Its All about the math for Obama and it always has beenThe real reason Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot had less to do with following democratic rules and procedures and more to do with math. Back in January it made sense to not support any action that would accelerate the number of delegates that Hillary could get. Knowing that February would have a lot of caucus delegates up for

If you are a professor of Math at a college I have a math problem for you to solve. What are the odds that the top 10 and top 11 highest winning percentages for Barack Obama were all from caucus states? What are the odds in terms of the top 11caucus wins and zero primary wins just being a coincidence, and hpw much do the odds change if Barack Obama just had better organization in all of those

There are few progressives in this country. Most Progressives are actually "Aggressives" in saliva stained clothing. While the Aggressives try and drive Hillary Clinton from the race as soon as possible, Hillary Clinton is right for staying in the race. I believe the strongest case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is the misapportioned caucus state votes. The caucus state votes that

If you followed the number tallies in both elections tonight, did you notice how both candidates started with big leads, but by the time all the votes were counted the final vote was a lot closer? It is basically a statistical inevitability that as more and more votes are counted, the totals naturally come closer together. Early on, Hillary was winning 58% to 42% in Indiana, then barely hung on

Barack Obama has attempted to ridicule the temporary gas tax repeal even as he outspends Hillary Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina by 3-1. Does anybody see the hypocrisy in outspending Hillary Clinton by 3-1 in the state of Indiana and North Carolina while ridiculing Clinton for trying to save citizens of these two states a morsel of their own money? I just don't think Mr. Obama understands

Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted.

Hillary Clinton has a few things going for her that might make her a great president. For starters, Hillary has influenced at least one past presidential race. It was Hillary holding up a sign for Bill Clinton to read during a 1992 debate that said "It's the Economy, Stupid" that helped Bill Clinton gain traction in his first presidential campaign and subsequent presidency.

The Clintons appear to have a longer list of people criticizing them than has ever been witnessed in prior democratic races. These "progressives" are noxious and the media will take any sound bite that is exhaled by these blowhards and try to make it sound like breaking news when all it is is breaking wind. Huffington Post, KOS, Move On, plus an assorted list of television news "pundits" such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Andrea Mitchell to name just a few, use comments made by Emil Jones, Senator Clyburn, Michael Moore, The Kennedy's, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, as if their words are more than the biased opinion that it is. I got involved in DEFENDING Hillary Clinton after I saw the lack of any investigative journalism over how the caucus state voting was being given way too much importance in trying to create consensus,m false as it was, that Hillary could no longer win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton can get 50% of the popular vote with all of those factions working against her on a daily basis, plus Barrack Obama outspending her 3-1 while he still loses key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, it becomes obvious to me that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate. If each of the groups mentioned above have influenced the race by an overall average of 1 percent each, that ends up equaling a 20% overall shift in vote. If these groups had not been so one sided in all of their efforts, Hillary could have had as much as 55% to 60% of the popular vote to Barrack Obama's 40-45% of the popular vote. It's taking too much money and effort to prop Barrack Obama towards the democratic nomination, by know that should becoming clear to the delegates and the super delegates.

The first time I experienced Pastor Wright's televised NCAA speech he came off larger than life in an obnoxious caricature of himself. I'm on my third time watching now and I find it very good in many ways. The real irony is Pastor Wright would probably make a better presidential candidate than Barrack Obama, so why would I want Barrack? The audience reaction to what Pastor Wright was saying was deafening at times, however the audio mix of the speech was slanted to only hear Pastor Wright. This is huge because the audience reaction inadvertently betrayed the Pastor's message at times. Wright's basic theme was how blacks have been ostracized and judged poorly for being different. Wright brought up several examples of speech and song to make his points that different is not wrong, it is just, different. Wright appeared to mimic John F. Kennedy's and Eisenhower's dialect as an example of how whites have different accents than blacks, but are accepted. But then the audience made a huge faux pas that few who watched the event on televsion seemed to notice, perhaps because the audience soundtrack was muted. Pastor White brought up examples of music and how Europeans looked down on African music. The problem with Pastor Whites theme was that as he was mimicking white methodologies, his audience was busting a gut, and then some. The audience was listening, laughing, and proving that blacks and whites both behave in nearly identical ways when exposed to those who are different from themselves. Pastor White also did not take into account that WHITES ALSO MAKE FUN OF OTHER WHITE DIALECTS as well. It may be more accurate to say that whites are an equal opportunity annoyer, but why is it so wrong to say the same thing about blacks? I guess what I'm asking is, can't we all just annoy the heck out of each other, from time to time, and still get along?

