In politics, I pride myself in being a moderate, open-minded conservative. The vast majority of my core beliefs on legal issues and morality/ethics lean more towards the right. However, I don’t fully agree with everything the right stands for, or has to say for that matter. I do share certain beliefs with the left, and even when I disagree with it I am truly able and willing to hear them out every time.

Tuesday night I got in a heated debate with a co-worker pertaining to a topic which does nothing for the point of this discussion. However, what I got out of this back and forth argument which elicited unnecessary catharses, was a broader understanding and better, more lucid perspective on the faults embedded in the Logic of the Left and Right of many people in this country.

The faults of the Right: You often times implement these stringent standards, often times religion based, of how to live life on people who simply will never perceive the world in the same manner as you do. Moreover, many times you do not abide by your own rules or standards, yet are the first to judge, criticize, and ostracize those who disagree with your perceived notion of what is right or wrong. The sad, yet truthful reality, is that even if what you advocate for is inherently right, you lose credibility and lose a potential following when your actions contradict your words. Examples include, but are not limited to, loving your neighbor, “God loves everyone,” abortion, contraceptives, homosexuality etc.

The faults of the Left: You often times have loosely-knitted standards or value systems that are subject purely and utterly to contemporaneous trends. Moreover, very often, you feel that you are more liberal or open-minded, and consequently, intellectually superior to people with stringent standards. Many times to discredit their points you swiftly go after their hypocrisy or lack of consistency, ostensibly claiming that as a result their logic is folly. However, this is false. Proving someone’s hypocrisy only shows that person to be two-faced. It does not prove that what they said wasn’t intrinsically right. Just because Spitizer slept with a prostitute does that mean that his statements about prostitution being wrong are any less true?

In conclusion, the right has to learn to be consistent with their standards so that they are not being blind hypocrites endeavoring to lead others down the road of salvation; meanwhile, the left has to realize that hypocrisy is not a substantial argument against what a person deems right or wrong.

           On November 5^th 2008, Proposition 8 was subject to a referendum by the people of California and was, to the astonishment and dismay of many, approved by a 52.2 to 48.8 percent margin. In it, a denigrating reality was forcefully shoved down the throats of the gay community: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This “proposition” has been just one of the many successful endeavors of neo-conservatives, religious fundamentalists and fearful, homophobic citizens to further stigmatize the monogamous relationships of couples of the same sex. Rather then coddle them, dissenters around the nation continue to do everything in their power to throttle them, slowly, but surely, relinquishing them of any lingering civil liberties that they can lay claim to. To some this a justified law which derives its legitimacy from the universal truths of morality, aimed at controlling, if not eradicating, the disdainful acts of the deviant hordes. To others, however, it is a subjective, case-by-case perception of morality, belonging to the now clear majority of California, being forced on those people who “unfortunately” do not share their penchant for members of the opposite sex. Could this Proposition really just be an indecent proposal?

            Before addressing Proposition 8 any further, it is dire to identify the array of groups who have instigated all the problems, as well delve head first into the pervading arguments against gay marriage. First, and foremost, are the neo-conservatives, masquerading as devout Christians, who, rather than standing up for their own personal convictions, simply act out Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” in the political world, changing it to, “For every Liberal action there is an equal but opposite conservative reaction. They are voluntary slaves to every whim of the left and are as predictable as Sean Hannity associating Barrack Obama to Bill Ayers, “The unrepentant Terrorist, who said on 9/11 he didn’t set enough bombs,” every night at 9pm on Fox News. They make no compelling case other than the cliché, “It distorts the accepted notion of marriage” As will later demonstrated, this is a tenuous argument because changing the definition of marriage is not necessarily a bad thing.

          The other not-so-gregarious group to the homosexuals are the religious fundamentalists, wagging their fingers at the both “detestable and abominable” behavior of the black sheep of their personal God. It is their outright hypocrisy and overbearing self-righteousness that submerges society under a sea of indignant excoriation and judgment. For Christians-since this is the religion I am amply knowledgeable in- the Old Testament is cited as the common place for repudiation of homosexuality by God’s own words: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). Is this the same Old Testament God who, when asked by Moses what to do about a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath, answered, “This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp?” (Numbers 15:35). The only thing that should be deemed indignant in today’s society is this group’s endeavors to enforce their obscure catechisms on peoples of other faiths, or worse, on those who do not follow any whatsoever.

