Who is Nedra Pickler and why is she saying all those terrible things?
The bias and dishonesty of the press in this entire nominating process has been well known. But it still needs to be pointed out and names named and people held accountable whenever it rears its ugly head.
The latest example is from an Associated Press writer named Nedra Pickler.Her most recent application to rise in the ranks of America's journalistic politburo is a piece about Florida and Michigan on May 28th.
In an article under a byline by the Associated Press (which is showing every day the need to rename their wire service the Disassociated Press since they are getting further and further from reality) Pickler tells us that according to Democratic lawyers seating the entire Florida and Michigan delegates may be illegal.
Pickler seems to be unaware that in 1789 the Constitution gave the sole power to make laws to the Congress and not the Democratic Rules Committee. DNC rules have nothing to do with the law. In fact Arlen Specter has already said he thinks the DNC punishment in question is probably unconstitutional and wants a congressional investigation if the DNC does not seat all the delegates. But Pickler, who has a history of seeing things through Obama colored glasses reports to us that it might be illegal to seat all the delegates.
Pickler also writes that it would be a real problem to fully seat both delegations because not only might it be illegal, but how in the world could anyone figure out how to divide the delegates? How oh how could it possibly be done?
Obviously Pickler and her editors haven't considered the possibility of actually using the results of the elections as a way to do it especially since that is what elections are for in the first place. But for some reason this possibility eludes Pickler and her editors.
Then Pickler adds: "That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state."
That is what she said. And her editors let it go. Obama had his name pulled from the ballot.
One imagines Pickler trying to convey an image of a gallant Obama, engaged in a struggle with Democratic party leaders in Michigan who are trying to pull his name from the ballot against his wishes, Obama on one side and party leaders on the other, in a monumental tug of war, as Obama struggled against the forces of evil to stay on the ballot. Yes, in Pickler's scenario there was a real knock down drag out fight in Michigan with Obama putting up the good fight, but alas to no avail as the gallant warrior bruised but not bowed, clothes tattered and torn had his name pulled from the ballot by those no good Michigan Democratic Party leaders.
At this point one imagines Pickler dabbing her nose and eyes with her hanky, then soldiering on to finish her article.
I suppose this astute political journalist never saw the story in the Des Moines Register of Oct 2007, that Obama, as a political ploy because his internal polling showed he was going to get buried in Michigan by 20 pts, did his own pulling, He did it both to pander to Iowans and their first in the nation status, and in the hopes that others would follow suit ( only Edwards did) and embarrass Clinton as the only name on the ballot.
What Pickler also doesn't seem to know ( or maybe knows and chooses to ignore) is that Obama arranged to have his name on the ballot represented as "Uncommitted" and it was well publicized throughout Michigan. Which is why "Uncommitted" drew 40% of the vote (combined with Edwards), the second highest total behind Clinton. John Conyers even financed radio commercials to get the message out.
As for how to divide the vote, it seems beyond Pickler's ability ( giving her the benefit of the doubt). But it's fairly simple and straightforward. Give Edwards the 14% he has averaged in all his primaries and give Obama the remaining 26%. Given that Obama's own polling showed him losing by 20 pts and that Clinton received 56% of the vote, my formula seems to have a lot more validity than Pickler's fantasies.
But our intrepid journalist wasn't finished. She wrote this - "As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination.."
The question of course is clear to who? The majority of people in the Democratic Party who have voted for Clinton to be the nominee? Is it clear to them? Is it clear to the pollsters and the people who do the electoral vote projections that shows that Clinton beats McCain handily in electoral votes while Obama gets crushed by McCain? The projection as of May 28th shows Clinton beating McCain in the electoral college 327-194. Those are landslide numbers. What the projection also shows is that Clinton wins Kentucky and W.Va. and Obama loses both.
But Pickler says "it's become clear that Obama will likely win the nomination".
Is it really clear ? Or is Pickler thinking about her future and trying to show the same collection of people who called Bush's case for war in Iraq "irrefutable", that she can be as inept and biased and corrupt as they are?
Notes From the Revolution: Politics, current events, failures of the mainstream news media and Living in the Age of Stupidity.
Pages
▼
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
THE RFK ASSASSINATION, CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, AND OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION OF THE TRUTH
Politics is a dirty business. Everybody knows that. You don’t have to be a political science major to see this.
But the other day thanks to Barack Obama, his campaign manager, The Axelrod of Evil, and the mainstream news media it just got dirtier.A lot dirtier.In fact it got dirtier than anything politics has seen since the days of Richard Nixon.And that's not being fair to Nixon because I doubt even he would have ever stooped as low as Obama did in his response to Clinton's remarks.
Bill Burton from the Obama campaign and Barack Obama himself responding to Clinton's remarks about RFK immediately issued a statement that Clinton's remarks "were unfortunate and had no place in the campaign".Just in case the idiots in the news media didn't get the point Burton included a link to a NY Post story referencing Obama's early secret service protection and that he had been the recipient of threats.
The implication that the Obama campaign was trying to convey and which many in the media swallowed like trained seals catching a fish, was that her remarks implied that she was staying in the race just in case someone knocked off Obama. The press dutifully behaved like the trained seals they have been since the beginning and swallowed the fish that was thrown to them, then blew their horns.
Keith Olbermann,who tries every night to be the Value Meal version of Edward R. Murrow, swallowed the fish, and did some of the biggest tricks, throwing his head around with the fish in his mouth, eating it, then blowing the horn the loudest as he joined the growing list of pro Obama journalists making total fools out of themselves, shredding their credibility worse than it was before. Anyone who watched Olbermann give you your Value Meal dollar's worth saw that he had his knee jerking uncontrollably while he spat out the the word "assassination".
(Maybe we should get him a horn to blow to put on his desk).
Less than 24 hours later, Olbermann and the NY Post, and other main stream news outlets looked like their jerking knees knocked out their front teeth since Robert Kennedy Jr and the board of the newspaper to whom Clinton made the remarks came to her defense and anyone with 2c for a brain which seems to exclude Olbermann and the NY Post and as usual, Andrea Mitchell, knew that Clinton had not been referencing Obama or assassinations but that Kennedy had been campaigning into June when he had been assassinated.
Yes a clumsy remark and not the best reference she could have used, but that was more the fault of her campaign than anything else, a failure on the part of her campaign people for not having a prepared and well thought out answer for a question they had to know was coming. And given all the good answers she has to that question it makes you wonder what these people behind the scenes are doing.
But when Obama issued his statement he and his campaign hit new lows when they twisted her response so that Obama could play something he loves to play-- the victim.The passive - aggressive victim.
It's not the first time The day after the ABC debate when Obama was nailed consistently and hammered with questions he couldnt adequately answer, he accused Clinton in a speech the very next day, of "sticking in the knife and twisting it". And this is what Obama has been doing from the beginning while the news media aids and abetts his political muggings. He sucker punches Clinton then hits the deck and acts the victim so if Clinton hits back he cries victimhood.
Obama then went into Act Two of his passive/aggressive dirty politics drama when he accepted an apology from Clinton that she didnt give him and that he didn't have coming. Again the equivalent of hitting the ground after you sucker punch someone so the person cant hit back and if they do you scream that you re being attacked. Another cute little trick from Mr. Rejecting the Politics of the Past.
First he and the Axelrod of Evil put out this nonsense in much the same way Bush accused Kerry of "insulting the troops" ( Obama has learned his Karl Rove lessons well), hoping to stir up a media frenzy which it did, and then Obama hits the pavement before she can swing back, say he accepts her apology ( when she wasn't even apologizing to him) and then The Axelrod of Evil goes on television and says after the sucker punch does as much damage as it can, that, as far as he is concerned the incident is over.That is Obama once again hitting the deck.
It's probably time for Clinton supporters to let them know its not over. Maybe its time to let them know that after this it's never going to be over.
If this isn't the last straw for Clinton voters it probably should be. Clinton voters and everyone connected to her campaign should let it be known publicly and to Obama personally that after this, there will be no reconciliation, no unity, no coming together IF super delegates are stupid enough and corrupt enough to subvert the democratic system and give the nomination to the person the majority of Democrats have voted against . They should let everyone know there will be no reconciliaton. In fact if Obama gets the nomination the winds are already blowing for a huge democratic defeat in the fall.
And then the Democrats responsible will once again wonder why Democrats lose elections.
The Democratic party cannot afford to send out a candidate the majority of voters voted against. They cant afford to send out a candidate just to fullfill a false and corrupt media agenda. And the Democrats cant afford to send out a dirty politician as their presidential candidate. The country will not elect a dirty politician. Not one who has shown the capacity to be as dirty as Obama.
What Obama did with Clinton's remarks would have been too low even for Nixon. To exploit one of the country's greatest tragedies for his own political gain would have been beneath Nixon. But not Obama.
Whatever ones wants to say about McCain, however much one wants to disagree with him ( and I do about almost everything) he is a clean politician. There is nothing dirty about him or his politics. On the other hand, Obama is not only unprepared for the job he wants, he is not only not qualified for the job he wants, he is unfit for the job he wants. His lack of character has been apparent for a long time.What he and Axelrod did with Clinton's remarks speaks for itself. Obama would lose in a landslide to John McCain and he would deserve to. He has nothing to run on.
It will be up to the remaining super delegates,even the ones Obama is trying to bribe with campaigin contributions (more on that in another peice), to decide if the country is going to be more important than their campaign chests. If they do Clinton wins the nomination because when the primary process is over she will be the choice of the majority of democrats and will beat Obama handily in every metric available. It already obvious that the delegate apportionment system is corrupt and in no way a reliable indicator of the will of the people.
If super delegates corrupt the democratic process and send out a dishonest and dirty politician like Obama, one that the majority of Democrats voted against, the Democrats are assured of losing in November.
Super delegates have only one decision to make now. Do they want a Democrat in the White House come January or not. Because any super delegate vote for Obama is going to be a vote for John McCain. And in the fall.17 million Clinton voters are going to make sure of that. And no one can blame them.
But the other day thanks to Barack Obama, his campaign manager, The Axelrod of Evil, and the mainstream news media it just got dirtier.A lot dirtier.In fact it got dirtier than anything politics has seen since the days of Richard Nixon.And that's not being fair to Nixon because I doubt even he would have ever stooped as low as Obama did in his response to Clinton's remarks.
Bill Burton from the Obama campaign and Barack Obama himself responding to Clinton's remarks about RFK immediately issued a statement that Clinton's remarks "were unfortunate and had no place in the campaign".Just in case the idiots in the news media didn't get the point Burton included a link to a NY Post story referencing Obama's early secret service protection and that he had been the recipient of threats.
The implication that the Obama campaign was trying to convey and which many in the media swallowed like trained seals catching a fish, was that her remarks implied that she was staying in the race just in case someone knocked off Obama. The press dutifully behaved like the trained seals they have been since the beginning and swallowed the fish that was thrown to them, then blew their horns.
Keith Olbermann,who tries every night to be the Value Meal version of Edward R. Murrow, swallowed the fish, and did some of the biggest tricks, throwing his head around with the fish in his mouth, eating it, then blowing the horn the loudest as he joined the growing list of pro Obama journalists making total fools out of themselves, shredding their credibility worse than it was before. Anyone who watched Olbermann give you your Value Meal dollar's worth saw that he had his knee jerking uncontrollably while he spat out the the word "assassination".