A case can be made that once Barrack Obama had built up a small lead in the delegate counts, a lead that was primarily based on his caucus wins, the democratic party began working both behind the scenes and via public statements to support Barrack Obama over Hillary Clinton. The lack of impartiality is not a good thing. Lately, it appears that some comments have been made to try and level the playing field, but I am still concerned that behind the scenes the tilt towards Obama continues irrespective of the millions of votes that remain to be counted.

The democratic caucus races held in 14 states plus 2 overseas resulted in approximately 333 caucus delegates going to Barrack Obama. Hillary Clinton received 142 caucus delegates, a net gain for Barrack Obama of 191 delegates. No exact caucus popular vote totals exist because 4 caucus states don't release official vote totals, however it appears that approximately 1 million democrats (perhaps slightly more) voted in all of the caucus contests. In California, approximately 4.2 million voters voted. When all 16 caucus vote totals are added together along with the state of California's vote totals, Hillary Clinton had more total votes than Barrack Obama. I mention this because even though Hillary Clinton had more total votes when California and all the caucus votes are added together, Barrack Obama still received 499 delegates while Hillary Clinton received only 363 delegates. Hillary Clinton received 136 less delegates even though Hillary led in total votes cast from all the caucuses and California vote totals combined. More startling facts about caucuses. Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! 13 of Obama's 16 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! It's important to let that statistic sink in. The mathematical odds that Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentage margins would ALL be in caucus states would practically be infinitesimal IF caucus state voting was as fair as primary voting. More proof is available that caucus states have unfairly skewed delegates to Obama's side. In Washington state, Barrack Obama won the caucus vote by a stunning 68% to 31% margin. 10 days later, Washington state held a non-binding primary. The much higher voter turnout resulted in a virtual tie between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. From 68%/31% to 50%/49.6%, yet Barrack Obama received 53 delegates, Hillary Clinton only 25 delegates. The evidence is overwhelming that Barrack Obama's success is largely pinioned on his exaggerated wins in the caucus states that require approximately 88% less votes per selected delegate. That's right, caucus states require approximately 88% less voters to select each delegate. Since a disportionately small amount of caucus voters get to select delegates, shouldn't these caucus delegates at the very least not be allowed to sway the super-delegates nor be used as some type of mandate that the super delegates must follow? It is incumbent upon Dean and Pelosi to make it known that the superdelegates CAN vote however they want without retribution. It is clear that Hillary Clinton is the more popular democratic candidate when voters vote "primary style", in a voting booth and having all day to vote, which is exactly the way voters will vote this upcoming November in the Presidential election.

