Ohio Woman Jailed For Getting Her Children Into Better School

Yeah, this is an outrage :

Two-and-a-half years ago, Williams-Bolar was called to a meeting at the middle school her two daughters attended. When she arrived, she faced school administrators and a school lawyer. The meeting didn’t go well, turning into a shouting match.

This month, the 40-year-old single mom found herself in court, facing felony charges of tampering with records. She was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.

The first question that comes to my mind is, why was the school district even investigating Williams-Bolar? The idea of school officials and their army of lawyers hiring taxpayer funded investigators to spy on families is more than creepy. But more importantly, shouldn’t school administrators be focused on…i don’t know…improving the quality of education in our school system? Maybe they should hire an investigator to find out why they’re so bad at their jobs.

Regardless, when we’re imprisoning mothers for sneaking their children into better public schools, then we really need to think long and hard about education reform.

If I were President Obama, or if he had the privilege of being me, I would pardon Williams-Bolar* and use this incident as the catalyst to spark an education revolution in America.


NOTE: I know Williams-Bolar only served 10 days in jail, but remember her original sentence was for five years. Not to mention that she will from this point on be a registered felon which could take away her voting rights as well as make future employment difficult.

Advertisements

Obama Hasn’t Gone Negative????

(You’ll have to excuse the grammar issues. I’m tired and blogging from blackberry)

Obama hasn’t gone negative? Well then what FUCKING campaign have I been watching?

(Note: the cursing is to add emphasis not imply anger)

One of the more intresting narratives that has come out of March 4th has been the idea that Clinton’s negative campaigning allowed her to pullout a win in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. The Obama campaign, and many others, have taken this message and concluded that it might be time for Obama to…*gasp* finally go negative.

The only problem with this is :

1) Negative campaigning isn’t why.
Clinton won
2) All of this complaining about
negative campaigning is horribly
uninformed. And…
3) Obama has gone negative on
Clinton for months now. In fact.
HIS ENTIRE MESSAGE IS
NEGATIVE.

But luckly for me this gives me three different things to blog about. Yay!

Let’s deal with the third issue first. Obama’s been very negative this campaign. Think Obama hasn’t gone negative? Well what do you call these:

1) Sending out mailers blaming her for NAFTA even after Newsweek, hardly a pro Clinton magazine, said the quote was false. Even after David Gergen, who was there, said it wasn’t true. Even after a NYT article said she opposed it.

2) The Harry and Louise health care ad, that he got a huge pass on from the media/lazy blogosphere. Remember that ad was like the 90’s version of swift boating.

3) Saying that Clinton’s Health Care mandate would result in her going after your wages. (Whose wages does Obama’s Children mandate go after?)

4) The numerous mailers and ads saying “Hillary will do anything to win”

I don’t even have time to get into the many many negative things Obama has said about Clinton such as:

– calling her a divisive figure
– saying she has poor judgement
– saying she represents Status Quo – calling her Bush-lite!
– saying she represents the politics.
of old
– basically calling her and bill liars

… And that’s off the top of my head

Here’s the secret of going negative…JUST BECAUSE YOU AGREE WITH IT DOESN’T MEAN ITS NOT NEGATIVE.

For example. The infamous “how do we beat the bitch” question John McCain was asked earlier in the campaign no doubt represents some people’s opinions regarding Hillary Clinton.

If McCain or Obama were sending out mail saying “don’t vote for Hillary because she’s a bitch” Some people, mostly republicans, might agree, but I think we can all plainly see that this would be negative campaigning.

People also like to say “oh but we’re talking about the issues, that’s not negative campaigning!” Here’s another little secret. Issue based negative ads are some of the best negative attacks.

Hillary Clinton’s ad saying Obama’s health care plan will leave 15 million people uninsured is about a major issue. The claim is based on a legitmate study and has been backed up by numerous health car experts. Yet her mailers and TV ads that point out this FACT are still negative ads

Face it, all campaigns go negative. The words negative and campaign are synonms. But I’ll leave that for tomorrow’s chapter on why there’s nothing wrong with negative campaigning.

Obama Campaign: We’re Going Negative

Per The Page

“Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.”

Of course Obama supporters will justify this like they always do. But what happened to critisizing the politics of old? What happened to change? The politics of hope? It all gets thrown out the window as soon as you’re desperate and eager to win.

Clinton Ba-rack’s Obama

Despite being outspent 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 by some estimates Hillary Clinton has won the states of Texas, Ohio, and RI. Even better, Clinton walloped Obama by double digits in Ohio, meeting the lofty expectation of the Obama campaign. Quite the rebuke of Obama who, much like the Chicago Cubs, can’t close.

Marc Ambinder sums it up nicely

The basic argument they are putting forward: Three times, Democrats have been the opportunity to consign Hillary Clinton to the dustbin of history. Three times, they’ve given her new life. Just…just… just forget about the math. Forget about the numbers. Look at the big picture. Focus on Obama’s credentials. Focus on the fact that he is not winning a lot of the, well, industrial, big, old-line, mainline Democratic states. Put all the chips on Ed Rendell’s command of Pennsylvania and then Puerto Rico. Hope to win big. Hope that the superdelegates use PA as the proxy for their decision. Fast forward seven weeks…

Was Tuesday a rebuke to Obama?

Absolutely.

WaPost: Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!

This makes me warm and fuzzy on the inside:

It took many months and the mockery of “Saturday Night Live” to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Reporters from the Associated Press and Reuters went after him for his false denial that a campaign aide had held a secret meeting with Canadian officials over Obama’s trade policy. A trio of Chicago reporters pummeled him with questions about the corruption trial this week of a friend and supporter. The New York Post piled on with a question about him losing the Jewish vote.

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. “That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged.”

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. “We’re running late,” the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. “The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a ‘kitchen sink’ strategy,” he protested. “There are, what, three or four things a day?”

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.

I’d just like to say I told you so…

Two Thirds of Democrats Want Hillary to Stay In Even If She Loses Ohio Or Texas

ABC News shows in a new Poll

It looks more and more like Clinton might stay in even if she loses Texas or Ohio. Will she still have a chance if she does? It all depends on numerous factors like how much she loses in one state and how much she wins in another. The media narrative will have a major impact in deciding this race from this point. If she loses either/or the media could just ignore her like they have done with Huckabee. Though I have a hard time imagining the Clinton obsessed media ignoring her. Another factor which might come into play is pressure from other democrats .

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, late breaking momentum is trending towards Clinton. It looks like she’s a lock to win Ohio and Texas is going to be a nail bitter. We shall see