(Maybe we should get him a horn to blow to put on his desk).
Less than 24 hours later, Olbermann and the NY Post, and other main stream news outlets looked like their jerking knees knocked out their front teeth since Robert Kennedy Jr and the board of the newspaper to whom Clinton made the remarks came to her defense and anyone with 2c for a brain which seems to exclude Olbermann and the NY Post and as usual, Andrea Mitchell, knew that Clinton had not been referencing Obama or assassinations but that Kennedy had been campaigning into June when he had been assassinated.
Yes a clumsy remark and not the best reference she could have used, but that was more the fault of her campaign than anything else, a failure on the part of her campaign people for not having a prepared and well thought out answer for a question they had to know was coming. And given all the good answers she has to that question it makes you wonder what these people behind the scenes are doing.
But when Obama issued his statement he and his campaign hit new lows when they twisted her response so that Obama could play something he loves to play-- the victim.The passive - aggressive victim.
It's not the first time The day after the ABC debate when Obama was nailed consistently and hammered with questions he couldnt adequately answer, he accused Clinton in a speech the very next day, of "sticking in the knife and twisting it". And this is what Obama has been doing from the beginning while the news media aids and abetts his political muggings. He sucker punches Clinton then hits the deck and acts the victim so if Clinton hits back he cries victimhood.
Obama then went into Act Two of his passive/aggressive dirty politics drama when he accepted an apology from Clinton that she didnt give him and that he didn't have coming. Again the equivalent of hitting the ground after you sucker punch someone so the person cant hit back and if they do you scream that you re being attacked. Another cute little trick from Mr. Rejecting the Politics of the Past.
First he and the Axelrod of Evil put out this nonsense in much the same way Bush accused Kerry of "insulting the troops" ( Obama has learned his Karl Rove lessons well), hoping to stir up a media frenzy which it did, and then Obama hits the pavement before she can swing back, say he accepts her apology ( when she wasn't even apologizing to him) and then The Axelrod of Evil goes on television and says after the sucker punch does as much damage as it can, that, as far as he is concerned the incident is over.That is Obama once again hitting the deck.
It's probably time for Clinton supporters to let them know its not over. Maybe its time to let them know that after this it's never going to be over.
If this isn't the last straw for Clinton voters it probably should be. Clinton voters and everyone connected to her campaign should let it be known publicly and to Obama personally that after this, there will be no reconciliation, no unity, no coming together IF super delegates are stupid enough and corrupt enough to subvert the democratic system and give the nomination to the person the majority of Democrats have voted against . They should let everyone know there will be no reconciliaton. In fact if Obama gets the nomination the winds are already blowing for a huge democratic defeat in the fall.
And then the Democrats responsible will once again wonder why Democrats lose elections.
The Democratic party cannot afford to send out a candidate the majority of voters voted against. They cant afford to send out a candidate just to fullfill a false and corrupt media agenda. And the Democrats cant afford to send out a dirty politician as their presidential candidate. The country will not elect a dirty politician. Not one who has shown the capacity to be as dirty as Obama.
What Obama did with Clinton's remarks would have been too low even for Nixon. To exploit one of the country's greatest tragedies for his own political gain would have been beneath Nixon. But not Obama.
Whatever ones wants to say about McCain, however much one wants to disagree with him ( and I do about almost everything) he is a clean politician. There is nothing dirty about him or his politics. On the other hand, Obama is not only unprepared for the job he wants, he is not only not qualified for the job he wants, he is unfit for the job he wants. His lack of character has been apparent for a long time.What he and Axelrod did with Clinton's remarks speaks for itself. Obama would lose in a landslide to John McCain and he would deserve to. He has nothing to run on.
It will be up to the remaining super delegates,even the ones Obama is trying to bribe with campaigin contributions (more on that in another peice), to decide if the country is going to be more important than their campaign chests. If they do Clinton wins the nomination because when the primary process is over she will be the choice of the majority of democrats and will beat Obama handily in every metric available. It already obvious that the delegate apportionment system is corrupt and in no way a reliable indicator of the will of the people.
If super delegates corrupt the democratic process and send out a dishonest and dirty politician like Obama, one that the majority of Democrats voted against, the Democrats are assured of losing in November.
Super delegates have only one decision to make now. Do they want a Democrat in the White House come January or not. Because any super delegate vote for Obama is going to be a vote for John McCain. And in the fall.17 million Clinton voters are going to make sure of that. And no one can blame them.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AND OBAMA'S CORRUPT CAMPAIGN
Nothing is more detrimental to the country as a whole than political corruption in any guise. So the statement issued by Barack Obama the other day regarding Florida and Michigan should be seen for what it is: a politician willing to engage in whatever undermining of the democratic process it takes to achieve his political ambition.
In his statement, Obama said that he would support a solution regarding the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates "as long as it was fair to both sides". This is Obama intentionally ignoring the fact that the elections and the results they produced were already fair to both sides.
The fairness of those elections and their results are not and never have been in dispute.The validity of those elections have never been in doubt. And both have been certified by their respective secretaries of state.
The only issue surrounding those elections, is whether the delegates won by each candidate as a result of those primaries will be seated and allowed to participate in the nomination process. The entire controversy is an internal DNC dispute involving a scheduling conflict that had nothing to do with Barack Obama. No one was put at any disadvantage because of either state's decision to move their primaries up.
The decision as to whether to allow them to be seated relates only to the threatened punishment by the DNC against the state parties for moving the primaries to an earlier date. It had nothing to do with validity of those elections and Obama has no argument regarding the validity of the results. He was at no disadvantage, the results are valid and accurate and everyone including Obama knows it.
The DNC threat to ban the delegates was simply stupid from day one. And for journalists who have been in the tank for Obama and the Obama campaign itself, to say Florida and Michigan broke the rules so they should not count, is simply all of them sticking their noses into DNC business. None of them work for the DNC. it's an interna party matter about scheduling and whether any of them think the DNC rules are good or bad is irrelevant to what the DNC decides to do. Yet Obama and these journalists continue to say that these states broke the rules. As if they have anything to say about the DNC rules with regards to anything.
If the DNC rules were that candidates had to hop on one leg 10 times in that state without losing their balance or they lose their delegates and Clinton didn't do it what would Obama and these journalists say? She should lose her delegates because she broke the rules?
What the DNC threatened is just as stupid and the Obama camp and journalists who insist on talking about "the rules" are just as stupid when they try and justify not seating Florida and Michigan because they broke "the rules".
If the DNC decides on a punishment that is more in keeping with a petty scheduling conflict instead of one that completely subverts the nominating process for President of the United States, there is no reason for both elections not to stand exactly as they are. Its all or nothing. There is no compromise that makes any sense.As soon as you start to compromise the very democratic process itself everyone loses.
So when Obama says he wants a "fair" resolution what he really means in his patented passive aggressive style is that he wants an unfair resolution. Unfair to Clinton, since the only fair resolution is to seat all the delegates as per the results of the elections. The elections were fair. The only additional fairness needed is to count them.
Every decision and statement coming out of a presidential campaign is the product of people sitting in a room discussing and dissecting every possible angle, going through every possible scenario, and parsing every word used in a statement. So, when Obama issues a statement about wanting a resolution to Florida and Michigan "as long as its fair" , we know this is not the wail in the wilderness of a lost and wronged soul staggering through the forest of an unfair world, pleading for fairness as rain pelts his face and tears stream down his cheeks. It's a well thought out deviously political calculation designed, not to be fair but to be unfair to Clinton under the guise of fairness, since the only really fair resolution is obvious: seat all the delegates exactly as dictated by the results of the election.
If the DNC wants to punish anyone let them punish the party leaders and ban them from the convention not delegates representing the 2.7 million who voted.
When it comes to Michigan, Obama still tries to brazenly argue that his name wasn't on the ballot. He tries to get away with this dishonesty only because he knows the news media he has in pocket will let him get away with it.
Here is what happened in Michigan as reported in the Des Moines Register in October of 2007.
Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.
John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).
But Obama topped that display about six weeks ago when he floated the idea that he and Clinton split the delegate count in Florida and Michigan 50-50 as a way of resolving the problem. In other words he wanted delegates that didn't belong to him. This was an attempt at a political mugging. He wanted delegates that weren't his, delegates the voters clearly said were meant for Clinton and delegates they clearly didn't want him to have. It was about as brazen an attempt to to corrupt the political process by a candidate for high office as has been seen in recent memory.
If Clinton had made such a proposal the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Betsy Reed, Roger Simon, the ethically and racially challenged Richard Kim, Olbermann, Arianna Huffintington and every other journalist who has corrupted every journalistic principle in existence in supporting Obama, perhaps as a way of somehow absolving themselves of their own racial issues, would have accused Clinton of the lowest form of political bottom scraping.
Yet Obama was ready willing and able to do just that, to take delegates he didn't deserve which is nothing short of stealing the voices of the people he pretends to champion except when those voices interfere with his personal ambition. And this coming from the side that has accused Clinton of doing anything to win.
Given everything that has gone on, the cheap shots of the Obama campaign from his hit and run tactics with his foreign policy advisor calling Clinton " a monster" and then quickly resigning ( as if that was a spontaneous outburst), Richardson and Leahy's pathetically transparent and orchestrated good cop/bad cop routine where they call for Clinton to get out of the race and then have Obama come along, knight in shining armour that he is, and proclaim that she "should stay in the race as long as she wants", ( as if he had to anything to say about it), and then playing the race card in South Carolina, there is a case to be made that Barack Obama is the most politically dishonest, corrupt and underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. He even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas in the person of Alice Palmer.
The joke pinned on Richard Nixon in the Fifties and Sixties for his political underhandedness and dishonesty was "Would you buy a used car from this man"? Well, would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Not if you lived in Florida or Michigan. Maybe not if you live anywhere.
To contribute to the to the running of a full page ad and a 30 second TV commerical I have written for the seating of Florida and Michigan for the PAC Countthevotescast.org click here: COUNTTHEVOTESCAST.ORG
NOTE: .I was told today that the DNC is in big trouble financially, down to $3.5 million against $35 million for the Republicans. Anyone supporting the full seating of Florida and Michigan can call the DNC and the finance committee in Washington and let them know they will not see another contribution now or in the future unless all the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated.
The main switchboard for the DNC is: 202-863-8000. The number that deals specifically with contributions or questions about contributions is: 877-336-7200
Additionally, anyone making a contribution to the Clinton campaign via the link provided (Hillary Clinton For President), will have the contribution matched by a contributor to the
Count the Votes Cast.org PAC for the running of the ad and TV commericial. Contributions will be matched from $25 to $5,000. For every contribution sent under $25, $1 will be sent to the Count the Votes Cast PAC. You can also get more information about contributing to the Florida and Michigan seating here:ACTION ALERT FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
In his statement, Obama said that he would support a solution regarding the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates "as long as it was fair to both sides". This is Obama intentionally ignoring the fact that the elections and the results they produced were already fair to both sides.
The fairness of those elections and their results are not and never have been in dispute.The validity of those elections have never been in doubt. And both have been certified by their respective secretaries of state.