Barrack Obama was already in Indiana getting a head start over Hillary Clinton in their upcoming Indiana Primary even before the voting had closed in Pennsylvania. Of course Hillary had to stay in Pennsylvania and thank Pennsylvanians for her win, that was the right thing to do. In the past, Hillary has also left a state early if she lost. But there is a difference this time. Barrack spent an obscene amount of money in Pennsylvania and then hinted that they may have caught Hillary in the polls just a day or two before voters went to the polls. How can Barrack Obama declare victory in a state that he lost by 10 points yet not stay around for the finish to thank those who supported him? Just up and leaving the state of Pennsylvania the way that Obama did was not the politically correct thing to do. In my opinion, you don't blanket the state with a huge amount of television commercials and then just disappear the night of the actual vote. It was wrong, it had a twinge of elitism to it. You don't spend double or triple what your opponent spends and then head out before the votes are tallied while still declaring victory. To make matters worse, Obama lost in Pennsylvania even and then spent more than twice as much time talking on television during his concession speech than Hillary Clinton spent speaking as the winner. Obama seems to double up on everything. Obama spends double the money as compared to Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and loses. Then Barrack Obama spends double the amount of time talking after a primary defeat compared to his victorious opponent. The only change I am seeing in Barrack Obama is one of largess. To top it off, Obama's speech wasn't even a concession speech. To those who insist that the Clinton side fights dirty, what Obama did was leave the finish line known as Pennsylvania before crossing it, and I consider that to be another act of disrespect and elitism.

Obama supporters on Huffington Post gleefully write that Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton by margins of 4-1 or greater in Pennsylvania. How can a candidate that is running as a Washington outsider outspend a Washington insider by such a wide margin, still lose in several important states, but still be considered the "favorite" to win the democratic nomination? Why would any true democrat be gleeful at having a nominee with the biggest pockets barely eeke out a lead over another popular candidate who is spending significantly less money? It sounds like forces outside of the mainstream democrat want Barrack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, even if these outside forces have no intention of voting for Barrack this fall. That would help explain how Barrack Obama can operate a money guzzling Hummer campaign in a hybrid campaign. How can a real democrat find it a good thing that the candidate that guzzles the most money can barely create a tiny lead in the popular vote while losing all of the big states AND a majority of the swing states? Barrack Obama outspent HIllary Clinton by 4-1 in Ohio, and lost. Apparently Barrack Obama will outspend Hillary Clinton by a margin of 4-1 in Pennsylvania as well. If Hillary Clinton can win the overall popular vote of these two states while Barrack Obama outspends Hillary Clinton by 400%, what type of message is that sending? Is it reasonable to assume that if Hillary Clinton were outspending Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Hillary would have won both states by 20% or more? Just who is the more popular candidate? I thought "change" meant not buying the popular vote by spending the most money. When Barrack Obama speaks of change, is he actually speaking of the change in your pocket? My theory is that Barrack Obama's supporters are comprised of 15% of all Republicans (who may or may not vote for him in the fall,) 70% of all independents, and 40% of all democrats. I futher theorize that Hillary Clinton is probably supported by 60% of all democrats, 20% of all independents, and 10% of all republicans (who probably won't vote for her in the fall). Please note that these two sets of numbers do not equal 100% each because each group of voters varies in size, however the democrat numbers do equal 100%, and that is the key. Hillary is most likely favored by more real democrats than Barrack Obama is. Shouldn't the candidate that is more popular within their own political party get the nomination? If more real democrats support Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama as I am theorizing, then there are more democrats who could become demoralized and disenfranchised if their first choice, Hillary Clinton, is defeated by a "crossover hodge podge of support" style of candidate who has had a huge spending advantage, yet still has lost in several key states. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. HIllary Clinton has not outspent Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in any state and then lost. Which gets me to my final point, Do you want to your vote to be bought by the highest bidder?

Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by less than two percentage points in total votes (when Michigan and Florida are counted the vote totals are almost a tie). Even the though the popular vote is very close, Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by 7% in total delegates. Yet the media doesn't report this as a delegate distortion, instead they make it seem like it is Hillary that is trying to take advantage of a losing situation and win by getting the super delegate vote. The caucus states and their delegates were selected using 88% LESS votes per each delegate that was selected as compared to the states that held actual primaries. The Obama camp puffed up their caucus wins in an effort to manipulate the media into getting Hillary to drop out or make it look like Hillary was destroying the democratic party by staying in. The Obama camp has also used the caucus states votes to convince superdelegates that that they have an unquestionable mandate and that the super delegates should fall in line. Caucus states don't allow voters all day to vote, nor do caucus states allow for voting to be done in the privacy of a voting booth. The media has focused way too much attention trying to prematurely end the democratic voting process and have overemphasized the importance of minimal vote totals in caucus states to try and end a very close race. Is it possible that the news stations want Hillary to quit because the extended race is causing the news stations to go way over budget covering two different races that were supposed to have already combined into one? Budget Gate, as I call it, may exist, but should we expect the media to turn themselves in? KCBS in Los Angeles has already announced a payroll cut and a cut in news jobs. Is it possible that the cable news stations and their on air talent and the writers that seem to be hostile towards Hillary want her out and the sooner the better, or perhaps they risk losing some of their own jobs?