          The last group, also prevalent amid the aforementioned groups, is the fear- driven, phobia-infested, change-inhibiting homophobic bunch. Their reasoning for being against gay marriage is so flimsy, so pathetic, and so insignificant that it isn’t even worth addressing. However, because so many are plagued with this unwarranted fear of those who “despicably” love people of the same sex, it must be dealt with at once. What do you fear? Do you think that by rescinding their previously granted right of exchanging nuptial vows in the presence of a judge, you are somehow eliminating the homosexual seed out of society for good? Think again. You have only successfully stonewalled the inevitable and undeniable: Gays are here to stay; they will not be kept at bay. Your ludicrous fears only demonstrate your own insecurities, as well as your looming feelings of inadequacy in a doleful, barren existence.

          The three aforementioned groups do, however, coincide in their self-proclaimed compelling points against gay marriage. They say, if we condone it, we are leading society down a slippery slope: it can lead to legalizing pedophile relationships with children or relationships between humans and animals. However, the deluded individuals, who contrived these deliberately-misconstruing assessments, know fully well that these types of relationships would not be acceptable on the grounds that both parties are not consenting. Children are too young and irrational to consent, and animals cannot reason on the level of human beings, thus making both cases an example of perverted and abusive relationships, as opposed to consensual, monogamous ones. Also, they speculate that children, who are breed in this type of marriage, will be the unfortunate recipients of life-altering heckling at school: when they have to bring their parents to school. However, it is ironic, and even distasteful, to utilize such an idiotic excuse to prevent same sex weddings; a form of reasoning that was offered to preclude blacks and whites from marrying during our horrific, racist-oriented past. This “distortion and redefiniton” of marriage rectified audacious injustices of the past, making everyone truly equal… Aren’t the struggles of the gays of today an allusion to the afflictions that dogged the blacks in the past? Isn’t their current struggle against discrimination the same one that most of society fought to preserve during the 1950’s, but only now frown upon?  Do you really want to perpetuate the wrongs of the past?

          In short, Proposition 8 is the quelling of the voices of justice, reflecting the inability of man to accept his fellow neighbor. Whether you supported the measure, or its outspoken advocates, on religious, political, or fear-driven grounds, you must realize that it is only a matter of time until their dream, your dreadful nightmare, becomes a permanently-anchored reality in America. But for now, the Indecent Proposal of denying equal treatment for homosexuals hinders, as well as stifles, the cohesiveness of a nation in dire need of tolerance and respect.

“You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”-Abraham Lincoln

“Fight Club” is the genre of film that takes the oblivious and unsuspecting viewer for an unforgettable ride. All those who like renting a movie for the sake of seeing a predictable plot unfold before their eyes, concluding in the fairytale ending, should look for another form of entertainment; this is not the movie for you. If you wish, however, to see a graphic, and mind-bottling work of art, you have come to the right place..

“Fight Club” made its day view onto the big screen in 1999 and became, to the dismay of many, a vivid example of the pessimistic realism that looms over today’s society. Actors Brad Pitt and Edwin Norton did an incredible job of portraying this realism through gory, yet cunning, scenes that wished to convey a message of despair to the already listless live of the ordinary human being. They emulated the lives of those individuals who go about life on autopilot and never once contemplated breaking free from an overbearing complacency. It was this ground-breaking attempt to expose the wrongfully accepted norms of society, as well as the insignificance of life, that truly got the attention of a multitude of speculating viewers.

The movie starts off with the narrator, who is also the protagonist, sitting on a chair with a pistol being put in his mouth by Brad Pitt’s character: Tyler. The narrator then goes on to try and explain the course of evens, which have lead to Tyler’s “Project Mayhem.” A flashback then brings us back to the narrator in the arms of a large man with “tits,” but quickly he decides to let the audience know that he wants to go further back in the past to tell his story. The movie then seemingly restarts with the somber voice of the narrator discussing his barren, fruitless life. He goes on to let the viewer know that he suffers of insomnia in which state he claims, “You’re never really asleep and you’re never really awake.” It is then made known that he fills the gaps in his life by visiting 12-step support groups at night. He does this on a regular basis, not because he is suffering from any terminal illness, but rather because he has became addicted and all too dependant on the groups. His reasoning is that when people believe that you are ill or going to die; they truly listen to you, “instead of waiting for their turn to speak.” At this point we can tell he is a severely disturbed man, who pathetically finds pleasure in sobbing away his own shortcomings and displeasure with life in the arms of a sick stranger. Yet, somehow we start to feel a bit of compassion and understanding towards the troubled main character.

