Internet News and Politics

Let’s face it John McCain is seen by most people, whether you plan on voting for him or not, as boring. He lacks a certain charisma that is desirable in a Presidential candidate. To suggest that he has the charisma of a rock might be stretching the truth but not by much.

Yet he keeps imploring Barack Obama to hold hands with him across the United States and the World so that people can hear from both of them regarding their policies.

In my mind this would be a huge mistake. If Barack Obama chooses to, he can whip up a speech that will get those in attendance dancing in the aisles. He creates emotional fervor. His speeches can approach the intensity and passion of Martin Luther King Jr. He gathers crowds that would make the Rolling Stones proud.

Why on earth would he want to compete on the same stage with such a presence? He needs someone who can make him look good. Someone who can make him appear to be more energetic and lively than he really is. No I am not talking about Richard Simmons. He needs Ralph Nader.

Anywhere McCain goes, Nader should go to. I think in a past life Nader was a mannequin. If McCain would have Nader open up for him for all of his speeches it would make him look more like Mick Jagger than James Taylor. Think Sam Kinison instead of Stephen Wright. It would be genius.

Recently Nader gained some publicity when he suggested that Obama was trying to speak “white”. The clips did not demonstrate Nader’s ability to sway voters. He did however demonstrate the ability to maintain one tone at a very slow rate for an excruciating amount of time. I am not certain but I think he was trying to hypnotize me. That could be why my wife had to stop me from taking my clothes off in Wal-mart while clucking like a chicken.

If you could bottle his delivery and sell it, the makers of Ambien would be put out of busin Continue Reading »

After Hillary’s attempt to make it to the Oval Office, who can women look to as their next “Great Female Hope”?

From Cond Naste, to NAFE (National Association of Female Executives), to Pink Magazine, all eyes and journalistic talents are focused on the Catalyst’s latest report. The news is not good, not good at all! The numbers are bringing tears to the eyes of those who thought gender bias was a thing of the past. Women have lost ground with corporate positions, actually dropping to 15.4% in 2007 as compared to 16.4% in 2005. This result is based on Fortune 500 companies. We can’t even begin to figure the statistics in non-Fortune 500 companies in corporate America. From salary levels to the boardroom, women hold less and less positions of influence while men have filled more CEO vacancies and those numbers are rising.

In December 2007 NAFE held a conference where a group of executive women from the NAFE Top 30 Companies for Executive Women debated the issues. The NAFE Roundtable spent time discussing the how and why and the future pathway to improve this situation. There was one subject that was not yet on the table. In December 2007 “Hillary” still appeared to be the woman on the road to the White House. Now, in June 2008, we see things quite differently.

What most have failed to realize is that our only, best and most recent hope for the first female CEO of the USA was in that position purely based on her male counterpart’s rise in Democrat politics. If Bill Clinton was not President, would Hillary Clinton still be a household name? Not likely.

Now you ask “What does this all mean?”

It appears that in corporate America, a woman’s rise to the top is more likely, although difficult, than a woman’s rise to the top in the political arena. Outside of those NAFE Top 30 Companies, corporate issues on Main Street, in small a Continue Reading »

Stop the vagina monologues! Gender was not the reason Sen. Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic presidential nominee. Simply, Clinton was not the best nominee for our country at this time. Still, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender, the fact that she was a woman running for president, was the best show of unapologetic resolve, ambition, and yes, ruthlessness, demonstrated in a woman going for the highest office in the land in America, ever! I have always been for Obama, but I do recognize the historical force of Hillary.

Clinton built her campaign on entitlement, not feminism. As we all know regarding the black struggle in America, entitlement does not sit well with the majority of Americans, as it smacks of something-for-nothing regardless of truth and history. She is not entitled to win the nomination nor to become the first woman president simply because she slept in the White House and was privy to White House business. She was a good candidate, but she was not the best candidate.

Sen. Clinton made the critical mistake of running a campaign forged from the political manifesto of Bill Clinton. In a very real sense, Hillary, an ephemeral vanguard of feminism, did not define herself fully outside of the boundaries and shadows of being the former first lady and the cheated-upon spouse of Bill. She allowed herself to be merely a familiar reflection of Clintonism. The “new kids” of the younger voting demographic were not impressed. Some women and older feminists who ascribed their feminism and their feminist ideals to Hillary overlooked her flaws in the fervor to make her the first woman president. Is this the new feminism? Yet, when Hillary dared to be herself, she was frightening and not entirely likable! What was with her subliminal (and not so) call for a “hit” on Obama in March and recently with her referencing Bobby Kennedy’s June assass Continue Reading »