Election Results 2008 ....and I have been in a give and take the past week or so. I come up with a hypothesis, their site updates the relevant stats, then I check if my hypothesis is on target. Excellent synergy, thank you! So far in this years elections ( thru March 26, 2008), the primary states have averaged 11,009 votes for each delegate that has been selected. In the caucus states it only takes 1,304 voters for each delegate that has been selected. Besides the huge reduction in numbers that a caucus state requires to select each delegate, caucuses are very limited as to when one can vote, lack of privacy when voting vote, and inevitably those who are the loudest and most passionate can either manipulate, overpower, or simply scare off others who don't believe in this method of "voting". Entire demographic groups can be alienated or at the very least shunted in a caucus setting. Since the term Super Delegates has already come into play, I think it is appropriate that the term Mini-Delegate be used in all states that use caucuses to select their delegates. A mini delegate is not a derogatory term, it is an accurate term that puts in focus the fact that 88% LESS voters have been required for each delegate that has been selected. The significance of the term mini-delegate better helps analyze delegate statistics. The term mini delegate can now have its own header on statistical charts and thereby allow everybody to better understand the true breakdown in how the delegate votes have been selected. This data becomes critical when it comes to evaluating how each presidential candidate is doing.

Caucuses have been underscrutinized in this years democratic political process. It's pretty obvious that bullying and other tactics that favored the younger crowd went on in many if not all of the caucuses. The News Media's failure to investigate and expose this travesty of the voting process has just been one more hurdle Hillary Clinton has had to unfairly face. The biggest problem with the caucuses is that they require voters to be at a certain place and time to have their voice possibly heard, assuming the voter isn't being harrassed or misinformed by someone "in charge". This voting method, called caucusing, (or caca cussing), is not used in November to elect our president, and therein lies my concern. In the actual presidential election, a voter has all day to vote, a full 12 hour period if I am not mistaken. When I tabulate the delegate counts in all states that allowed their citizens a full day to vote, aka primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton has 1,325 delegates, Barrack Obama has 1,305. This is not counting MICHIGAN or FLORIDA! The lead in the electoral college vote among states that actually allow their constituents all day to vote is close to a hundred Electoral College votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, 219 to 128, and this again is without counting Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania! This is a landslide of epic porportions that NOBODY in the media will address. If Hillary Clinton makes this fact known, that she is clobbering Barrack Obama when a state's constituents actually get all day to vote, the media will once again accuse Hillary Clinton of trying to change how the votes are counted even though this is the exact method that will be used in November to elect our president! So how come the media can't do a better job of analyzing what really matters? How come the news media has done next to nothing reporting about the inequities that go along with caca cussing? Chris Matthews, care to address this? I'm proud of americans that caucus and wear their political beliefs on their shoulders for everyone to see, and bump into. But at some point, what I really value MORE is the vote that happens in the privacy of the voting booth and in the comfort zone of a full days chance to exercise that vote. In that scenario, Hillary wins every which way the numbers are counted, and that's the exact same way the votes get counted in November, no caca cussing allowed.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up. Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida. Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama? I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference. If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage. That seems like media bias to me. Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it! Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency? And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state. Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states. That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.

