Shorelines

 Frequent readers of my blog --- both of you :-) --- may recall that last fall when the Village was starting the Streetscape project, they had NO PARKING signs all along Oakland Avenue --- for days at a time when NO WORK was being done.

This week --- AGAIN --- on the 4400 block of North Oakland, which is heavily concentrated with small businesses that rely on walk in traffic --- the street has been marked NO PARKING all week although there has been NO WORK done.

Obviously, when they are working in the area, the construction crews need to have the street cleared of parked cars.  

But when they are not working in a retail area --- even if it is for one day only !!!! --- why can't they take the signs down or cover them.

Again --- let me ask of the  Village Government --- the Village Board Members --- the Administration ........... do ANY OF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE SMALL BUSINESSES IN SHOREWOOD ????

WHAT DO YOU THINK ?  PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW ! 

According to the Greater Milwaukee Realtor Association, of which I am a member ---- sales in April in the Milwaukee Area were still down: 

If this trend continues, it could affect the repayment of the TIF's the back the spending by the Village on various projects, as the cost of repayment could be spread to all property owners if the TIF properties do not appreciate in value. 

 County-by-county analysis

The contribution limits for individuals in the presidential primary race is $2300.  This has been a problem for Hillary Clinton whose money primarily came from big contributions, and quite a number of contributors who hit the limit, and could not be hit up for more, versus Barack Obama, whose contributions came from more individuals in smaller amounts --- individuals he could go back to several times, with no fear of their hitting the limit.

Although there is a limit on contributions from individuals to a candidate, the big loop hole in the campaign finance laws is that a candidate can contribute unlimited amounts to his or her own campaign.

So when she was running out of money in  February Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, and with continuing fundraising difficulties, she lent another $6.4 million in trying to beat back Obama in Indiana and North Carolina.

Now please note there is a Second Loop Hole in the campaign finance laws - Candidates don't have to actually lose the money they put into their campaigns, they can simply LOAN the money as Clinton did, and PAY THEMSELVES BACK with later contributions.

With Clinton's poor showings in North Carolina and Indiana, the political pundits have all but written off her chances of winning the nomination, especially as the math is against her possibility of getting enough pledged delegates to close the gap with Obama.

Many pundits are debating as to just why Hillary is still campaigning so hard, when it appears her chance of victory is somewhere between slim and none.

The pundits talk about her future political career, possible vice president aspirations, and the possibility of behind the scenes deals with the Super Delegates, as being her motivation.

I believe you simply have to FOLLOW THE MONEY !

Hillary does not want to eat her contributions --- she wants other folks to pay the bill.  After all, that has always been the Clinton Way !

By continuing her campaign, Hillary will continue to collect contributions.  But future contributors should not be too surprised to find that instead of using their money to continue the campaign, it may just be going back to Hillary's pocket !!!

WHAT DO YOU THINK ?  PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW !

As the results from the Indiana Primary showed, the Bubba vote that Hillary was so hotly pursuing in the recent weeks, did not come to her aid for a big win.

After Barack Obama made his comments about Small Town America:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing has replaced them, and it's not surprising they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, and it goes on--or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The Clintons tried very hard to make the case that Obama was an "elitist" who was out of touch with the working class, such as these comments that Bill Clinton made while campaigning for Hillary:

It's "not by race or even income," he said. "It's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules. In West Virginia and in Arkansas, we know that when we see it."

I find no lack of wonderment that Hillary is trying to appeal to the working folks as one of their kind, when her life was growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois (read very wealthy Chicago suburb) --- going to elite schools, and making a ton of money representing big special interests in Arkansas, such as Wal Mart and Tyson Chicken, as a lawyer who happened to be married to the sitting governor (funny how much money such a lawyer can make with that kind of connection).

Perhaps the height of the Clinton's duplicitous new found love for the working class, is exemplified by their acceptance of help from their political "pit bull" James Carville, in regards to Bill's many unwanted advances upon  "working" class women who happened to cross his path. 

Carville demeaned anyone who criticized his patron and once famously characterized a clerical worker in Arkansas state government as "trailer trash" when she truthfully told her humiliating story of Governor Clinton's inexcusable sexual advances.  

"You drag a dollar bill through a trailer park, and you never know what trash might turn up".

I give the Indiana voters credit for seeing beyond Hillary's new "shot and a beer" persona, and for seeing who she really is. 

Not so very long ago, Indiana was the birthplace of the Klu Klux Klan - but the people of Indiana, with their votes,  have shown that this is a New World in which Color of someone's skin will not necessarily be the sole criteria they vote on --- even when being subtlety and not so subtlety reminded of the race issue by the White Rich Woman Candidate.

Much has been said about the ability of Barack Obama to win over Independents and Undecided Voters ...... which will bode well for whichever Democratic Candidate faces off with John McCain.

McCain has a strong attraction to Independent Voters who do not necessarily vote a straight party line, but who look at the individual candidate's attributes. 

Politicians like McCain (and Obama) who have shown a willingness to work with the Party on the other side of the Aisle, are very attractive to Independents who are tired of the Same Old Politics and Political Polarization in our government.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama has done so well against Hillary Clinton, is that Clinton has long been seen as one of the Polarizing Politicians and is often a turn-off to Independent Voters and even Declared Democrats who are looking for Real Change.

As I noted in my previous posting, I believe the Media is portraying the Underwhelming Clinton win in Pennsylvania as an upset --- to keep the race going, along with the viewership of the News Shows and Media Advertising Sales that benefit from the continuation of the Race.

Clinton was forecasted early on to win Pennsylvania by 20 points or more, and her less than double win of 9 point some percent, showed that Obama was able to Whittle Her Lead by More than Half  ---  And among Registered Democrats ONLY !!! 

My Question of who won the Independent Voters in Pennsylvania was a TRICK QUESTION --- INDEPENDENTS COULD NOT VOTE IN EITHER PARTY PRIMARY --- AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN WISCONSIN !!!

Under Pennsylvania's system, a Voter must declare their Party Affiliation at least a Month Before the Election, and those who declare Independent, CANNOT vote for either a Republican or Democrat.

Would the ability of the Independents to vote for one of the Democratic Candidates been of benefit to Barack --- would it have put him over the line for the win ??? We will never know for sure, but based upon the effect of the Independent Voters in other races, it is a Very Probable Scenario that their ability to vote in the Democratic Contest would have been a Straight Win for Obama !!

And going on to the General Election --- the Independents will play a Very Big role in deciding between McCain and the Democratic Candidate. 

If the Independents do becoming the deciding factor in deciding our next president --- as they have had in every election since 1992 --- the Democrats will need Obama to be a Viable Alternative to McCain --- a role which Hillary, with all her Polarizing Baggage, cannot fulfill.          

WHAT DO YOU THINK ?  YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME !