When will Carter and Greenspan just shutup?

I don't know what it is with former famous political leaders, but they seem to be having a problem keeping their mouths closed. Just a few days ago, former President Jimmy Carter went off as saying "the current administration is the worst in history". Later, Carter claimed he was only referring to the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

But, like Greenspan, what good did these comments really do for the country? Confidence is already near all-time lows, set when guess who was President-Carter himself. A vast majority of Americans in both parties know how poorly Bush has done in respect to foreign policy, so why does the former maligned leader feel the need to state the obvious? Considering his track record, Carter has no room to criticize or talk.

Today, former FED Chairman Greenspan decided to tell the world that China will have a big sell-off at some point. Well, no kidding! Anyone who follows economics and investing understands that China is due for a correction at some point. Did Greenspan really find it necessary to state the obvious as well?

However, I fail to see where this "big" correction will come from. If you take into account the P/E ratios over the projected five-year earnings growth rates in China, the stocks seem more appealing then those in the United States. Yet, Greenspan seems to ignore key numbers such as this all too often. To be critical of China, when you have been linked directly to many of the problems the US Economy currently faces, takes one arrogant and senile former economist and politician.

Carter and Greenspan need to go play a round of 18 and accept the fact that they failed during their tenures.

U.S. to be free of Middle Eastern Oil by 2012

Last night, Interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne was on CNBC touting a new offshore oil drilling program that would put to work 48 Million Acres in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Alaska and Virginia.

"Department officials estimated that the entire plan could produce 10 billion barrels of additional oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of additional natural gas over the next 40 years."

This would effectively provide enough energy for the US to completely cease its importing of oil from any Middle Eastern Country according to the Interior Secretary. In addition, they plan to make sure that certain environmental standards are being met:

"The proposal includes measures to protect against damage to coastal areas from oil spills and other accidents. It would not allow drilling within 50 miles of the Virginia shore and would wall off an additional “obstruction zone” near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay."

However, environmentalists are criticizing the plan for not being protective enough:

“The Bush administration is zeroing in on the most environmentally sensitive areas for offshore drilling,” said Richard Charter, a lobbyist for Defenders of Wildlife and co-chairman of the National Outer Continental Shelf Coalition. “These areas that they are characterizing as buffer zones are woefully inadequate when you consider that the Exxon Valdez oil spill traveled hundreds of miles in a matter of weeks.”

My thoughts on this issue are that it would be great for our own economy, hurt the purchasing power of the Middle Eastern countries, lower the price of oil in general and really help create a more energy independent country. The problem is, I do worry about potential oil spills and tend to question the safety of these offshore oil rigs with the oceanic environment. I feel split because nobody can guarantee environmental protection with these oil fields.

SOURCE: Kudlow & Company, New York Times

Grading the Democratic Debate (All Participats)

Hilary Clinton - D

Sen. Clinton did nothing short of disappoint me when I already have little respect and confidence in her. Instead of providing unique solutions to the questions and problems posed, she spend most of her air time lashing out on the Bush Administration. Although I am not a fan of many Bush policies, Clinton needed to use this time to impress those who aren't sold on her instead of using her breath for her personal vendetta.

Why does she despise the Bush Administration so much? Yes, he supposedly lied to the American public. But then again, didn't her own husband do the same? He turned out to be quite a solid President, despite failing to get most of his agenda passed through Congress. You have to assume that the White House received the same intelligence as Congress when this Iraq situation began, a war she voted for originally. She also voted for the invasion of Afghanistan, yet seems to regret most of her votes. Instead of blaming others for her mistakes and flawed political record, it would have been much nicer to see her come out firing with some good ideas and a sound political platform, neither of which we received from her tonight. She also showed her anti-free trade platform with her ideas of protectionism and regulation to run the country from the economy to health care. Clinton was even more vague on her health care plans then Obama, but at least she didn't say she wanted to hike taxes outright. Last I checked, we weren't in a communist country Senator Clinton!

Even worse, she still comes off negatively in many American's mind. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but she seems snobby, arrogant, and obnoxious. A poster on a forum I read suggested her tone as caustic and explained, " For starters, as a male, she comes off as the type of wife that most men don't want. Not that she is a strong female, that's cool, she just comes off as a caustic female. She just doesn't come off as a very nice lady. I don't think I'd want her in my circle of friends."

Maybe this criticism is unfair, but it seems apparent with 40%+ of the public disliking her, she has a real mountain to climb. Other candidates like Obama and Edwards seem to be more likable, similar to how the public perceived Bill Clinton and George W. Bush during campaigns. If the Dems want a real shot at winning, I'm convinced they need to run either Obama or Edwards instead of another Kerry or Gore (though he obviously could/should have won).