In one of the 12-step support groups, the narrator meets Marla, another physically healthy person addicted to these groups. The narrator tries to scare her off by threatening to expose her as a fake, but she makes the same threat right back at him, forcing a truce between the two. They agree on splitting the groups among each other and reach an agreement fit only for mentally unstable people such as themselves.

As the movie goes on we learn more about the narrator. He works for a car company, inspecting the safety and effectiveness of each car. As a result, he is always on some flight to a workplace destination. It is on one of these flights that he meets Tyler Durden. From the very first moment Tyler opens his mouth, the narrator is both impressed and intrigued by such a peculiar character. Tyler leaves him his calling card and goes his own way. Upon getting back to his apartment, the narrator can see an explosion from far away and is told his home exploded due to some inexplicable spark. Stranded and with no place to spend the night, the narrator opts to call Tyler. After a couple of drinks at the bar, they proceed outside at which point Tyler says to the narrator, “I want you to hit me as hard as you can” (Fight Club), Astonished and bewildered, the narrator attempts to question the motive to such as seemingly absurd request. Tyler answers “Come on what could you possible know about yourself if you’ve never been a fight, I don’t want to die without any scars.” Narrator finally hits them and their tussle to follow is what gives form to the rest of the movie.

Both men go on to make an underground fight club, which welcomed all men frustrated with life and wishing to take it out on someone’s face. The fights are pretty much the equivalent to a cock fight, except cocks know when to stop. These fighters, however, came to do more than just vent their frustrations in a basement, using their fists and limbs as instruments. They had their own private assignments to do, of course set by Tyler himself. One of them which seems to stand out is when he tells his mindless followers: “You have an assignment, you are going to start a fight…and you’re going to lose.” At this point the viewer starts to get the idea that “fight club” is not simply a group that fights, but one that is committed to realigning the perceptions and fears of a conformist society.

Tyler as a person comes off as truly cynical and satirical. Every last sentence he utters is a pop reference or a suggestion that the world is heading down a ignorant path. He is everything the narrator literally is not: spontaneous, a leader, and the man with a plan. This is illustrated very well in the scene when Tyler holds up a convenience store and takes the clerk out to the parking lot and tells him to get on his knees. Upon taking his wallet, Tyler sees an expired community college id. He asks the clerk what was he studying to be and he answers that he wanted to be an animal doctor but it entailed “too much school.” Tyler gives him an ultimatum: “If you are not on you way to becoming an animal doctor in six weeks, you will die.” The clerk then runs homes like a dog with its tail tugged between its legs.

Another peculiar event happens when Tyler puts on a type of acidic substance on the narrator’s hand and continues to let it burn away flesh. The narrator pleads and screams for Tyler to let him wash it off but before he does Tyler inculcates one message into his mind: “First, you have to give up; you have to know, not fear, KNOW, that someday you are going to die.” Tyler continues to reiterate that they are God’s unwanted children and do not need him as a result. The most powerful quote that surfaces in this encounter is “It is only once you lost everything that we are free to do anything.” Once the narrator “gives up” and accepts his mortality, Tyler gives him vinegar to neutralize the acid on his hand. Once the vinegar touches his hand, the narrator collapses to the ground in agonizing relief. Sometimes you have to plain out wonder what is going on in his head and what are his true intentions with regards to the narrator and his life.

Despite what seemed as an effective venting activity for unsatisfied men, this club slowly but surely  escalated into something far more serious; something the narrator began to dread and mistrust. Project Mayhem, Tyler’s plan for ultimate chaos leading to ultimate equality, educed the narrator to oppose what was becoming a perilous game to play. Once the narrator begins to trace Tyler’s steps, he comes to one disconcerting conclusion: he and Tyler Durden are the same person, Now racing to stop his alter ego, the narrator tries to save Marla from the hands of the fight club members narrowly saving himself from harms way. The final confrontation happens at the end, however, when he somewhat bizarrely fights his alter ego. After an extended lead up the final scene, the unusual scuffle comes to a halt. The narrator has a gun in his mouth and shoots himself, thereby killing Tyler Durden, his malicious alter ego. The audience is left thinking: Does the crazed narrator also die?