The only issue surrounding those elections, is whether the delegates won by each candidate as a result of those primaries will be seated and allowed to participate in the nomination process. The entire controversy is an internal DNC dispute involving a scheduling conflict that had nothing to do with Barack Obama. No one was put at any disadvantage because of either state's decision to move their primaries up.
The decision as to whether to allow them to be seated relates only to the threatened punishment by the DNC against the state parties for moving the primaries to an earlier date. It had nothing to do with validity of those elections and Obama has no argument regarding the validity of the results. He was at no disadvantage, the results are valid and accurate and everyone including Obama knows it.
The DNC threat to ban the delegates was simply stupid from day one. And for journalists who have been in the tank for Obama and the Obama campaign itself, to say Florida and Michigan broke the rules so they should not count, is simply all of them sticking their noses into DNC business. None of them work for the DNC. it's an interna party matter about scheduling and whether any of them think the DNC rules are good or bad is irrelevant to what the DNC decides to do. Yet Obama and these journalists continue to say that these states broke the rules. As if they have anything to say about the DNC rules with regards to anything.
If the DNC rules were that candidates had to hop on one leg 10 times in that state without losing their balance or they lose their delegates and Clinton didn't do it what would Obama and these journalists say? She should lose her delegates because she broke the rules?
What the DNC threatened is just as stupid and the Obama camp and journalists who insist on talking about "the rules" are just as stupid when they try and justify not seating Florida and Michigan because they broke "the rules".
If the DNC decides on a punishment that is more in keeping with a petty scheduling conflict instead of one that completely subverts the nominating process for President of the United States, there is no reason for both elections not to stand exactly as they are. Its all or nothing. There is no compromise that makes any sense.As soon as you start to compromise the very democratic process itself everyone loses.
So when Obama says he wants a "fair" resolution what he really means in his patented passive aggressive style is that he wants an unfair resolution. Unfair to Clinton, since the only fair resolution is to seat all the delegates as per the results of the elections. The elections were fair. The only additional fairness needed is to count them.
Every decision and statement coming out of a presidential campaign is the product of people sitting in a room discussing and dissecting every possible angle, going through every possible scenario, and parsing every word used in a statement. So, when Obama issues a statement about wanting a resolution to Florida and Michigan "as long as its fair" , we know this is not the wail in the wilderness of a lost and wronged soul staggering through the forest of an unfair world, pleading for fairness as rain pelts his face and tears stream down his cheeks. It's a well thought out deviously political calculation designed, not to be fair but to be unfair to Clinton under the guise of fairness, since the only really fair resolution is obvious: seat all the delegates exactly as dictated by the results of the election.
If the DNC wants to punish anyone let them punish the party leaders and ban them from the convention not delegates representing the 2.7 million who voted.
When it comes to Michigan, Obama still tries to brazenly argue that his name wasn't on the ballot. He tries to get away with this dishonesty only because he knows the news media he has in pocket will let him get away with it.
Here is what happened in Michigan as reported in the Des Moines Register in October of 2007.
Obama's internal polling showed he was going to get get landslided by Clinton in Michigan. His own polling had him behind by 20 points. So as a political calculation and to pander to Iowa voters in the upcoming caucus he made a gratuitous public gesture of taking his name off the ballot in Michigan, both because he knew he was going to lose big and to curry favor with Iowans and their first in the nation status. But at the same time he was making a deal with the Michigan Democratic Party for his name to be represented in the primary by the line "Uncommitted" and to have that publicized.
John Edwards joined the uncommitted line and every single voter in Michigan knew long before election day that to vote for Obama or Edwards you voted the "uncommitted line. It was well publicized and everyone knew it. And the proof that they knew it is that "uncommitted" received 40.7% of the vote, the second highest total, while Clinton received 56%. The rest went to the other candidates on the ballot (uninformed journalists and Obama supporters have often said Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Not so).
But Obama topped that display about six weeks ago when he floated the idea that he and Clinton split the delegate count in Florida and Michigan 50-50 as a way of resolving the problem. In other words he wanted delegates that didn't belong to him. This was an attempt at a political mugging. He wanted delegates that weren't his, delegates the voters clearly said were meant for Clinton and delegates they clearly didn't want him to have. It was about as brazen an attempt to to corrupt the political process by a candidate for high office as has been seen in recent memory.
If Clinton had made such a proposal the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Betsy Reed, Roger Simon, the ethically and racially challenged Richard Kim, Olbermann, Arianna Huffintington and every other journalist who has corrupted every journalistic principle in existence in supporting Obama, perhaps as a way of somehow absolving themselves of their own racial issues, would have accused Clinton of the lowest form of political bottom scraping.
Yet Obama was ready willing and able to do just that, to take delegates he didn't deserve which is nothing short of stealing the voices of the people he pretends to champion except when those voices interfere with his personal ambition. And this coming from the side that has accused Clinton of doing anything to win.
Given everything that has gone on, the cheap shots of the Obama campaign from his hit and run tactics with his foreign policy advisor calling Clinton " a monster" and then quickly resigning ( as if that was a spontaneous outburst), Richardson and Leahy's pathetically transparent and orchestrated good cop/bad cop routine where they call for Clinton to get out of the race and then have Obama come along, knight in shining armour that he is, and proclaim that she "should stay in the race as long as she wants", ( as if he had to anything to say about it), and then playing the race card in South Carolina, there is a case to be made that Barack Obama is the most politically dishonest, corrupt and underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. He even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas in the person of Alice Palmer.
The joke pinned on Richard Nixon in the Fifties and Sixties for his political underhandedness and dishonesty was "Would you buy a used car from this man"? Well, would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Not if you lived in Florida or Michigan. Maybe not if you live anywhere.
To contribute to the to the running of a full page ad and a 30 second TV commerical I have written for the seating of Florida and Michigan for the PAC Countthevotescast.org click here: COUNTTHEVOTESCAST.ORG
NOTE: .I was told today that the DNC is in big trouble financially, down to $3.5 million against $35 million for the Republicans. Anyone supporting the full seating of Florida and Michigan can call the DNC and the finance committee in Washington and let them know they will not see another contribution now or in the future unless all the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated.
The main switchboard for the DNC is: 202-863-8000. The number that deals specifically with contributions or questions about contributions is: 877-336-7200
Additionally, anyone making a contribution to the Clinton campaign via the link provided (Hillary Clinton For President), will have the contribution matched by a contributor to the
Count the Votes Cast.org PAC for the running of the ad and TV commericial. Contributions will be matched from $25 to $5,000. For every contribution sent under $25, $1 will be sent to the Count the Votes Cast PAC. You can also get more information about contributing to the Florida and Michigan seating here:ACTION ALERT FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
THE NEW MATH FOR CLINTON, AN OLD HORSE RACE FOR OBAMA
Barack Obama gave a speech last night which is typical of Obama and the twisted view of reality he likes to put forward. The essence of his speech is that he is now less than 100 delegates shy of the 2026 he needs for the nomination and therefore the nomination was now "in reach".
People like to refer to certain aspects of the nominating process as "a horse race". I don't know how many races Senator Obama has seen but every day at tracks all across the country, there are horses leading in the stretch, the finish line within reach, and they lose. Sometimes convincingly by open lengths, sometimes closer. But they lose. And they lose because they weren't the best horse. It happens every day. Sometimes the race is close because the best horse is given a handicap and carries a lot more weight than the other horse -- enough to slow it down but not enough to stop it.
Clinton has had to fight through a number of handicaps in this race. She has had to carry more weight, placed on her back by the news media, Obama's bullying tactics and party elders who seem more worried about damaging the "brand", and blowing their chances in the fall than who is the best candidate. And when Obama's lead was growing they were more worried about exposing the cracks in the Obama kewpie doll, than whether those cracks were so damaging they made him unelectable in November. The result is that every time Obama has attacked Clinton and she has hit back, she was criticized from all sides.
The news media who has been in the tank for Obama in probably the most dishonest and biased coverage of an electoral process in history, accuses her of low tactics if she defends herself. Party elders who, if nothing else, have shown since 1996 they haven't a clue how to win a Presidential election, admonish her not to do anything that would damage the Democrats chances in the fall. Howard Dean, more afraid of not losing than making sure the Democrats win by sending out the most electable and qualified candidate, keeps talking about putting an end to race before its over. And Obama seeing that Clinton has one hand tied behind her back, has taken full advantage, taking his swings when he can, then playing victim if Clinton hits back.
This is a race where Clinton is running with 150 lbs on her back and Obama 110. And even with all that she is now in position to win.
With yesterday's primaries Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote by 179,704 votes with 12% of the precincts yet to report in Oregon. It also includes the Florida and Michigan vote totals where I allocated 149,010 votes to Barack Obama for his share of the "uncommitted" line in Michigan.
As anyone familiar with what really went on in Michigan knows, Obama arranged with the state Democratic committee to have his name represented by a line that read "Uncommitted" and every voter in Michigan knew it. John Edwards agreed to be part of the "uncommitted" line so the only issue was apportioning the 40.7% of the uncommitted vote. I gave Edwards the 14% of the vote average he had gotten everywhere else and Obama a little over 25%. When Florida and Michigan are factored in, Clinton has the popular vote lead. With regards to delegates, Obama's lead is now by 94 delegates and that will get smaller after Puerto Rico where 55 delegates up for grabs. Clinton is expected to do even better in Puerto Rico than she did in Kentucky.
Clinton is virtually assured that she will end the primary season with the popular vote lead. And the only clear and reliable indicator of the true will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count given the Democrats bizarre way of apportioning delegates.
Obama will have won close to 630 delegates in states where he was landslided by Clinton. These are delegates he would never have if the Democrats used the system that is used by the Republicans and in the general election. In that system Clinton would have close to a 500 delegate lead and would have wrapped up the nomination long ago.
Nancy Pelosi in her ill advised remarks about what super delegates should do, essentially said they have to ratify the will of the people, not use their own judgement. She was talking about the delegate count, aptly displaying how she led the Democratic congress to a lower job approval rating than George Bush. But the true and only measure of the will of the people is the popular vote.
Super delegates need to be pressured to take note of this. They respond to both political pressure and to undeniable facts. They need to know that their job is now is to deliver their vote based on the will of the people and the undeniable facts, not a set of false expectations created by the Obama campaign and the news media.
Obama's speech last night about the nomination being within reach while Clinton dismantled him by 35 pts in Kentucky might have been especially fitting. In the 1957 Kentucky Derby, Bill Shoemaker misjudged the finish line aboard the favorite Gallant Man and stood up in the saddle too soon thinking the race was over. Iron Leige closing like a freight train caught him, passed him and won the 1957 Kentucky Derby.
Last night we may have seen Barack Obama stand up in the saddle too soon.
People like to refer to certain aspects of the nominating process as "a horse race". I don't know how many races Senator Obama has seen but every day at tracks all across the country, there are horses leading in the stretch, the finish line within reach, and they lose. Sometimes convincingly by open lengths, sometimes closer. But they lose. And they lose because they weren't the best horse. It happens every day. Sometimes the race is close because the best horse is given a handicap and carries a lot more weight than the other horse -- enough to slow it down but not enough to stop it.
Clinton has had to fight through a number of handicaps in this race. She has had to carry more weight, placed on her back by the news media, Obama's bullying tactics and party elders who seem more worried about damaging the "brand", and blowing their chances in the fall than who is the best candidate. And when Obama's lead was growing they were more worried about exposing the cracks in the Obama kewpie doll, than whether those cracks were so damaging they made him unelectable in November. The result is that every time Obama has attacked Clinton and she has hit back, she was criticized from all sides.
