Democratic Primary Season, day 144

Well, it's been two months since I last wrote about the Democrats, but one would think that the only thing that's changed is that both candidates now have higher delegate counts, although Obama is now in much better shape. With only three contests remaining, he has a majority of pledged delegates attending the convention, a lead in superdelegates, and increasing media coverage labelling him as the presumptive nominee. He is now only fifty-seven delgates shy of the requisite 2026 needed to be nominated. Yet Clinton, who trails Obama by nearly 200 delegates, remains in the race, not because she has any real chance, but because she refuses to leave.
Let's face it, the only reason that Obama isn't already labelled the presumptive nominee by everyone is because no one wants to have to break it to the Clintons--and that includes Bill as much as it does Hillary. But as they become increasingly desperate to show by any way they can that Senator Clinton deserves the nomination, one wonders if it's time for someone to tell them to get out now with class than to drag this thing to the convention.

The thing is, Clinton doesn't have a clear path to the nomination. The logic employed by Clinton supporters to show that she should get the nomination over Obama's head is increasingly tortured, with ironies and contradictions that make the summer gas tax seem like a good idea in comparison. She claims that she will not leave the race until "every voice was heard and every vote counted," yet she claims she is leading in the popular vote by counting Michigan (where Obama supporters were not even given the chance to vote for him) and Florida, and by discounting the people in caucus states, because somehow their opinions don't matter (or is it simply because Obama has dominated the caucuses?) She claims every voice needs to be heard, and so the votes in Florida and Michigan must be counted, even though that didn't become important to her until she realized that her nomination was about to be "stolen." She says she wants the votes of Americans to be counted, yet is desperately making her case to the superdelegates to buck the pledged delegates and choose her over Obama.
Recently she went so far as to claim that the Democrats need to change their nomination process, because the current one "fails to represent the will of the American voters." I quote,

“I think that’s an issue for debate in the future because I believe we should have primaries everywhere, and everybody, as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote...We ought to group them so that nobody is at the tail end, so everybody has a chance to participate. But that’s all for the future.”

You know, I didn't realize Hillary was the champion of nomination reform until the current system gave someone like Obama the chance to turn over the establishment candidate. I mean, give me a break. Lets face it, if the primaries were all held on the same day, Clinton, with national name recognition and a convincing lead in polls, probably could have won the nomination outright. However, the spaced out nature of the nominating process allowed Obama to gain name recognition as he won contests, particulary his surprising win in the Iowa caucuses. Now, suddenly, it's not democratic to give relative unknowns the chance to win popular support?
What this comes down to is that Clinton feels that she deserves the nomination, and when the people chose someone else it was because of some flaw in the nominating system. Will it ever occur to her that the Democratic Party perhaps found someone they liked more? It's as if she's personally offended by this whole ordeal, and her arguments are tantamount to claiming that the votes of the people don't matter at all. Give it up, Hillary.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/24/clinton-democratic-nomination-process-needs-to-change/

Bonehead of The Week: All of us

Apparently the candidates and the media and the public in general have nothing better to focus on. By writing this story I'm part of the problem I suppose. The story in the news over the past few days has been Obama's comments regarding Pennsylvania voters, who he described as "angry" and "bitter."

"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness. I want to make a point here. [Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions. They’ve lost their health care."

He was making a point, that voters are frustrated with the way their lives have turned over the past few decades. Did he say it the right way? No, probably not. Describing people who you are trying to win over as angry and bitter probably isn't the best strategy, and he knows it. He knows he screwed up, but what the heck is with the amount of coverage on these comments? Candidates make about 5-6 stump speeches per day. Slips of the tongue have to be expected, these people are absolutely exhausted.

For example, when Hillary said that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Well, if you count little girls reading you poems and handing you flowers as sniper fire, then I guess she would be right. She got caught in a lie, and she knows it, we all know it, move on. Candidates lie. I'm sorry to be the one to accept that, but they lie, and they always will. They're trying to prove that their the right person for the job, so they feel the need to bloat their own records a little bit. Is it right? Should it be happening? Absolutely not, but it is the product of the amount of attention we as Americans pay to elections in general. The candidates that simply tell it how it is are boring, they don't get any media attention, they don't get any votes. So how do we fix this? Can we ever really elect the "average joe" that we all claim to want in the White House? I'm not sure, give me your ideas in the comment section.

Anyways, we're all getting a little antsy before the Pennsylvania primaries. There has been a lull in the action, so you can expect more rediculous controversies like this on the news every night. FLASH: HILLARY CLINTON ORDERS PEPPERONI PIZZA IN PRIMARILY VEGITARIAN COMMUNITY. Ugh, give me a break. There will be more slips of the tongue as well. I'm sure if we analyzed every line of every speech these candidates give on a daily basis, we could find a reason to be angry or even bitter with all of them. Pun intended.

P.S. Sorry for the little break there in between posts, there has been a lot going on recently, and we're trying to get the new site up as soon as possible. Just know that we're working on it and the posts will be back on a daily basis starting today.

The Wright Affair

So I'm sure by now most of you have heard some of the comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments had anti-American flavor to them, and some were racially charged. Jeremiah Wright is a black man. He was the leader of a predominantly black church. He seems to harbor a lot of ill will against the United States for what it has done to black people throughout history. This was part of him now infamous "god damn America" sermon, in which he condemned the country for trying to play the role of God, and letting its black population down.