All around this movie was a great illustration of class and wit, as opposed to a scantily prepared film with no real underlying meaning. It perpetuates the deceit of a society, which has inculcated an unachievable notion of perfection into the hearts and minds of ordinary people who know better. It is truly a great film for those who want to learn another perspective of life, no matter how depressing, that is not necessarily the normally accepted one. The one thing most consistent in this masterpiece is the crude, raw, and uncensored truth being thrown at the viewer. in various scenes. Fight Club is an extraordinary movie deserving much praise and respect and whoever has not seen it has been deprived of seeing Brad Pitt and Edward Norton at their finest.

8 Rules of Fight Club .

Works Cited

http://aram.free.fr/divx/images/fight_club_front.jpg, May 2, 2008. Fight Club Image# 1

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/884/551/lo/co9.jpg. May 2, 2008.Fight Club Image # 2

8 Rules of Fight Club http://www.youtube.com/watchv=P4Kl4gn_MW0&eurl=http://121lml.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/fight-club/. April 15, 2008

     There has been a misconception on what Love is for several years. It is defined by mainstream society as “the butterflies” you get in your stomach when you’re with someone. Others say its feeling special by the way your loved one treats you. A lot of ifs and buts are included in the definition. But is this really love or are we simply not capable of understanding the depth of what its underlying meaning? Is love merely a frail, fleeting feeling to be forgotten tomorrow, or a mystery to be contemplated on?

     To understand love, we must realize that there are no ifs or buts. You do not love someone, if the feeling depends on how they treat you or on how you feel when you’re with them. True love fails to see common sense and reality; instead it blindly pursues what could in fact be detrimental for one’s own well being. Real love is self-sacrificing. It is being truly vulnerable for that one person, who has taken your breathe away. Love is putting someone else’s needs above your own, to be willing to die for someone without a single moment of hesitation. Essentially, to love is to suffer and become truly human. Too many mistake love with an aimless infatuation based on self actualization. Fools love is fleeting and will soon rust, but what is truly genuine will endure the weathering of time.

     Love completes us in a way that no other thing can. We go about our lives in autopilot, trying to find that other part that completes us. Once we find that person who makes us whole, we never want to feel incomplete again. But when looking for love we must not make wrong decisions that will harm us. They say love is blind and so it is all right to make mistakes. But the truth is another: love is not blind; it chooses to see what it wants to see, and there is a difference.

     Love can be the greatest of things, but it can also bring any man to his knees, begging for mercy that will never come.

     Last Saturday night thirty six year old super middleweight champion, Joe Calzaghe faced off against the forty three year old light heavyweight champion, Bernard Hopkins for his title, in a much anticipated fight. Boxing fans were not sure if the lightning fast and unrelenting style of Calzaghe would bring home the victory, or if the shrewd, craft of the old veteran would reign supreme. Roy Jones Junior , who defeated Hopkins more than ten years ago, picked Calzaghe to come out victorious in the big show down. He felt that although Hopkins is still a great boxer, the younger and hungrier Calzaghe would be more active in the fight, thus pulling out a decision win. Other boxing analysts also shared the idea that Calzaghe would win by decision. Their expert predictions were not wrong, and the audience in attendance saw Calzaghe, the British fighter fighting for the first time on American soil, get his hand raised after twelve hard fought rounds of boxing to become the undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion of the world.

     The fight started with a flash knockdown, educed by a beautiful placed cross by Hopkins, to the chin of Calzaghe. He found himself on the ground much earlier than anyone could expect, but got up as fast as possible and finished out the round. Calzaghe won the following the round, setting the tone for the rest of the fight. Although Hopkins did win at least two rounds in the fight and seemed to give his opponent troubles with his effective crosses, he simply was not active enough. No one can deny that Hopkins got good shots in and was never dazed, but Calzaghe simply overwhelmed him for all three minutes of all twelve rounds. It was his desire to impose his will and Hopkins’ conformity with landing one shot at a time that made the judges give the challenger the victor.

     Hopkins is by no way washed up, or a has been, but it is about time he considers retirement. He reigned as middleweight champion for more than a decade, won the light heavyweight championship when no one thought he could do it, destroying legends such as Felix Tito Trinidad and Oscar de La Hoya; what more can he prove to the boxing world. While Calzaghe has only elevated his superstardom and should be ready for the big fights and big pay days up ahead.