As heard on the John Gibson show. (Geraldine Ferraro speaks) Between me and you and your millions of visitors, er listeners, if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? (John interjects) You mean if Barack were John Edwards? (Geraldine continues) If he were a women of any color would he be in this position that he is in, absolutely not. (John) Geraldine are you playing the race card? (Geraldine) NO and that's the problem, everytime you speak the truth-I'm the first person John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984, If my name were Girard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked to be the vice presidential candidate. The main thing that Geraldine Ferraro's comments revealed was how pretentious many in our society have become, and I'm not referring to Ms. Ferraro but everyone who reacted in a ridiculous manner to her comments. Ms. Ferraro's comment had a basic truth to them. Because Barack Obama was the only black person in the race, Obama DID have an advantage. If Alan Keyes had chosen to run for president again, Mr. Keyes would have dug into Obama's numbers just enough to possibly be lethal. But here is where lack of a sense of humor harms everybody. If there had been another women in the race, that women would also have cut into Ms. Clinton's numbers just enough to potentially be lethal. The comedy about Ms. Ferraro's comments was that whatever Ms. Ferraro said about Obama basically applies to Hillary Clinton as well. It wasn't until John Edwards left the race that Obama picked up his final momentum. Once again, Ms. Ferraro's analysis ring true. When it was two men against one women, the two men were splitting the vote to a certain degree and Hillary Clinton, as the only women, was benefiting. Just as Ms. Ferraro claimed Barack Obama benefited by being the only black, Hillary Clinton also benefited by being the only women in the race. In the end, Geraldine Ferraro was right, the problem was nobody had enough of a sense of humor to point out that everything she attributed to Barack Obama as being "luck" could also have been attributed to Hillary Clinton being just as lucky by being the only woman in the race. I think it is also true that if Barack Obama were white he would have lost a lot of the black vote to.... Hillary Clinton. Hillary's base would have been middle aged and older white women, blacks of all ages, and mexicans of all ages as well, and that would have been a powerful one, two, three punch. The fact that everyone reacted so stiffly to Ms. Ferraro's comments is what concerns me most. Rather than take the time to really understand Geraldine Ferraro's comments, everyone went for the immediate gratification of a knockout punch that saw Ms. Ferraro resign from Hillary Clinton's finance committee team. Should Hillary have defended Ms. Ferraro? Since Obama had just let go one of his own people for calling Hillary a name, Hillary's hands were tied and she basically had to accept Geraldine Ferraro's resignation.