The news media who has been in the tank for Obama in probably the most dishonest and biased coverage of an electoral process in history, accuses her of low tactics if she defends herself. Party elders who, if nothing else, have shown since 1996 they haven't a clue how to win a Presidential election, admonish her not to do anything that would damage the Democrats chances in the fall. Howard Dean, more afraid of not losing than making sure the Democrats win by sending out the most electable and qualified candidate, keeps talking about putting an end to race before its over. And Obama seeing that Clinton has one hand tied behind her back, has taken full advantage, taking his swings when he can, then playing victim if Clinton hits back.
This is a race where Clinton is running with 150 lbs on her back and Obama 110. And even with all that she is now in position to win.
With yesterday's primaries Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote by 179,704 votes with 12% of the precincts yet to report in Oregon. It also includes the Florida and Michigan vote totals where I allocated 149,010 votes to Barack Obama for his share of the "uncommitted" line in Michigan.
As anyone familiar with what really went on in Michigan knows, Obama arranged with the state Democratic committee to have his name represented by a line that read "Uncommitted" and every voter in Michigan knew it. John Edwards agreed to be part of the "uncommitted" line so the only issue was apportioning the 40.7% of the uncommitted vote. I gave Edwards the 14% of the vote average he had gotten everywhere else and Obama a little over 25%. When Florida and Michigan are factored in, Clinton has the popular vote lead. With regards to delegates, Obama's lead is now by 94 delegates and that will get smaller after Puerto Rico where 55 delegates up for grabs. Clinton is expected to do even better in Puerto Rico than she did in Kentucky.
Clinton is virtually assured that she will end the primary season with the popular vote lead. And the only clear and reliable indicator of the true will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count given the Democrats bizarre way of apportioning delegates.
Obama will have won close to 630 delegates in states where he was landslided by Clinton. These are delegates he would never have if the Democrats used the system that is used by the Republicans and in the general election. In that system Clinton would have close to a 500 delegate lead and would have wrapped up the nomination long ago.
Nancy Pelosi in her ill advised remarks about what super delegates should do, essentially said they have to ratify the will of the people, not use their own judgement. She was talking about the delegate count, aptly displaying how she led the Democratic congress to a lower job approval rating than George Bush. But the true and only measure of the will of the people is the popular vote.
Super delegates need to be pressured to take note of this. They respond to both political pressure and to undeniable facts. They need to know that their job is now is to deliver their vote based on the will of the people and the undeniable facts, not a set of false expectations created by the Obama campaign and the news media.
Obama's speech last night about the nomination being within reach while Clinton dismantled him by 35 pts in Kentucky might have been especially fitting. In the 1957 Kentucky Derby, Bill Shoemaker misjudged the finish line aboard the favorite Gallant Man and stood up in the saddle too soon thinking the race was over. Iron Leige closing like a freight train caught him, passed him and won the 1957 Kentucky Derby.
Last night we may have seen Barack Obama stand up in the saddle too soon.
Monday, May 12, 2008
THE ISSUE OF RACE AND OBAMA'S UNCIVIL WAR
Back in Februrary Barack Obama gave a speech about race that some called his Lincoln Moment. At the time,I called it Obama's "I am not a crook" moment since it was more than anything else, an attempt to deflect attention from his 17 year relationship with Wright and to seek political absolution for his failure to disassociate himself with Wright's racially inflammatory and divisive views.
Of course Obama eventually did cut his ties to Wright. The candidate who has campaigned as the one with the judgement to be ready on day one, cut his ties to Wright but it took till day 6,205 to do it.
And given what we know about Michele Obama's views on race, another reason he might not have disassociated himself with Wright for 17 years is that Obama didn't want to sleep on the couch. When you listen to Wright and recall MIchelle Obama's statement that it took Obama winning the Iowa caucus for her to be proud of the United States for the first time in her life, you can clearly see a connection between Wright's views and her own beliefs. And one could assume there havent been too many fights over the kitchen table about Wright's anti-American, ant-white, anti-Semetic sermons. So divisive views on race have been there for a long time. And despite anything Obama says publicly to the contrary, some of these views may be his own. Or at least partly his own.
When I called Obama's speech his "I am not a crook moment" I also didn't realize at the time how prophetic the comparison with Nixon was going to be since Obama has turned out to be one of the most divisive political figures since Nixon.The candidate who said he has this great talent for unifying people, a talent that shows up nowhere in his past, has created more divisiveness in the Democratic party than any figure in history.But the issue that has caused one of the most serious divisions is the one that Obama himself has created over race.
The people who were dazzled by Obama;'s speech on race and saw him as some kind of unifying figure were, of course, the same people who gushed over Bush's case for going to war in Iraq, the people who called Bush's case, "compelling", and "a slam dunk". This was the speech that the news media praised for its profundity, honesty and sincerity, the speech where Obama said he could no sooner disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown a member of his own family which might give his wife and children something to worry about.
But the issue of race that the Obama candidacy was in the process of erasing, which started to bubble underneath the surface, has started to boil over largely because Obama has been the one stirring the cauldron.
Clinton didn't help with her "hard working white people" comment but its indicative of how the issue of race, and race baiting by Obama and his campaign has poisoned the atmosphere to the point where someone who was out registering black voters 35 years ago and who has long standing ties to the African American community is now talking about "white people"
Most of the dishonest and biased press supporting Obama's candidacy are going to jump on Clinton because it fuels their biased pro Obama agenda and it also lets them feel good about themselves and show how un-racist and forward thinking they are. So they will use her remarks to further poison the atmosphere and create deeper racial divides in the service of an Obama candidacy ( this from the people who have accused Clinton of doing anything to win). But its an atmosphere poisoned by Obama almost from the beginning with his wife's remarks after Iowa,, his subsequent tactics, and whether anyone likes it or not, 17 years of Jeremiah Wright.
Race has always played a role from the beginning, either notable by its absence in Obama's victory in the Iowa caucus and mostly white mid west caucus states, or notably present in getting 90% of the African American vote. Unless you believe that one ethnic group has suddenly acquired a monopoly on wisdom,about half of the 90% of African Americans voting for him were voting for him because of skin color, the same reason their grandparents couldn't use white restrooms
Which means that half the African American community and everyone else, black or white, who has voted for or supported a candidate simply based on race, has decided to take everything Martin Luther King took a bullet for and throw it out the window.
King's most enduring comment was, "I dream of a day when a man will be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin".That idea has been discarded by supporters of Obama both black and white who have been trying to promote the idea that having a black President is a good reason to vote for him regardless of anything else.
In support of this idea we have had racially condescending articles by Besty Reed and Richard Kim in The Nation which has tried to blame Clinton for playing the race card in South Carolina when it was clearly Obama who played it. Kim's article even accuses the 60% of white voters that are voting for Clinton of being racist while at the same time ignoring the 90% of the African American vote going to Obama.
Anything that treats African Americans differently than anyone else, or applies a different set of standards is racially condescending. And while I can understand that many African Americans might want to vote for Obama out of a sense of racial pride, that doesn't excuse it either. Voting for him because of the color of his skin is as insidious as voting against him for the same reason.
There is only one reason to vote for him and that is if you think he is the better more qualified candidate. And Im sure that is why half the 90% of African Americans who have voted for him did so. But race and race alone is what accounts for the other half though there are still African Americans supporting Clinton because they think she is the better candidate and they are not lacking in any pride for their heritiage.
That there are so many in the press promoting Obama as a candidate soley on race( Andrew Sullivan to name one), and that many are voting for him solely on race and that the atmosphere has become poisoned over race, is largely Obama's fault. He has created these divisions in the service of his own political ambitions. It's been Obama and his campaign that has cynically tried to exploit race, Clinton's recent ill advised remarks notwithstanding. If Clinton had wanted to exploit race she would have done it before this.
It was Obama who played the race card in South Carolina, And while I have no proof of this, I can see Congressman Clyburn's fingerprints are all over it. Clyburn is a savvy politician. In fact it will take Obama the rest of his life to learn what Clyburn has already forgotten. Clinton's comments that it took an LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, the act that King had fought, and ultimately died for was right on every count. King succeeded in mobilizing not just African Americans but the conscience of the country and brought it to the point where the shame that was racism couldn't be tolerated anymore. But it still took a President like Johnson who understood the workings of Congress, who knew how to flatter when necessary, arm twist when necessary, threaten when necessary, make promises when necessary or give warnings when necessary, and generally, to paraphrase Malcom X, use any means necessary, to get the white southern members of congress of both parties who stood in the way to finally pass the bill. To give you a small idea of the resistance Johnson faced in congress to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the congressman who voted against it was George HW Bush, a fellow Texan, and someone who everyone considers a decent man.
But Obama ( or was it Clyburn?) saw an opening. And he tried to do to Clinton what Bush did to John Kerry with his "insulting the troops" fiasco, to take Clintons statement about LBJ and twist its meaning , accusing her statement as diminishing and devaluing King's work and his legacy. And he did it for no other reason than to try to drive a wedge between Clinton and the African American community in South Carolina.
The accusation was absurd and it had more in common with the tactics of a Nixon than Martin Luther King. South Carolina was important to Obama. It was a state with an African American population that was the largest in the country. More than 55% of voters were African American and the Clintons had long standing ties to the African American community. To drive a wedge between the Clintons and African Americans was the kind of strategy you'd expect from Karl Rove. Or Richard Nixon.But this is what Mr. Unity did. And it worked.
Unfortunately Clinton's response to Obama's attacks at the time was as tepid as Kerry's. What she should have done was drag Obama out into the street and have it out with him over his remarks that her comments were "unfortunate and misinformed" and his insidiously playing the race card. She should have made a major issue over the fact that it was he who was misinformed and that it was unfortunate that he would try and make such a dishonest accusation that he knew wasn't true to try and cause racial divisions for nothing more than his own political purposes. She should have stood up to him, used her ties of 35 years to the African American community as proof, and pointed out that when he was a child she was going door to door registering African Americans to vote before she ever asked anyone for a single vote for herself.
Maybe if she had taken on the issue of race and Obama's race baiting a the time it wouldn't have surfaced the way it did the other day. And she certainly would not have done any worse with the African American community in terms of votes and probably a lot better.
But she didn't do it, largely because she allowed herself to be put back on her heels, because she has been getting horrible political advice from the beginning and because a biased media was feeding the storm for the sake of their own bias and political agenda, something Clinton voters resented and that is not going to go away if Obama gets the nomination.
The other racial incident coming out of South Carolina was Obama surrogates and the press accusing Bill Clinton of denigrating Obama's victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's( I wonder how Jackson feels about that?). In fact, Bill Clinton was denigrating the press ( the one group in this country who deserves to be denigrated) who were acting like Obama's landslide win was somehow indicative of the mood of the entire country. He didn't make his point forcefully enough but he was right, Jackson did win primaries in South Carolina and the win needed to be put in perspective but this was clearly a case of the press being too stupid to know they were being called stupid.
Obama's qualifications ( or lack of) have all but been lost in dealing with the issue of race, especially in the press who views any attack on Obama ( an attack being anything that seeks to show him as the less qualified candidate) as "taking the low road", the code for exploiting race.