     GSP and Mat Serra fought for the second time this past Saturday night in what was to be a brutal beat down of the current champion. Most ringside experts expected GSP to demonstrate that his opponents win over him had been a fluke, and he proved that point loud and clear. The five foot six Serra fought a hungry and well prepared Goliath, who simply did not let him get intro his groove. GSP pressed the action from the opening bell and was inexorable in his devastating ground and pound. Although it Serra did have to weather the storm in the first round, and barely got out, he did nullify most of GSP’s fatal blows with his world class Jiu Jitsu. GSP, however, proved that his wrestling and passing skills are second to none, taking Serra down at will. All experts watching agree that his performance was top notch and worthy of a superstar of his caliber.

     The meaning of this fight is huge. GSP not only demonstrated that he is not a disgrace, but also that Serra was an underrated fighter, who simply got lucky a year ago. With Matt Hughes considering retirement, there is no one at the present moment that can compare to GSP. He is a menace with striking and vicious on the ground. Maybe some rising superstar in the future will pose a threat, but for now anyone who faces a focused and well prepared George St. Pierre are just guppies. …..The list of MMA fighters who have tasted defeat at the hands of the new champion are: Frank Twigs, BJ Penn, Mat Hughes (Twice), Josh Koshcehck, and now the Matt Serra.

     Serra should not pick himself up and try to work his way up in the UFC ladder. It would seem that the Welterweight division is, however, not his proper weight class. For someone who is five foot six tall, the lightweight division is the best option. With his punching power, and Jiu Jitsu ability, it would only be a matter of time until he is once again wearing a title around his waist.

Great fight, and Good Luck to both fighters.

Gsp Destroys Mat Serra

It’s set, they fight. Antonio Margarito and Miguel Cotto both illustrated virtuoso performances in their respective fights on Saturday. Margarito in the top card of the night fought Carlos Cintron, the man who he had knocked out in the seventh round of their first fight, and for the second time ran right through him. Cintron looked lackluster and unwilling to fight after Margarito relentlessly put devastating pressure, which would wear out any great fighter in his prime. Cintron eventually succumbed to another humiliating defeat in the fifth round. With this win earlier in the night, Margarito impatiently awaited to see if Miguel Cotto would also perform as well in his fight, for if he did, a lucrative pay-per-view fight was certain. 

Miguel Cotto did not disappoint his primarily Puertorican audience, and easily dismantled an inexperienced Alfonso Gomez. It even seemed in the fight that Cotto took it easy on Gomez so as to not hurt or humiliate him. He showed to all that were watching on Saturday, the difference between a up-and-coming novice and a superstar such as himself. Cotto was in a class of his own in this fight. This victory, yet again by ko/tko fashion, has brought Cotto closer to the much anticipated show off against Antonio Margarito

Now that the fight is set for the end of July, many questions are coming up: who will win, how will he win, and will it make for an exciting night? It is not such a viable task to predict the winner of a fight between to legends of them time. Margarito is known for his relentless offense, iron chin, and will over skill mentality. Cotton, on the other hand, with a great pedigree in amateur boxing, and an equally inexorable style if attack, looks to meet Margarito in the center of the ring. But a key point should be noted, Cotto’s frail chin. Against lesser fighters he has been tested and set to taste the reviled canvas. Margarito’s skill might not measure up to his undefeated opponent, but his heart and ability to continue after being hurt has never been questioned.

So who will win Cotto vs. Margarito? Puerto Rico vs. Mexico?

Whatever the result, the boxing world will be treated to a masterpiece no doubt.

Thou Shall Not Love

Amid all the pleasures of life,

Love is the one that shall destroy thee,

Either with the edge of a piercing knife,

Or with the cumbersome excess of gushing glee.

What man would be so brave,

To give out his heart unconditionally,

Expect no more than he once gave,

And be ready to fall so ardently.

Only a fool would play such a game,

Wagering his heart,

With everything to lose and so little to gain. 

Her Whose Beauty Blinds

Walking down an endless path,

I see her whose beauty blinds,

A seductive stare only perfection hath,

An enticing smile that deliberately binds,

And submerges a heart in a heavenly bath.

As the golden hair unravels from her finger,

She bites her luscious lips ever so tender,

Fretfully causing me to wonder if this feeling will endlessly linger.

The lids open eliciting two seas of green,

That drown me in an a dreadful instant,

But keep me afloat to witness the greatest portrait man has seen.