Here is a link to the end of the United States as we know it. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16686965.htm News Story posted below with responding commentary by Alessandro Machi. ---------------------------------------------------- Posted on Tue, Feb. 13, 2007 Home Depot to consider sale of division HOME DEPOT SUPPLY SERVES CONTRACTORS, OTHERS; NEW CEO REVIEWING OPTIONS FOR CHAIN By Harry R. Weber Associated Press ATLANTA - Home Depot, the world's largest home-improvement store chain, distanced itself further from the strategies advanced by former Chief Executive Bob Nardelli as it said Monday it will consider shedding its division serving contractors, home builders and other business customers. The company's shares rose on the news. [/endquote] ----------------------------------------------------- Home Depot's stock market "value" has risen because Wall Street has approved of a strategy that minimizes the value of American Citizens who do blue collar jobs such as carpentry, plumbing, landscaping and general home improvement for a living. -A.M. ---------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Some analysts said the decision to possibly sell Home Depot Supply could benefit the company by allowing it to focus on generating value for shareholders, while others suggested it could put the onus back on the company's retail side, where it faces tough competition from Lowe's. [/endquote] ---------------------------------------------------- How does one "generate value" for Wall Street stockholders? It appears that the Wall Street investment community sees the disenfranchising of Blue Collar American Workers who work in America for other American Citizens as having inferior "value" when compared to businesses such as WalMart that sell retail products imported from other countries. -A.M. --------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] The announcement followed a decision earlier this month by the Atlanta company to give a seat on its board to an investment group that wants Home Depot to consider, among other things, a leveraged buyout of the entire company as a way to generate shareholder value. The group, Relational Investors, had threatened a proxy fight over the home-improvement company's strategic direction, part of an undercurrent that led to Nardelli's resignation in early January after six years at the helm of the company. [/endquote] ---------------------------------------------------- According to Wall Street "experts" it was unnacceptable for Home Depot to have a "supply division" that enabled skilled American Citizens who work with their hands to have a place to go to buy the products they need to do work for other Americans. Because Home Depot Supply Division could not create the kind of immediate profit that importing from other countries can create, Wall Street thinks the division should be sold off. -A.M. --------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Frank Blake, who replaced Nardelli as CEO, said Monday's announcement regarding Home Depot Supply was part of a strategic review the company conducted in November. [/endquote] --------------------------------------------------- What Mr. Blake calls a "strategic review" I call a sucide bomb placed directly into the heart and soul of the American Blue Collar worker. Wall Street supports the premise that it is not preferrable to sell supplies to American skilled labor because that will generate a smaller profit margin than selling product that is imported from other countries. -A.M. -------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Nardelli had said repeatedly that he believed the company's strategy under his watch did not need changing. [/endquote] --------------------------------------------------- Mr. Nardelli appears to be a controversial figure. While I wholeheartedly agree with his position that Home Depot should not shed it's Supply Division, Mr. Nardelli just received a huge, really huge severance package for his tenure at Home Depot. It appears that Mr. Nardelli understands that without a strong local economy which the Supply Division of Home Depot helps nurture; local community economies would stagnate. It just seems a shame Mr. Nardelli was paid so much darn money for that basic understanding. Home Depot Supply is the seed that bears fruit for local communities throughout the United States yet Wall Street seems to focus solely on quarterly profit margin reports and is unwilling to acknowledge that long term stability matters just as much. -A.M. --------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Blake said the company wants to concentrate more on its retail business. [/endquote] --------------------------------------------------- Retail business means the importing of product from other countries at the loss of local blue collar jobs, that's what is Good for Wall Street, but is that what is good for your local community? -A.M. ---------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] The company said it would ''evaluate strategic alternatives'' that also could include an initial public offering of the supply business. Home Depot did not say how much it could fetch for HD Supply, but some analysts valued it at $5 billion to $7.5 billion. [/endquote] ------------------------------------------------ Strategic alternatives is a code word for outsourcing, for buying as much product from other countries as possible at the expense of the local communities ability to create skilled labor jobs. -A.M. ------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Analysts had mixed reactions. ''While we had long been advocates of the Home Depot Supply business, the market never seemed to warm up to the strategy, viewing it more as a lower-margin, lower-return distraction from retail,'' David Strasser, an analyst with Banc of America Securities, said in a research note. [/endquote] ------------------------------------------------- Lower profit margin does not mean the Home Depot Supply division was losing money, it just means that it was making less money than Home Depot could allegedly make if it were to simply focus on importing products from other countries. Do you see a dangerous pattern emerging here? No new United States business can be created that uses United States Labor and United States resources and still score as high a rating with Wall Street as a U.S. business that imports products and/or