So the best way to deal Obama's qualifications is to take race out of it completely. And the best way to do that is to imagine this: Imagine a Presidential race between Barack Obama and Colin Powell. I know. Youre probably laughing already. Or at least smiling. In a scenario like that, the Democrats would be snickered at all over the world for sending out a candidate as unqualified and as unprepared as Obama to go up against someone with the gravitas, experience, respect, ability, grasp of the workings of government, world view, and last but least, accomplishment, of a Colin Powell. The late night joke would be that the Democrats have found another way to lose an election. And race would have nothing to do with it.
Clinton is not Powell. But there is still not a thing in Barack Obama's life that shows he could even remotely handle the single most important job in the world. And the press and Obama himself has tried to create an atmosphere where even questioning that makes it an issue of race. After all wasnt it Jesse Jackson Jr. who was reported to be calling up African American super delegates who had declared for Clinton and asking them " do you want to be the one to stand in the way of the first black President"? Many were intimidated enough to switch.
There is now a concern among some in the Democratic party that Obama might use race as a way to threaten or intimidate other super delegates to vote for him, to propagate the fear that if he is not given the nomination both his supporters and members of the press will cry "racism". Dick Morris went so far as to write that Obama supporters would riot, and start throwing chairs in the convention center in Denver if Obama didn't get the nomination (very respectful, Dick) Morris of course is a Clinton hater who predicted an Obama win in the California primary which Clinton won by 15 points and its obvious that he has no compunction about stirring up the racial cauldron ( in a most racist way I might add -- Im sure every African American who read Morris' piece would prefer he keep his mouth shut).
Obama's campaign has been trying to play the expectations game, attempting, from a public relations point of view, to make it look like the nomination is already his,obviously hoping to intimidate super delegates into accepting it as a reality and that if he doesn't get it Obama and his supporters will claim the reason is racial (his wife certainly will) and they are warning that this would cause untold damage to the Democratic party.
Like everything else Barack Obama has claimed, it's the opposite that's true,
If super delegates ignore the true results of the primaries ( by not including Florida and Michigan) the party will come apart at the seams if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama gets the nomination. And it will be divided in ways it hasnt seen since 1968. It will also create divisions and damage to the party it will not recover from for years. It will also guarantee a McCain landslide in the fall since Obama will get no support from Clinton voters who will feel robbed. Most Clinton voters as it is, resent the bullying, race baiting and divisive tactics of the Obama campaign and the grotesque media bias that has accompanied it. If 50% of Clinton voters are telling pollsters they will never vote for Obama you can bet that 75% are thinking it and probably 90% will act on it.
Super delegates have an obligation in an election this close to honor the will of the voters. (as of now Clinton trails Obama in the popular vote by 0.56% counting the popular votes of Florida and Michigan and with the approximately 70 delegates she netted in both states, Obama's delegate lead is 99 with 215 still up for grabs and 200 super delegates still to decide, which makes the calls for Clinton to get out and Obama's plan to declare victory on May 20th even more outrageous and repugnant to Clinton voters)
Super delegates who want to win in November also have to take into account the byzantium way the Democrats award delegates in a system where Obama received more than 600 delegates in states he lost to Clinton by landslide margins, and make a decision. Without regard to race.And without regards to threats.
If super delegates let themselves be intimidated and give the nomination to Obama when the primary results show he was not the true will of the people the Democrats can look forward to a moment at the convention when the candidate takes the podium, the balloons are released, the confetti comes down and half the Democratic party including all of Clinton's delegates, will get up and walk out. And they will not be back in the fall. The election at that moment will be over.It will also give the networks one hell of an interesting shot. On that no one is going to forget..
The point of Martin Luther King's life and his death is that race isnt supposed to matter. It is going to be up to super delegates to make that a reality and put an end to Obama's uncivil war. And once that happens the Reconstruction can begin.
Of course Obama eventually did cut his ties to Wright. The candidate who has campaigned as the one with the judgement to be ready on day one, cut his ties to Wright but it took till day 6,205 to do it.
And given what we know about Michele Obama's views on race, another reason he might not have disassociated himself with Wright for 17 years is that Obama didn't want to sleep on the couch. When you listen to Wright and recall MIchelle Obama's statement that it took Obama winning the Iowa caucus for her to be proud of the United States for the first time in her life, you can clearly see a connection between Wright's views and her own beliefs. And one could assume there havent been too many fights over the kitchen table about Wright's anti-American, ant-white, anti-Semetic sermons. So divisive views on race have been there for a long time. And despite anything Obama says publicly to the contrary, some of these views may be his own. Or at least partly his own.
When I called Obama's speech his "I am not a crook moment" I also didn't realize at the time how prophetic the comparison with Nixon was going to be since Obama has turned out to be one of the most divisive political figures since Nixon.The candidate who said he has this great talent for unifying people, a talent that shows up nowhere in his past, has created more divisiveness in the Democratic party than any figure in history.But the issue that has caused one of the most serious divisions is the one that Obama himself has created over race.
The people who were dazzled by Obama;'s speech on race and saw him as some kind of unifying figure were, of course, the same people who gushed over Bush's case for going to war in Iraq, the people who called Bush's case, "compelling", and "a slam dunk". This was the speech that the news media praised for its profundity, honesty and sincerity, the speech where Obama said he could no sooner disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown a member of his own family which might give his wife and children something to worry about.
But the issue of race that the Obama candidacy was in the process of erasing, which started to bubble underneath the surface, has started to boil over largely because Obama has been the one stirring the cauldron.
Clinton didn't help with her "hard working white people" comment but its indicative of how the issue of race, and race baiting by Obama and his campaign has poisoned the atmosphere to the point where someone who was out registering black voters 35 years ago and who has long standing ties to the African American community is now talking about "white people"
Most of the dishonest and biased press supporting Obama's candidacy are going to jump on Clinton because it fuels their biased pro Obama agenda and it also lets them feel good about themselves and show how un-racist and forward thinking they are. So they will use her remarks to further poison the atmosphere and create deeper racial divides in the service of an Obama candidacy ( this from the people who have accused Clinton of doing anything to win). But its an atmosphere poisoned by Obama almost from the beginning with his wife's remarks after Iowa,, his subsequent tactics, and whether anyone likes it or not, 17 years of Jeremiah Wright.
Race has always played a role from the beginning, either notable by its absence in Obama's victory in the Iowa caucus and mostly white mid west caucus states, or notably present in getting 90% of the African American vote. Unless you believe that one ethnic group has suddenly acquired a monopoly on wisdom,about half of the 90% of African Americans voting for him were voting for him because of skin color, the same reason their grandparents couldn't use white restrooms
Which means that half the African American community and everyone else, black or white, who has voted for or supported a candidate simply based on race, has decided to take everything Martin Luther King took a bullet for and throw it out the window.
King's most enduring comment was, "I dream of a day when a man will be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin".That idea has been discarded by supporters of Obama both black and white who have been trying to promote the idea that having a black President is a good reason to vote for him regardless of anything else.
In support of this idea we have had racially condescending articles by Besty Reed and Richard Kim in The Nation which has tried to blame Clinton for playing the race card in South Carolina when it was clearly Obama who played it. Kim's article even accuses the 60% of white voters that are voting for Clinton of being racist while at the same time ignoring the 90% of the African American vote going to Obama.
Anything that treats African Americans differently than anyone else, or applies a different set of standards is racially condescending. And while I can understand that many African Americans might want to vote for Obama out of a sense of racial pride, that doesn't excuse it either. Voting for him because of the color of his skin is as insidious as voting against him for the same reason.
There is only one reason to vote for him and that is if you think he is the better more qualified candidate. And Im sure that is why half the 90% of African Americans who have voted for him did so. But race and race alone is what accounts for the other half though there are still African Americans supporting Clinton because they think she is the better candidate and they are not lacking in any pride for their heritiage.
That there are so many in the press promoting Obama as a candidate soley on race( Andrew Sullivan to name one), and that many are voting for him solely on race and that the atmosphere has become poisoned over race, is largely Obama's fault. He has created these divisions in the service of his own political ambitions. It's been Obama and his campaign that has cynically tried to exploit race, Clinton's recent ill advised remarks notwithstanding. If Clinton had wanted to exploit race she would have done it before this.
It was Obama who played the race card in South Carolina, And while I have no proof of this, I can see Congressman Clyburn's fingerprints are all over it. Clyburn is a savvy politician. In fact it will take Obama the rest of his life to learn what Clyburn has already forgotten. Clinton's comments that it took an LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, the act that King had fought, and ultimately died for was right on every count. King succeeded in mobilizing not just African Americans but the conscience of the country and brought it to the point where the shame that was racism couldn't be tolerated anymore. But it still took a President like Johnson who understood the workings of Congress, who knew how to flatter when necessary, arm twist when necessary, threaten when necessary, make promises when necessary or give warnings when necessary, and generally, to paraphrase Malcom X, use any means necessary, to get the white southern members of congress of both parties who stood in the way to finally pass the bill. To give you a small idea of the resistance Johnson faced in congress to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the congressman who voted against it was George HW Bush, a fellow Texan, and someone who everyone considers a decent man.
But Obama ( or was it Clyburn?) saw an opening. And he tried to do to Clinton what Bush did to John Kerry with his "insulting the troops" fiasco, to take Clintons statement about LBJ and twist its meaning , accusing her statement as diminishing and devaluing King's work and his legacy. And he did it for no other reason than to try to drive a wedge between Clinton and the African American community in South Carolina.
The accusation was absurd and it had more in common with the tactics of a Nixon than Martin Luther King. South Carolina was important to Obama. It was a state with an African American population that was the largest in the country. More than 55% of voters were African American and the Clintons had long standing ties to the African American community. To drive a wedge between the Clintons and African Americans was the kind of strategy you'd expect from Karl Rove. Or Richard Nixon.But this is what Mr. Unity did. And it worked.
Unfortunately Clinton's response to Obama's attacks at the time was as tepid as Kerry's. What she should have done was drag Obama out into the street and have it out with him over his remarks that her comments were "unfortunate and misinformed" and his insidiously playing the race card. She should have made a major issue over the fact that it was he who was misinformed and that it was unfortunate that he would try and make such a dishonest accusation that he knew wasn't true to try and cause racial divisions for nothing more than his own political purposes. She should have stood up to him, used her ties of 35 years to the African American community as proof, and pointed out that when he was a child she was going door to door registering African Americans to vote before she ever asked anyone for a single vote for herself.
Maybe if she had taken on the issue of race and Obama's race baiting a the time it wouldn't have surfaced the way it did the other day. And she certainly would not have done any worse with the African American community in terms of votes and probably a lot better.
But she didn't do it, largely because she allowed herself to be put back on her heels, because she has been getting horrible political advice from the beginning and because a biased media was feeding the storm for the sake of their own bias and political agenda, something Clinton voters resented and that is not going to go away if Obama gets the nomination.
The other racial incident coming out of South Carolina was Obama surrogates and the press accusing Bill Clinton of denigrating Obama's victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's( I wonder how Jackson feels about that?). In fact, Bill Clinton was denigrating the press ( the one group in this country who deserves to be denigrated) who were acting like Obama's landslide win was somehow indicative of the mood of the entire country. He didn't make his point forcefully enough but he was right, Jackson did win primaries in South Carolina and the win needed to be put in perspective but this was clearly a case of the press being too stupid to know they were being called stupid.