She smirks with such graceful coy,

Forcing a blush from the proudest of men,

Instilling in them this feeling of joy.

Lustfully walking away,

She pilfers the dreams of an oblivious horde,

Keeping all hope bleakly at bay.

Reason and fascination collide,

Only to find this beauty is a lie.

Much like wolves and sheep cannot together dine,

She and I shall never intertwine,

Nevertheless I shall continue to waste in sighs.  

 Yeats: Never Give All The Heart

NEVER give all the heart, for love
Will hardly seem worth thinking of
To passionate women if it seem
Certain, and they never dream
That it fades out from kiss to kiss;
For everything that’s lovely is
But a brief, dreamy. Kind delight.
O never give the heart outright,
For they, for all smooth lips can say,
Have given their hearts up to the play.
And who could play it well enough
If deaf and dumb and blind with love?
He that made this knows all the cost,
For he gave all his heart and lost.

          In 1965, Muhammad Ali faced Sonny Liston for the much awaited rematch. Before their first fight, Ali was a 7-1 underdog who scarcely anyone gave a fighting shot to. But with the controversial, yet defining, victory over Liston, after he refused to continue fighting at the begining of the 7th round, Ali was now, to the suprise of millions, the Heavyweight Champion of the World.

          When they finally met again, the tables and roles were switched; Ali was the reigning champion and Liston was the challenger. What a turn of events! People were claiming Ali had a fluke in his first fight and that Liston would get him this time around. However, to the astonishment of many, Ali not only defeated him again, but in a more humiliating manner: first minute of the first round. Because the fighters had barely gotten warmed up and the punch with which Ali had connected seemed to have not been so hard, many claimed that Liston had purposely taken the fall. Some say the Mafia forced Liston to purposely lose the fight because of pending dues he had with them. Others say that Liston himself was reported as stating that he threw the fight for fear of the black muslim sect that was campaigning Muhammad Ali’s boxing career. Due to being hard to see on regular speed, the punch that knocked out Liston was coined “the phantom punch.”

           Though some may discredit the phantom punch as the consequence of a corruption or exhortation, for those who do believe the punch do have connected flush it is an inspiration. No matter how many may count you out, if you believe in yourself nothing is outside your reach. Muhammad Ali, formerly known as Cassius Clay, demonstrated to the world that “Impossible is nothing.”

Muhammad Ali vs Sonny Liston (1965)

ALI Phantom Punch

          Candidates running for presidential office strive, even if only a farce, to build credibility for themselves. Every move they make, and every word they utter can and will be used against them. If a nominee deems it necessary to lie, he or she must first ask the question: how will a deliberate act of deceiving taint my integrity in the public’s eyes. Hilary Clinton seems have forgotten to ask herself this one simple question before she blatantly lied to the very people she is hoping to woo.

          Mrs. Clinton found her way onto the front pages of all newspapers when she “misspoke” of her trip to a military base in Bosnia in 1996, as first lady of the United States of America. Opposition in the media and political spectrum has justly used this as yet another weapon with which they can wage war against by far the most influential woman of our country’s era. How can it be, they argue, that the former first lady can make such a blunder? Shaking hands with people and greeting an eight year old pale in comparison to running and taking cover from snipers. How does one make such a ludicrous mix-up, without having done so deliberately? It is hard to believe that someone could confuse a placid walk among friendly bystanders, with a life changing homicide attempt. Hilary has some explaining to do…

           It is now her duty and responsibility to prove that she was not intentionally trying to mislead Americans to believe that she had fended for her life. In her attempt to do so, Mrs. Clinton has stated: “I say millions of words every week, and there’s a lot more room for error when you’re talking as much as I’m talking.” She has played the slip up card, along with the fact that the secret service and military had instilled in her the notion that she was going to arrive at a war zone (the military base in Bosnia). Even so, Hilary cannot escape the accusations of making up a farfetched story to embellish her reputation in the eyes of the undecided voters. The truth is self evident; she has to fess up and move on, otherwise everything coming out of her mouth from now on will seem like nothing more than futile attempts of gaining the admiration of voters.

          Hilary Clinton, like Obama who has been under close eye of the public, cannot take such ill-advised courses of action. She must not forget what is at stake and never lose sight of what is crucially needed to win: charisma, efficient plans, and most importantly credibility. It is do or die for Hilary; will she fall or will she stand tall?