I was blessed to have tickets for Friday’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Raleigh. Ever the equal opportunist, I am providing links to Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches from Friday for anyone who has not already heard them and who would like to listen to what the Democratic Presidential Candidates had to say on Friday. Obama: http://www.wral.com/news/local...o/2829554/ and Clinton: http://www.wral.com/news/local...o/2829348/ .
I am actually hoping that people will scrutinize Clinton’s speech for credibility. A couple of statements made me wonder whether I had heard her right at the dinner (or whether I somehow got caught in a time warp while Clinton was under Bosnian sniper fire). I therefore searched the speech out on the internet so that I could replay it. I voted on Thursday, so the following are simply two of the musings I had while watching and listening to Clinton on Friday night:

18 minutes into Clinton’s Speech on Friday at the NCDP’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Raleigh - On solutions she would purportedly offer as President:
“When I say solutions, I mean having a department of justice that actually stands for justice . . . PASSING laws that reflect our values: hate crimes laws; anti-discrimination laws; equal pay for equal work laws.“
(Perhaps she would seek to assure voters that she misspoke and meant to say that she would like to see more aggressive enforcement by the Department of Justice of the anti-discrimination, hate crime and equal pay laws that have already been passed by the Legislative Branch of Government that the Department of Justice does not fall within. Surely, she would not have voters believe that a very accomplished attorney who is a former First Lady has forgotten that there are three branches of Government and that the office she seeks is within the Executive Branch of Government. More importantly, she would certainly not have voters believe that the Department of Justice would engage in “passing laws” that have already (and rightly so) been passed by the Legislative Branch of Government. The Legislative Branch makes or passes laws. The Department of Justice and the Executive Branch make sure laws are obeyed once the Legislative Branch passes the laws. This was likely covered while Clinton was at Yale. If not, Attorney Clinton might want to see whether Chelsea has any old civics notes sitting around in her high school memorabilia chest. Of course, she could ask Senator Obama to share his magna cum laude notes from Harvard Law School. I went to the same NCCU law school that Governor Easley graduated from and Senator Clinton might get something from reading my or Governor Easley’s notes. I sure hope I took good notes about the Judicial Branch of Government’s role in interpreting laws in case Senator Clinton has any butterflies about the President’s appointment of Judges and Justices.)

21 minutes into Clinton’s Speech on Friday at the NCDP’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Raleigh - On her prior first hand (as opposed to vicarious) experience with the job of serving as President:
“I have firsthand experience of how difficult this job is. ”
(Perhaps Senator Clinton would seek to assure voters that she misspoke and meant to say that she has firsthand experience of how difficult Mrs. Obama’s job will be when her husband is President. Even that would be an overstatement, as Attorney Michelle Obama will not encounter the difficulties as First Lady that Attorney Hillary Rodham Clinton experienced when Bill Clinton was President. At best, Senator Clinton has secondhand experience of difficulties she perhaps encountered and observed as the spouse of a President who experienced firsthand what he might characterize as difficulties inherently associated with being President. I do not know whether President William Jefferson Clinton believes he endured difficulties that are naturally associated with serving as President. Senator Clinton (or we) would have to ask her husband. While Senator Clinton is reviewing law school notes, she might want to look at the hearsay rule for a reminder about the difference between firsthand and secondhand knowledge.)

In Obama's first publication "Dreams from My Father", in 1995, there were two pictures on the cover, him and his sister. Obama republished "Dreams from My Father" in 2004. On the cover of the second publication are three different pictures. One with a military picture... In the second publication "Dreams from My Father" he deleted approximately 50 pages to build his case for presidency ,to MISLEAD THE READER that he was a military veteran, and to reduce his exposure so no one would know about his background.....

In 2006 he published "The Audacity of Hope", building his candidacy for president even more, and building his case as a military veteran even more. His Presidential Candidacy is based around WRITTEN LIES, and his military background is to mislead the readers... In 2008 he, also ,indicated that in one of his debate, he first began to run for presidency 1.5 years back. His candidacy began long before 1.5 years back. From the second publication of "Dreams from My Father", you can see that his candidacy for president began as early as 2004, which is more than 3 years.

Certain things in Obama book "Dreams from My Father" were fabricated and some things were used to protect his African Father and White Mother , by his Mother. His mother did not want some things published in Obama's book (Dreams from My Father). Obama did it for the money. Nor had he tithed (10%), of his books earning, to his Church(Trinity Church of Christ). He made over 4.2 million dollars in 2007, and only gave 5.7% ($240,000) to Charity. Only a percentage of that $240,000 was given to his Church.

I believe if he would have Tithed ($420,000) to his Church (Trinity Church of Christ), then Reverend Wright would not have call him "Just a Politician".

A small venue makes the affair seem well attended. It is all about perception or deception. A frightening aspect of Senator Clinton is this intolerance of reality. We had the same with George Bush. Sniper fire is only one example.




God save America,

My understanding is that the Clinton campaign did not want to use the convocation center. A member of the campaign toured the university Monday night with our SGA president to find a suitable spot. It was felt that the convocation center was much too large and might not be filled, which was not something that the campaign wanted. The wanted a venue that would hold about 1,000 people and which would be filled to capacity.

And I agree that Patrick's point is correct on state university's not endorsing a candidate, they certainly could've advertised that a former president was visiting campus, that would not require an endorsement.

We invested millions into a beautiful Convocation Center then stuck a former U.S. President into a decrepit gym that is slated to be torn down? Where is the logic there, how can we have possibly put our best foot forward?

Also, ASU should have used the President visit as a feature article on their homepage. While Patrick's point is correct, a short story on the visit and not the agenda of the visit, would have been appropriate. Regardless of your political inclinations, having a President visit your school is certainly an honor.

Ms. Musilli needs to understand that as a public institution, Appalachian is prohibited from using state resources to support or endorse any political activity. Mr. Clinton was here to campaign for a political candidate. There should be no other assumptions made with regard to the University's limitations on not promoting such an event.

What a great honor we are given to be visited by a former president, yet ASU chose not to have his visit as a feature article? Thank goodness for the SGA and The Appalachian. we appreciate you getting us "the rest of the story' on this and other important campus events.