Obama's qualifications ( or lack of) have all but been lost in dealing with the issue of race, especially in the press who views any attack on Obama ( an attack being anything that seeks to show him as the less qualified candidate) as "taking the low road", the code for exploiting race.
So the best way to deal Obama's qualifications is to take race out of it completely. And the best way to do that is to imagine this: Imagine a Presidential race between Barack Obama and Colin Powell. I know. Youre probably laughing already. Or at least smiling. In a scenario like that, the Democrats would be snickered at all over the world for sending out a candidate as unqualified and as unprepared as Obama to go up against someone with the gravitas, experience, respect, ability, grasp of the workings of government, world view, and last but least, accomplishment, of a Colin Powell. The late night joke would be that the Democrats have found another way to lose an election. And race would have nothing to do with it.
Clinton is not Powell. But there is still not a thing in Barack Obama's life that shows he could even remotely handle the single most important job in the world. And the press and Obama himself has tried to create an atmosphere where even questioning that makes it an issue of race. After all wasnt it Jesse Jackson Jr. who was reported to be calling up African American super delegates who had declared for Clinton and asking them " do you want to be the one to stand in the way of the first black President"? Many were intimidated enough to switch.
There is now a concern among some in the Democratic party that Obama might use race as a way to threaten or intimidate other super delegates to vote for him, to propagate the fear that if he is not given the nomination both his supporters and members of the press will cry "racism". Dick Morris went so far as to write that Obama supporters would riot, and start throwing chairs in the convention center in Denver if Obama didn't get the nomination (very respectful, Dick) Morris of course is a Clinton hater who predicted an Obama win in the California primary which Clinton won by 15 points and its obvious that he has no compunction about stirring up the racial cauldron ( in a most racist way I might add -- Im sure every African American who read Morris' piece would prefer he keep his mouth shut).
Obama's campaign has been trying to play the expectations game, attempting, from a public relations point of view, to make it look like the nomination is already his,obviously hoping to intimidate super delegates into accepting it as a reality and that if he doesn't get it Obama and his supporters will claim the reason is racial (his wife certainly will) and they are warning that this would cause untold damage to the Democratic party.
Like everything else Barack Obama has claimed, it's the opposite that's true,
If super delegates ignore the true results of the primaries ( by not including Florida and Michigan) the party will come apart at the seams if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama gets the nomination. And it will be divided in ways it hasnt seen since 1968. It will also create divisions and damage to the party it will not recover from for years. It will also guarantee a McCain landslide in the fall since Obama will get no support from Clinton voters who will feel robbed. Most Clinton voters as it is, resent the bullying, race baiting and divisive tactics of the Obama campaign and the grotesque media bias that has accompanied it. If 50% of Clinton voters are telling pollsters they will never vote for Obama you can bet that 75% are thinking it and probably 90% will act on it.
Super delegates have an obligation in an election this close to honor the will of the voters. (as of now Clinton trails Obama in the popular vote by 0.56% counting the popular votes of Florida and Michigan and with the approximately 70 delegates she netted in both states, Obama's delegate lead is 99 with 215 still up for grabs and 200 super delegates still to decide, which makes the calls for Clinton to get out and Obama's plan to declare victory on May 20th even more outrageous and repugnant to Clinton voters)
Super delegates who want to win in November also have to take into account the byzantium way the Democrats award delegates in a system where Obama received more than 600 delegates in states he lost to Clinton by landslide margins, and make a decision. Without regard to race.And without regards to threats.
If super delegates let themselves be intimidated and give the nomination to Obama when the primary results show he was not the true will of the people the Democrats can look forward to a moment at the convention when the candidate takes the podium, the balloons are released, the confetti comes down and half the Democratic party including all of Clinton's delegates, will get up and walk out. And they will not be back in the fall. The election at that moment will be over.It will also give the networks one hell of an interesting shot. On that no one is going to forget..
The point of Martin Luther King's life and his death is that race isnt supposed to matter. It is going to be up to super delegates to make that a reality and put an end to Obama's uncivil war. And once that happens the Reconstruction can begin.
Friday, May 9, 2008
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: OBAMA STYLE
Obama's campaign has let it be known that they are planning to declare victory on May 20th. What is so stupefying about this is that in one political decision Obama is proving why he is inadequate and unsuitable as both a nominee for President and for the office itself. As if his opponents needed any more ammunition it is one more thing that confirms people's worst instincts about him and shows he is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic party in the general election.
Yesterday The Obama Bus Company (you dont ride in it, you get thrown under it) rolled into Washington, and along with Alice Palmer, (the first person Obama threw under the bus to further his political ambitions in Chicago in 1995) the 3 million voters of Florida and Michgian, Jeremiah Wright, and his own grandmother, Obama threw the entire Democratic Party and 215 super delegates under the bus.
But that sound you hear might be the bus backfiring.
You would think Obama might have learned something from the fiasco that has been the Bush Presidency but obviously not. Obama has proved going back to his days in Chicago that he is the kind of politician that puts his own ambitions ahead of everything else,( see the Chicago Tribune story about the bus' first hit and run victim). But now, like many politicians who are blinded by their own ambitions, many who are now contributing to society by making license plates, he may have gone too far.
First the hypocrisy is stupefying. He and his campaign has tried to justify clamping their hands over the mouths of 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan by screaming "the rules are the rules". That argument is one I took apart a week ago here, but its the one he makes. So the candidate who claims the rules are the rules is prepared to throw the Democratic Party, the DNC, the Democratic Rules Committee and every delegate and Democratic voter who didnt vote for him ( roughly half the Democratic party), not to mention all the uncommitted super delegates, under the bus ( its getting crowded under there isnt it?) by declaring victory before he has the 2025 delegates the rules says he needs. I dont think anyone knew that when Barack Obama said he was rejecting the politics of the past he was talking about elections.
It is the kind of arrogance and stupidity that is reminiscent of Bush's Mission Accomplished.But its a good example of how Obama and his ambitions are what drives him and takes precedence over everything else. Including anything resembling good judgement. And this time it might be a matter of live by the sword, die by the sword.
Because of this proposed May 20th announcement, Obama now runs a very big and very real risk of alienating super delegates who have not cast their votes and who are going to resent Obama (justifiably) for essentially trying to negate their vote, telling them they simply dont matter anymore. Taking a politician's vote for granted, ( or any voter's vote for that matter) is the fastest way for a politician on the rise to end up feeling as if "Like A Rolling Stone" was written about him.
Secondly, the short sighted arrogance of this is obviously blinding Obama to the reality that in arrogantly trying to preempt the process with this stunt, it will guarantee both he and the Democrats a landslide loss should super delegates decide to uphold the tradition of how Democrats lose elections and give him the nomination, especially if he is not the choice of the will of the people when you include Florida and Michigan.
Pulling this stunt before all the votes are counted, before all the delegates are counted and before the Florida and Michigan mess is resolved and before the two primaries where Clinton stands to landslide Obama on May 20th, will absolutely guarantee that 90% of Clinton voters and supporters, a little more than half the Democratic Party, will not vote for Obama in the general election. Their anger and resentment at his unilateral attempt to short circuit the process and bully himself into the nomination, already at the boiling point over his tactics and dishonesty, will guarantee that he will lose 90% of her supporters.If there was ever a political guarantee that is it. Exit polls show that Clinton voters have said they will in no way vote for Obama in the general election. If 50% are saying it, 75% are thinking it and probably 90% will act on it. If Obama is the nominee because Florida and Michigan were not counted, half the Democratic Party will not support him. And there is not a super delegate in the party with even a shred of political common sense that doesn't know it.
If anyone believes the nonsense that if Obama is the nominee carrying a big red asterisk on his back, that Clinton supporters are going to come together with Obama supporters to support him, then they are out of touch with reality, ( which could explain their support of Obama). Its never going to happen and Democrats can thank Mr. Unity for being the most divisive figure in the history of Democratic politics and maybe the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon.
Obama's stunt, if he ever became the nominee, guarantees that a McCain/Obama contest will make Reagan/Mondale look like a squeaker. Half the support of Democratic voters will be gone and given the fact that the bulk of his primary support has come in southern states the Democrats havent carried in 40 years because of his getting 90% of the African American vote and his other major source of support has been in mid west caucus states where 11,000 people who have the time and inclination to show up haggle for 3 hours resulting in a primary win in states the Democrats havent won in 40 years, the Democrats are looking at an electoral disaster.
And one other factor that Obama has so shortsightedly dismissed. Because of the anger and resentment fostered by this stunt and his divisive campaign, Obama would guarantee that he would not get a dime in contributions from Clinton voters or supporters for the general election. As it is now, the DNC is looking at losing donations from Clinton supporters threatening to cut them off if Florida and Michigan arent seated. Obama has been successful raising money for the primary campaign but it will not be enough for a general election. There are some rumors that a lot of his money has come from Republicans who have in stealth fashion made the contributions in small amounts through Republicans around the country who want Obama as the nominee against McCain. But whether that is true or not, with half the Democratic party essentially boycotting him, he will have an impossible time raising enough money for the general election since he needs the support of the entire Democratic Party and he wont get it.
What the Democratic Party,the super delegates and the DNC have to look at now is whether they will heed the adage that those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Because if Barrack Obama gets the Democratic nomination, especially if Clinton ends the primary season winning the popular vote (including the Florida and Michigan totals) and is able to claim that she represents the true will of the people, and she either makes the delegate count close (statistically insignificant) or wins it outright including Florida and Michigan, Barack Obama's Mission Accomplished declaration on May 20th, if ratified by super delegates, is going to turn the Democratic Party into Baghdad.
Yesterday The Obama Bus Company (you dont ride in it, you get thrown under it) rolled into Washington, and along with Alice Palmer, (the first person Obama threw under the bus to further his political ambitions in Chicago in 1995) the 3 million voters of Florida and Michgian, Jeremiah Wright, and his own grandmother, Obama threw the entire Democratic Party and 215 super delegates under the bus.
But that sound you hear might be the bus backfiring.
You would think Obama might have learned something from the fiasco that has been the Bush Presidency but obviously not. Obama has proved going back to his days in Chicago that he is the kind of politician that puts his own ambitions ahead of everything else,( see the Chicago Tribune story about the bus' first hit and run victim). But now, like many politicians who are blinded by their own ambitions, many who are now contributing to society by making license plates, he may have gone too far.
First the hypocrisy is stupefying. He and his campaign has tried to justify clamping their hands over the mouths of 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan by screaming "the rules are the rules". That argument is one I took apart a week ago here, but its the one he makes. So the candidate who claims the rules are the rules is prepared to throw the Democratic Party, the DNC, the Democratic Rules Committee and every delegate and Democratic voter who didnt vote for him ( roughly half the Democratic party), not to mention all the uncommitted super delegates, under the bus ( its getting crowded under there isnt it?) by declaring victory before he has the 2025 delegates the rules says he needs. I dont think anyone knew that when Barack Obama said he was rejecting the politics of the past he was talking about elections.