services from other countries. At some point, do we dare ask if Wall Street's institutional practices and objectives are violating the constitution of the United States by aggressively advocating the outsourcing of all goods and services to other countries over the blue collar citizens of the United States? -A.M. ------------------------------------------------ [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Strasser said Home Depot's stock should react positively to the news. ''This tells us new CEO Frank Blake is focused on value, and taking a fresh look at every aspect of the business,'' Strasser wrote. [/endquote] ------------------------------------------------- Increased value for whom? Perhaps increased value for those who are already worth millions and salivate for millions more from their Wall Street Stock holdings. How is this "fresh look" achieved, by focusing on the import retail business while downgrading the importance of the local blue collar worker. -A.M. -------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] But Mark Rowen, an analyst with Prudential Equity Group, said in a research note of his own that without HD Supply as a growth vehicle, investors soon could start to focus more intensely on Home Depot's core retail segment, which he believes is close to reaching store saturation in the United States. [/endquote] ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Rowen is a smart person. What Mr. Rowen is saying is the diversity of products and services Home Depot provides all over the United States fuels a huge amount of local economies by serving both the consumer with goods they can immediately use, and the blue collar worker with core products they require to do skilled labor, to have a job! Home Depot is a company that has become an essential economic cog and valued member of local communities throughout the United States, whereas the same cannot be said of Walmart, which actually assisted in the rise and fall of a small town rubbermaid plant located in Wooster, Ohio several years ago. The rubbermaid plant was disassembled and the assembly line manufacturing components were sold to China, over a thousand workers in Wooster Ohio lost their jobs. What Wall Street is saying to Home Depot is, "Be like Walmart and offer retail only products made from other countries or we will downgrade your Wall Street Value". What Mr. Rowen has intelligently pointed out is that companies that help the local community create and maintain jobs have an intrinsic value that cannot be easily measured by Wall Street. Ironically, it's smaller profit divisions within a company like Home Depot Supply that actually help stabilize a local communities economy and as a result help other Wall Street Stocks meet their bottom line because the local economy sustains more jobs, which results in more overall spendable income. -A.M. ---------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] ''We believe that Home Depot will continue to struggle with the effects of a difficult housing market in the near term, as well as intense competition from archrival Lowe's longer term,'' Rowen wrote. [/endquote] ---------------------------------------------------- Another excellent point by Mr. Rowen. Home Depot has a competitive edge because it offers a diversity of goods and services. Once Home Depot "cuts and runs", they may gain an instant increase in stockholder value for the investors who want to make a quick buck by selling their Home Depot stock. Afterwards Home Depot will simply blend in with their competition and most likely no longer hold any advantage. Meanwhile the blue collar workers who lose their jobs because of less supply availability won't be able to buy any product from Home Depot at all. -A.M. ---------------------------------------------------- [quote name='Home Depot Story' date='Feb 13. 2007'] Overall, Home Depot currently operates 2,159 stores in the United States, Canada, Mexico and China. [/endquote] Let us not forget, Home Depot not only sells products to consumers, but Home Depot Supply currently sells product to creators, innovators and blue collar people who use Home Depot Supply product in their own line of work. These jobs fuel the local economy so people have money to spend in their own community. Wall Street is insidiously proposing that it's always better to import product and services from other countries rather than creating the product in the United States. Wall Street is advocating an outsourcing paradigm because it will always create a larger profit margin than can be created with United States skilled labor. Wall Street is advocating this outsourcing motiff at the loss of blue collar jobs in the United States. In a related scenario, since Wall Street has decided to completely embrace the importation industry over blue collar American Made Jobs, the War in Iraq takes on added significance. Having access to the worlds oil supply is imperative for any country intent on creating an import economy because it takes petroleum to fuel the huge number of ships that bring product from all over the world to our own ports. Yes, Wall Street, whether they realize it or not, appears to be a war mongering institution as well. -Alessandro Machi

Iran has a population of 68 million, Iraq has a population of 26 million people. Does anyone really believe that once the United States leaves Iraq that Iraq can defend itself from three warring factions within Iraq, and also deal with Iran? Explain to me why it will be OK to have Iran run roughshod over Iraq once the United States leaves. Explain to me how getting rid of Saddam Hussein and HIS TWO SOCIOPATHIC RAPISTS SONS (both of whom would have carried onward the leadership of Iraq in an even more heinous and lethal manner than Saddam), while also protecting Iraq from Iran and a population 2.5 times greater than Iraq makes Mr. Bush one of the worlds most terrible people? And if you respond to this editorial, please ADMIT as to whether or not you had researched the population of both countries and knew there was such a huge disparity in population between Iran and Iraq BEFORE you had formulated an opinion about the war in Iraq. If Bush was wrong for invading Iraq, it was only because he did not have the ability to be as much of a menace as Saddam Hussein must have been to both keep three different religious sects in check within Iraq while also defending Iraq's border against Iran.