These comments have been reproduced and misrepresented completely. This is not a defense of what he said, because I feel that in his position of religious leadership, what he said was not only stupid but overstepped his bounds. I don't mean to convince you that the "mass media" has taken this story and purposefully mangled it to attack Obama. No, I don't subscribe to those common lines of thinking, that although popular, are conspiracy theories none the less.

This is simply an argument that Barack Obama should be left out of the matter completely. People in America are hearing these comments, and condemning both Wright and Obama at the same time. Obama is being thrown under the bus, his national poll numbers are going down, and he's being crucified by competitors for what his former pastor said. His former pastor. Give me a break.

To me, Jeremiah Wright can be accurately compared to that crazy uncle or grandpa that all of us have encountered at one point or another. You love that uncle or grandpa, because theyre family. Sometimes they might say something stupid, or racist even, but you never hate them. You don't hate them because you know that despite their flaws, they are good people with good intentions. You realize that just because they say something doesn't mean you need to believe it. You realize that you are your own person with your own beliefs, and you move on.

The same thing happened to Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright was a close personal friend of his. Wright baptized Obama's children for gods sakes, the two were close. Now Republicans and fellow Democrats are attacking Obama for not trashing Wright and leaving him in the dust? I don't know about you, but I have more respect for Obama knowing that he wouldn't ditch someone he considers close to family just because of a few dumb remarks. Obama said that he didn't agree with Wright, but that he would remain with the congregation. Bravo.

What Wright said is no reflection on Obama's own individual character. It tells us nothing about how Obama feels regarding race in America, and it tells us nothing about the sort of people Obama associates himself with.

If we really need to spend this much time analyzing off color remarks made by a Democratic hopeful's former pastor, perhaps the degradation of this race is worse than I previously thought. America.....Im sorry I mean God, save us all.

Huh?

Recently, a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) suggested a novel, new method of guaging success in the primaries--tally up the electoral votes in states won!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y

Is there anyone reading this who can explain to me the tortured logic that would lead people to believe that winning electoral votes in a primary (where they make no difference at all) translates to winning electoral votes in the general election? Obviously the candidate who wins the primary goes on to win the general election. In fact, all twenty-four Democratic and Republican primary winners went on to take the white house, excepting only the twelve who lost. So clearly, primary performance is an indicator of general election performance.

Take a state like Texas, for example. Clinton won (narrowly) in the popular vote in that state's primary election on March 5. So, obviously, she will win Texas in the general election, right?

Frankly, no. Stephen Colbert could not have been more accurate when he said that the winner of the Texas Democratic primary would win Texas "unless there's a Republican candidate." I'm sorry, but no Democrat is going to take Texas in the general election--so why is being able to win it in a primary such a big thing?

Primary performance is no indicator whatsoever of how a candidate will perform in the general election. For one thing, it represents only the wishes of people who are registered members of the party itself (except for some states that hold open primaries, in which one need only be a registered voter). For another, it doesn't take into account a candidate's appeal to moderates or the other party--something that Hillary is sorely lacking.

The only reasonable explanation for why she wants to look at the primary victories as if they were the electoral college is that she's getting desperate to appear the frontrunner, when she trails Obama in just about every other category--including delegates, which is the only one that counts.

So, Senator Clinton, stop whining because the Democrats choose Barack Obama over you. I know it's hard for you to accept that, but that is just how politics works. Stop trying to show that you won in the electoral vote so far, because it only highlights that you've come up short where it really matters--the delegates.

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.


*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt

Obama wins Wyoming

Major news outlets are reporting that Barack Obama will win the Wyoming caucus today.

The delegate split is as follows:
Obama: 7
Clinton: 5

This marks the first primary since Hillary Clinton's big night on March 4th, in which she won both Ohio and Texas.

Barack Obama has now won 29 of 43 states that have been decided thus far. He has been dominant in caucuses, however, winning a commanding 12 out of the 13 caucuses that have been decided. Attention now shifts to the Mississippi primaries on March 11th.

Boneheads of the Week: Florida and Michigan

Dear Florida and Michigan,

You broke the rules. The DNC told you that you couldn't hold your primaries before the approved date on February 5th, but you didn't listen. No, you felt as though you're states were too important to be grouped together with all the riff raff on Super Tuesday. The DNC even warned you. They told you that if you moved your primaries before February 5th, your delegates wouldn't be seated in August.

But you didn't listen. No, you passed legislation that mandated your primaries be held before the rest on Super Tuesday, so that your state could have more influence. The DNC was mad, sure, but they gave you another chance. They told you that if you repealed the legislation and moved your primaries back to where they were supposed to be, they wouldn't penalize you. You had months and months to consider what you were doing, as well as the consequences.

But you didn't listen. You went ahead with your primaries against the rules of the DNC, and they punished you, just like they said they would. Your delegates aren't going to be seated at the convention. You took away the vote and voice of your people, not the DNC. Don't complain that your people are being disenfranchized, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you were the one that allowed this.

But now you argue that the DNC is at fault? You say that your delegations "will be seated" no matter what? If you wanted to have any say in this election, you would have followed the rules, just like the rest of the states.

But no, you're too important for that. And now you're mad, fighting mad. Do you hear that sound, Florida and Michigan? It's me playing the worlds smallest violin.