It is the kind of arrogance and stupidity that is reminiscent of Bush's Mission Accomplished.But its a good example of how Obama and his ambitions are what drives him and takes precedence over everything else. Including anything resembling good judgement. And this time it might be a matter of live by the sword, die by the sword.
Because of this proposed May 20th announcement, Obama now runs a very big and very real risk of alienating super delegates who have not cast their votes and who are going to resent Obama (justifiably) for essentially trying to negate their vote, telling them they simply dont matter anymore. Taking a politician's vote for granted, ( or any voter's vote for that matter) is the fastest way for a politician on the rise to end up feeling as if "Like A Rolling Stone" was written about him.
Secondly, the short sighted arrogance of this is obviously blinding Obama to the reality that in arrogantly trying to preempt the process with this stunt, it will guarantee both he and the Democrats a landslide loss should super delegates decide to uphold the tradition of how Democrats lose elections and give him the nomination, especially if he is not the choice of the will of the people when you include Florida and Michigan.
Pulling this stunt before all the votes are counted, before all the delegates are counted and before the Florida and Michigan mess is resolved and before the two primaries where Clinton stands to landslide Obama on May 20th, will absolutely guarantee that 90% of Clinton voters and supporters, a little more than half the Democratic Party, will not vote for Obama in the general election. Their anger and resentment at his unilateral attempt to short circuit the process and bully himself into the nomination, already at the boiling point over his tactics and dishonesty, will guarantee that he will lose 90% of her supporters.If there was ever a political guarantee that is it. Exit polls show that Clinton voters have said they will in no way vote for Obama in the general election. If 50% are saying it, 75% are thinking it and probably 90% will act on it. If Obama is the nominee because Florida and Michigan were not counted, half the Democratic Party will not support him. And there is not a super delegate in the party with even a shred of political common sense that doesn't know it.
If anyone believes the nonsense that if Obama is the nominee carrying a big red asterisk on his back, that Clinton supporters are going to come together with Obama supporters to support him, then they are out of touch with reality, ( which could explain their support of Obama). Its never going to happen and Democrats can thank Mr. Unity for being the most divisive figure in the history of Democratic politics and maybe the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon.
Obama's stunt, if he ever became the nominee, guarantees that a McCain/Obama contest will make Reagan/Mondale look like a squeaker. Half the support of Democratic voters will be gone and given the fact that the bulk of his primary support has come in southern states the Democrats havent carried in 40 years because of his getting 90% of the African American vote and his other major source of support has been in mid west caucus states where 11,000 people who have the time and inclination to show up haggle for 3 hours resulting in a primary win in states the Democrats havent won in 40 years, the Democrats are looking at an electoral disaster.
And one other factor that Obama has so shortsightedly dismissed. Because of the anger and resentment fostered by this stunt and his divisive campaign, Obama would guarantee that he would not get a dime in contributions from Clinton voters or supporters for the general election. As it is now, the DNC is looking at losing donations from Clinton supporters threatening to cut them off if Florida and Michigan arent seated. Obama has been successful raising money for the primary campaign but it will not be enough for a general election. There are some rumors that a lot of his money has come from Republicans who have in stealth fashion made the contributions in small amounts through Republicans around the country who want Obama as the nominee against McCain. But whether that is true or not, with half the Democratic party essentially boycotting him, he will have an impossible time raising enough money for the general election since he needs the support of the entire Democratic Party and he wont get it.
What the Democratic Party,the super delegates and the DNC have to look at now is whether they will heed the adage that those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Because if Barrack Obama gets the Democratic nomination, especially if Clinton ends the primary season winning the popular vote (including the Florida and Michigan totals) and is able to claim that she represents the true will of the people, and she either makes the delegate count close (statistically insignificant) or wins it outright including Florida and Michigan, Barack Obama's Mission Accomplished declaration on May 20th, if ratified by super delegates, is going to turn the Democratic Party into Baghdad.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AND HOW DEMOCRATS LOSE ELECTIONS
What Howard Dean, the Democratic party and most of all Barack Obama was hoping wouldn't be the case is going to be the case. It cant be avoided any longer. There are 3 million 800 pound gorillas in the room and they are the voters of Florida and Michigan.
Like it or not,its all going to come down to Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean, uncscrupulously is still hoping the super delegates will bail him out. But if super delegates hand Obama a nomination he would have lost if Florida and Michigan were counted not only will it hand McCain a landslide victory in November it will divide the democratic party so badly ( one of the only things Obama has actually demonstrated he knows how to do) it will take years for the Democrats to come together as a party again just as it did in 1968. And Obama will end up persona non grata in the democratic party probably for life as the central cause of the divide.
This is the nightmare scenario the Democrats are looking at by not counting Florida and Michigan. A guaranteed landslide loss to McCain, losing congress and losing all influence in the affairs of the nation. And over what? a scheduling conflict that amounted to nothing more than a parking violation?
Howard Dean made a mistake and he knows it. He threatened to punish both states if they moved their primaries up, but who in the end is being punished? There were other things he could have done. He could have threatened to fine the parties in both states. Or suspend their leadership. Maybe even ban them from the convention. But does it make a shred of sense to punish 3 million people, 14 million Clinton voters and the entire democratic process for something the voters had absolutely nothing to do with?
Does the Democratic party really want to punish 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan and 14 million Clinton voters for what the Republican Florida governor and legislature decided? After what happened in the 2000 Presidential election, Is this how the Democratic party wants to choose their nominee for President? Many people have been waiting for Al Gore to weigh in. I have no idea what he is thinking but if I had to guess it would be that he of all people would never stomach the Democrats sending out a nominee who is there only because votes weren't counted in Florida.
And what of Michigan? Remember why Michigan wanted to move up their primary? The state was (and is) going through tremendous economic distress, more than many other states. The party wanted to move the primary up for one reason -- to get the national spotlight on Michigan and their problems at a time when they felt it would matter to the candidates and the country.
They were concerned that the nomination would be decided by the time Michigan's turn came and that the problems of the people of Michigan wouldn't get the attention it deserved, the same problems that Michael Moore threw under the proverbial bus in his letter to Pa voters, almost gleefully telling Pa voters that his Michigan vote isn't going to count because Michigan isnt going to count and to vote for Obama. The old Michael Moore would have been fighting like a man possessed to get the voters and voices of his beloved Michigan to count. He would have been incensed and would be railing at the injustice of silencing them, disenfranchising people who needed to be heard, and would have been outraged that inside party politics would take away the voices of people in need. He would have been offended at Obama and Howard Dean telling them their voices wont be counted over something as trivial as a scheduling conflict. But that would have been the old Michael Moore. The new one has been lying face down in the Kool Aid punch bowl with his cap floating on the surface for a long time now along with other members of the mainstream media.
Negating Florida and Michigan over a parking violation would be the equivalent of giving a life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread and then locking up the guy's family too..It is punishing 3 million innocent people for a decision in which they had no say and in which they did not participate. In the case of Michigan, there were noble motives for wanting to do it.
There were and are better ways to handle it and Ive mentioned them before. Fine the party. Fine the party leaders. Ban the leaders from the convention. Let Dean stand up and say he made a mistake, a horrible mistake, let him say why ( I'll volunteer to write it for him) and then do the right thing and resign.
The reason we have higher courts is to overturn wrong and unjust decisions made by lower courts judges. In this case we have many higher courts not the least of which is the court of public opinion and at least half the Democratic party and all of Florida and Michigan which will turn their back on the Democratic party if Florida and Michigan are not counted.And any Obama nomination that is obtained by not counting Florida and Michigan will be, not just in perception but in reality, a farce.
There are also two other courts. The Democratic Rules Committee and super delegates.Super delegates know how to add. And if they cant Im sure they have aides who can. And there is only one question to decide. After what happened in 2000 is the Democratic party really going to send out a nominee who is there only because votes werent counted in Florida? And Michigan as well? What of Obama supporters? Are they really content with getting their candidate in through the back door and seeing the nomination handed to him that he didn't win at the ballot box? Are they really Democrats? Members of the same party who went door to door to register African American voters in the 60's?
There are five primaries left. Super delegates need to wait till the last primary is over and then factor in the popular vote and delegate count including Florida and Michigan regardless of what the Democratic party as decided up to that point. Voters should start insisting that, until this is resolved, media outlets include the Florida and Michigan totals along with the non Florida and Michigan totals so we see where things really stand. You can't count on the news media who has treated Clinton like she was the black candidate and they were an all white jury in Mississippi in 1952, ( so much for Reverend Wright and how Clinton never had a cab pass her by -- as good a reason as any not to vote for her) but that shouldn't stop people from writing,calling or emailing media outlets insisting the Florida and Michigan totals be there side by side.If you're not sure how to do it and you know a Republican, ask them. They know how.
With regards to Michigan, since we know taking his name off the ballot was just a ploy ( see the article in the Iowa Independent) and everyone who voted knew Obama and Edwards were represented by the "uncommitted:" line which drew 39% of the vote, lets be generous to Obama and give him 30% of the uncommitted line. That is incredibly generous since Edwards had been consistently getting 14-15% of the vote and more and its inconceivable that a populist like Edwards would have gotten only 9% of the vote in Michigan. But lets bend over backwards and have the Obama campaign agree to 30% of the popular vote and 30% of the delegates.
With five primaries left, counting Florida and Michigan, Clinton is behind by approximately 80 delegates. That can be overtaken or closed to a statistically insignificant number which would then require the super delegates to vote based on other factors and what they feel is best for the party's chances in the fall since the result of the primaries will be that close.Or they can vote for the delegate and popular vote leader regardless of how small the lead. Its up to them. But either way everyone would feel honest about it and the air would be cleared.
Whatever the outcome, the delegate and popular vote lead has to be decided at the ballot box. Obama cant be sent out as the nominee based on a delegate and popular vote lead he didn't win and didn't earn, only because Howard Dean made a mistake in judgement. The will of the people has to be the will of the people, not the will of a biased press, or Obama supporters willing to stifle the voices of 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan, or Obama himself who publicly says "voices must be heard" and "every vote counts" but who seems very willing to keep the voters of Florida and Michigan from being counted simply.to further his own political ambitions., The Democrats cant send out a candidate who is walking around with an asterisk on his back.
It comes down to only one thing for the Democratic party. The nominee wins honestly or not at all. All the votes have to be counted. That Obama is willing for them not to be counted tells as much as about who and what he really is as any speech he has ever given. This the candidate who is trying to tell (and sell ) people that he is a "new" politician "rejecting the divisive politics of the past".If so then let him prove it.Or prove that he's not what he says he is. And super delegates can take that into consideration too.
There cant be any slipping in through the back door. Its up to the higher courts to right the wrong, whether its the Democratic Rules Committee, super delegates, public opinion or Dean himself. We wont hold our breath that Mr.Every Vote Should Count will stand up and demand they be seated on principle. After all, what's principle when your personal ambition is at stake?
Dean and many weak kneed super delegates are probably worrying that if they allow Florida and Michigan to be seated Obama and his crew will start screaming that the party is playing politics and trying to "give" the nomination to Clinton. The answer to that is, who knew that when Obama said he was rejecting the poltics of the past he was talking about elections?
The other thing super delegates and Dean might be worrying about is that Obama himself and other surrogates might scream racism in a crowded convention center. How ironic for the first credible African American candidate for the nomination for President would start screaming racism because people's votes were being counted.