Barack Obama - A-/B+

Obama was solid tonight. He once again spoke elegantly and showed reasons why he could be a successful President. Instead of bashing the current administration, Obama gave some resounding solutions and unique, detailed initiatives he would like to help pass. Additionally, he seemed to have sound balance in his foreign policy stance. Although he wants a quick troop withdrawal, he understands the fundamental problems of the Middle East well and redirected an attack on a quote the moderator tried to tie onto Palestinian sympathy. Despite his campaign aimed further left then Clinton, he seems more eager to work with both sides of Congress and you get the feeling that the Republicans will have higher respect for him as President.

Obama was very vague on his funding of the proposed universal health care which he supports. Subsidies are a distinct possibility, as is the improvement of inefficient health care services. Although I like the idea of private health care due to the enormous amount of potential problems it might bring.

John Edwards - A-/B+

Overall, Edwards almost stole the show. Despite seemingly fewer questions, he actually answered more conservatively then either Obama or Clinton. That fact is interesting because he was supposed to be running the campaign furthest to the left. You have to wonder if his ads will focus on that profile while his debates and speeches will try and attract more moderate Dems and even liberal Republicans.

What really impressed me with Edwards was his composure. Calm and collected, he delivered detailed, well-pronounced (although he has that southern accent) replies. He reminded me some of Bill Clinton, although not quite as friendly. However, he still was much more appealing then Hilary in terms of vocals.

Edwards best answer of the night was his abortion response. Although Edwards clearly stated that he was pro-choice, he appealed towards the middle and even the Republican side of the line almost perfectly. He conceded that the issue is very personal and important to most voters, claiming we need to accept everyone's opinion on the situation. That type of sympathy appeal was not made by Clinton and might prove to come back and hurt her chances of ultimately winning both the Primary and Presidency, should she advance.

Had Edwards not suggested raising taxes to fund his universal health care program, he may have received a better grade. Once he uttered repealing the Bush tax cuts, it was a huge hit to his camp right away. With the economy and stock market performing like it is, tax increases could cause severe, detrimental damage.

Bill Richardson - B

Richardson looked goofy and almost as if he was trying too hard at times. His speaking was decent, but not good. His hand gestures were almost a little too overwhelming for me. He definitely gained credibility by standing up for his own personal views and opinions, not necessarily those associated with his party. He announced that he was pro-gun control, would use the military if necessary, and has been a known supply-sider when it comes to economics.

In addition, Richardson looked solid on some key aspects of current political issues. First, Richardson displayed his prowess and experience in foreign policy by answering several questions and making it a point to mention his work in that area of the political sphere. The moderator pointed out he received 4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and Richardson himself further pointed out his familiarity with foreign diplomacy when referenced his work with North Korea.

Lastly, Richardson may be aided by his role as Governor instead of Senator. Like he vehemently explained, he deals with these decisions and issues first-hand, on a daily basis in New Mexico. That type of pressure and the need for quick, decisive action sometimes is harder for Senators since they are transitioning roles.

Joe Biden - D+

Biden did not leave much of a mark on this debate. He had a personal "attack" if you will that he failed to respond to, rendering him as defenseless. Unlike Obama and even Clinton to some extent, Biden didn't defend his name. Although he isn't really a lasting 2008 candidate, moves like that might cost him in the future. Also in the last half, like Hilary, he focused more on attacking the Bush Administration instead of responding with thorough, sound answers.

Dennis Kucinich - D

Give me a break. This guy might be the biggest pushover in the history of Washington. How he landed a seat is beyond me. He was basically against anything militaristic in nature. He solely desires to rely on diplomacy to solve foreign issues. Apparently Rep. Kucinich doesn't understand that terrorists do not negotiate and even if they do, they cannot be trusted. He sounds like the type of politicians who belong in France. Appeasement is not the answer, just ask those French cowards. Germany used them for years in the early half of the 19th Century. The leaders we are dealing with in North Korea, Iran and terrorist organizations are replicas of Hitler. We can all thank god that Mr. Kucinich won't be the President anytime in his life, except maybe for a local committee.

Mike Gravel - F

Who is this guy? I can honestly say that Sen. Gravel would not have been elected in any other state except Alaska. They must really be desperate or maybe they don't care much up there. Instead of answering questions, Gravel bashed his counterparts for this and that. On top of that, he yelled the moderator for asking too few questions to him, proclaiming his seniority. Maybe if he realized how unimportant he is to the Democratic Presidential Campaign he would understand. Gravel is an absolute joke.

Chris Dodd - B

Dodd has some good experience at it showed. For someone who has been in the political realm as long as he has, public speaking should be easy and it showed. He has some sound responses to questions and actually solidified himself as a leader in the Democratic party. He was for civil unions, but not gay marriage.