To listen to the surrogates of Obama's campaign ( not to mention Obama himself) it doesn't bother them at the moment that they are trying themselves to be given the nomination by not counting votes. They have no second thoughts about trying to steal the nomination the way Obama tried to steal delegates he didn't win and didn't earn and ignore the will of the people by floating the idea that he be given 50% of the delegates of Florida and Michigan in one of the most brazenly dishonest and self serving moments of the primary season.
There is only one thing the Democrats can do and that is the right thing and that is to count Florida and Michigan.If they dont its going to be 1968 all over again for the Democrats. The November election will be a landside for McCain and the Republicans since Clinton voters as a whole and Florida and Michigan specifically will never support a nominee who is there only because votes weren't counted in Florida and Michigan. Super delegates trying to get Dean off the hook by declaring for Obama and then letting Florida and Michigan be seated as a cosmetic gesture when it doesn't matter wont work either. Everyone would see through that.
If Hillary Clinton should end the primary season with the popular vote and delegate lead including Florida and Michgian, and she doesn't get the nomination, it will ensure a major disaster in the fall elections in both Presidential and congressional elections, and will divide the party in ways, and cost the Democrats elections in the future, that they wont recover from for years to come. There is a lot more riding on seating Florida and Michigan than just this election.
The easiest and quickest solution right now would be the one I stated earlier. Dean should hold a press conference admit he made a terrible mistake, issue a statement that the Democratic party, especially after 2000, stands for every vote being counted, that he is going to recommend to the Rules Committee to let the Florida and Michigan results stand as is, and then resign. And then let the candidates do what they are supposed to. Fight it out at the ballot box in the 5 remaining primaries so the Democrats can go forward with the air cleared, everyone supporting a legitimate nominee and no one feeling like they've been robbed.
Howard, I'd be glad to write it for you. Just drop me a line.
To further support the seating of Florida Michigan visit: COUNTTHEVOTES
For a list of super delegates you can contact to tell them to include Florida and Michigan in their decision visit THE SUPERDELEGATE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT
Like it or not,its all going to come down to Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean, uncscrupulously is still hoping the super delegates will bail him out. But if super delegates hand Obama a nomination he would have lost if Florida and Michigan were counted not only will it hand McCain a landslide victory in November it will divide the democratic party so badly ( one of the only things Obama has actually demonstrated he knows how to do) it will take years for the Democrats to come together as a party again just as it did in 1968. And Obama will end up persona non grata in the democratic party probably for life as the central cause of the divide.
This is the nightmare scenario the Democrats are looking at by not counting Florida and Michigan. A guaranteed landslide loss to McCain, losing congress and losing all influence in the affairs of the nation. And over what? a scheduling conflict that amounted to nothing more than a parking violation?
Howard Dean made a mistake and he knows it. He threatened to punish both states if they moved their primaries up, but who in the end is being punished? There were other things he could have done. He could have threatened to fine the parties in both states. Or suspend their leadership. Maybe even ban them from the convention. But does it make a shred of sense to punish 3 million people, 14 million Clinton voters and the entire democratic process for something the voters had absolutely nothing to do with?
Does the Democratic party really want to punish 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan and 14 million Clinton voters for what the Republican Florida governor and legislature decided? After what happened in the 2000 Presidential election, Is this how the Democratic party wants to choose their nominee for President? Many people have been waiting for Al Gore to weigh in. I have no idea what he is thinking but if I had to guess it would be that he of all people would never stomach the Democrats sending out a nominee who is there only because votes weren't counted in Florida.
And what of Michigan? Remember why Michigan wanted to move up their primary? The state was (and is) going through tremendous economic distress, more than many other states. The party wanted to move the primary up for one reason -- to get the national spotlight on Michigan and their problems at a time when they felt it would matter to the candidates and the country.
They were concerned that the nomination would be decided by the time Michigan's turn came and that the problems of the people of Michigan wouldn't get the attention it deserved, the same problems that Michael Moore threw under the proverbial bus in his letter to Pa voters, almost gleefully telling Pa voters that his Michigan vote isn't going to count because Michigan isnt going to count and to vote for Obama. The old Michael Moore would have been fighting like a man possessed to get the voters and voices of his beloved Michigan to count. He would have been incensed and would be railing at the injustice of silencing them, disenfranchising people who needed to be heard, and would have been outraged that inside party politics would take away the voices of people in need. He would have been offended at Obama and Howard Dean telling them their voices wont be counted over something as trivial as a scheduling conflict. But that would have been the old Michael Moore. The new one has been lying face down in the Kool Aid punch bowl with his cap floating on the surface for a long time now along with other members of the mainstream media.
Negating Florida and Michigan over a parking violation would be the equivalent of giving a life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread and then locking up the guy's family too..It is punishing 3 million innocent people for a decision in which they had no say and in which they did not participate. In the case of Michigan, there were noble motives for wanting to do it.
There were and are better ways to handle it and Ive mentioned them before. Fine the party. Fine the party leaders. Ban the leaders from the convention. Let Dean stand up and say he made a mistake, a horrible mistake, let him say why ( I'll volunteer to write it for him) and then do the right thing and resign.
The reason we have higher courts is to overturn wrong and unjust decisions made by lower courts judges. In this case we have many higher courts not the least of which is the court of public opinion and at least half the Democratic party and all of Florida and Michigan which will turn their back on the Democratic party if Florida and Michigan are not counted.And any Obama nomination that is obtained by not counting Florida and Michigan will be, not just in perception but in reality, a farce.
There are also two other courts. The Democratic Rules Committee and super delegates.Super delegates know how to add. And if they cant Im sure they have aides who can. And there is only one question to decide. After what happened in 2000 is the Democratic party really going to send out a nominee who is there only because votes werent counted in Florida? And Michigan as well? What of Obama supporters? Are they really content with getting their candidate in through the back door and seeing the nomination handed to him that he didn't win at the ballot box? Are they really Democrats? Members of the same party who went door to door to register African American voters in the 60's?
There are five primaries left. Super delegates need to wait till the last primary is over and then factor in the popular vote and delegate count including Florida and Michigan regardless of what the Democratic party as decided up to that point. Voters should start insisting that, until this is resolved, media outlets include the Florida and Michigan totals along with the non Florida and Michigan totals so we see where things really stand. You can't count on the news media who has treated Clinton like she was the black candidate and they were an all white jury in Mississippi in 1952, ( so much for Reverend Wright and how Clinton never had a cab pass her by -- as good a reason as any not to vote for her) but that shouldn't stop people from writing,calling or emailing media outlets insisting the Florida and Michigan totals be there side by side.If you're not sure how to do it and you know a Republican, ask them. They know how.
With regards to Michigan, since we know taking his name off the ballot was just a ploy ( see the article in the Iowa Independent) and everyone who voted knew Obama and Edwards were represented by the "uncommitted:" line which drew 39% of the vote, lets be generous to Obama and give him 30% of the uncommitted line. That is incredibly generous since Edwards had been consistently getting 14-15% of the vote and more and its inconceivable that a populist like Edwards would have gotten only 9% of the vote in Michigan. But lets bend over backwards and have the Obama campaign agree to 30% of the popular vote and 30% of the delegates.
With five primaries left, counting Florida and Michigan, Clinton is behind by approximately 80 delegates. That can be overtaken or closed to a statistically insignificant number which would then require the super delegates to vote based on other factors and what they feel is best for the party's chances in the fall since the result of the primaries will be that close.Or they can vote for the delegate and popular vote leader regardless of how small the lead. Its up to them. But either way everyone would feel honest about it and the air would be cleared.
Whatever the outcome, the delegate and popular vote lead has to be decided at the ballot box. Obama cant be sent out as the nominee based on a delegate and popular vote lead he didn't win and didn't earn, only because Howard Dean made a mistake in judgement. The will of the people has to be the will of the people, not the will of a biased press, or Obama supporters willing to stifle the voices of 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan, or Obama himself who publicly says "voices must be heard" and "every vote counts" but who seems very willing to keep the voters of Florida and Michigan from being counted simply.to further his own political ambitions., The Democrats cant send out a candidate who is walking around with an asterisk on his back.
It comes down to only one thing for the Democratic party. The nominee wins honestly or not at all. All the votes have to be counted. That Obama is willing for them not to be counted tells as much as about who and what he really is as any speech he has ever given. This the candidate who is trying to tell (and sell ) people that he is a "new" politician "rejecting the divisive politics of the past".If so then let him prove it.Or prove that he's not what he says he is. And super delegates can take that into consideration too.
There cant be any slipping in through the back door. Its up to the higher courts to right the wrong, whether its the Democratic Rules Committee, super delegates, public opinion or Dean himself. We wont hold our breath that Mr.Every Vote Should Count will stand up and demand they be seated on principle. After all, what's principle when your personal ambition is at stake?
Dean and many weak kneed super delegates are probably worrying that if they allow Florida and Michigan to be seated Obama and his crew will start screaming that the party is playing politics and trying to "give" the nomination to Clinton. The answer to that is, who knew that when Obama said he was rejecting the poltics of the past he was talking about elections?
The other thing super delegates and Dean might be worrying about is that Obama himself and other surrogates might scream racism in a crowded convention center. How ironic for the first credible African American candidate for the nomination for President would start screaming racism because people's votes were being counted.
To listen to the surrogates of Obama's campaign ( not to mention Obama himself) it doesn't bother them at the moment that they are trying themselves to be given the nomination by not counting votes. They have no second thoughts about trying to steal the nomination the way Obama tried to steal delegates he didn't win and didn't earn and ignore the will of the people by floating the idea that he be given 50% of the delegates of Florida and Michigan in one of the most brazenly dishonest and self serving moments of the primary season.
There is only one thing the Democrats can do and that is the right thing and that is to count Florida and Michigan.If they dont its going to be 1968 all over again for the Democrats. The November election will be a landside for McCain and the Republicans since Clinton voters as a whole and Florida and Michigan specifically will never support a nominee who is there only because votes weren't counted in Florida and Michigan. Super delegates trying to get Dean off the hook by declaring for Obama and then letting Florida and Michigan be seated as a cosmetic gesture when it doesn't matter wont work either. Everyone would see through that.
If Hillary Clinton should end the primary season with the popular vote and delegate lead including Florida and Michgian, and she doesn't get the nomination, it will ensure a major disaster in the fall elections in both Presidential and congressional elections, and will divide the party in ways, and cost the Democrats elections in the future, that they wont recover from for years to come. There is a lot more riding on seating Florida and Michigan than just this election.
The easiest and quickest solution right now would be the one I stated earlier. Dean should hold a press conference admit he made a terrible mistake, issue a statement that the Democratic party, especially after 2000, stands for every vote being counted, that he is going to recommend to the Rules Committee to let the Florida and Michigan results stand as is, and then resign. And then let the candidates do what they are supposed to. Fight it out at the ballot box in the 5 remaining primaries so the Democrats can go forward with the air cleared, everyone supporting a legitimate nominee and no one feeling like they've been robbed.
Howard, I'd be glad to write it for you. Just drop me a line.
To further support the seating of Florida Michigan visit: COUNTTHEVOTES
For a list of super delegates you can contact to tell them to include Florida and Michigan in their decision visit THE SUPERDELEGATE TRANSPARENCY PROJECT