For Obama supporters, and Democrats who really want to take back the White House, it will be refreshing to see their nominee finally focus on John McCain. Any month now. Yesterday, in an an event every one is describing as a 'picture perfect' display of party unity in Unity , New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton made nice with Barack Obama and urged her supporters to get behind the Democratic nominee. She seemed genuine, her speech was well written, and her delivery was flawless. She delivered for Obama. After Obama had delivered for her the night before by making it clear that he would rally his supporters to her financial rescue . The word in political circles is that the price of unity is roughly $10 million big ones, which is what Clinton owes the vendors that proffered services to her campaign. Obama will help with that debt. In exchange for unity.
This arrangement is not unusual in presidential politics. The scope of this arrangement, however, is unprecedented. Starting with a concession speech that came four days after his victory and continuing with an extended negotiation to figure out how Hillary (and Bill) can come together behind Obama, this type of attention paid to a primary loser has never been seen before. And, sure, we understand that Hillary's campaign was historic. We understand that special attention must be paid to assuage the hurt feelings of legions of women. But it's hard not to feel as if the Clintons are holding Obama hostage.
This kind of internecine squabbling is not unusual for Democrats. In fact, one could argue that this is a primary reason why they have not captured the White House more often. Their battles in '68 lost one of the closest elections in history and had direct repercussions in '72. Same thing in '80, though in fairness, that was a change election and Carter was doing a miserable job.
This election, despite the early polls, will almost certainly be a nail biter. For Obama to spend valuable time, energy and funds on a vanquished opponent is a drain that may wind up hurting him. Yes, Hillary's supporters are crucial for victory, but not if they prevent him from actually running against John McCain.
In one of the debates, Obama referenced a barb thrown at him by Bill Clinton, to which Hillary replied that she not Bill was running for President. Obama fired back, "Well, sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against."
That's getting cleared up now. For a price.
Does it make sense for Obama to treatr Hillary with kid gloves in exchange for her support? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Roe For Joe
Where, oh, where to begin with the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling in favor of Dick Heller in the case of District of Columbia V Heller. It is the first time since 1939 that the Court has weighed in on the tricky issue of individual's gun rights.
If you're a gun owner, you hail this ruling as a victory for common sense. Especially since the case revolved (sorry) around a security guard who was not allowed to have his licensed gun in his home because of the District of Columbia's draconian ban on personal gun ownership. (Of course, the law was created in response to the unbelieveably high numbers of gun related deaths). If you're Wayne Pierre, head of the NRA, you can pretend to hail this ruling as a victory of Second Amendment rights, when you know it really means unfettered profits for the firearms industry that you represent. And if you're the rest of us, you'll look carefully at the majority's opinion and see how a truly activist court inartfully cloaks itself in phoney constructionist gobbdleygook. The fact is, this ruling is Joe Sixpack's Roe v Wade. It's questionable jurisprudence, that validates what is for many, a cultural norm.
So how did the majority reach their opinion? By reaching back into the English history books--and interpreting what they found to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, the conclusion they reach, that the right to bear arms for personal defense has been long held in English law, is not supported by any of the sources they reference. In each case, the right to bear arms in English history came from the wish to preserve the individual's right to defend himself, not against his fellow citizen, but against an oppressive regime.
But one thing this majority does know how to do is say "they're wrong and we're right". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize its proof contradicts itself. Check this out:
"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. "
Oh, really? Can you give me some examples? No? Oh, ok. They continue:
"But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."
Who says? Not the Constititution.
Or how about this:
"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state. . . ” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . ” This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."
So in other words, all of these states, reference a defense of the state as the purpose to bear arms in each of their constitututions...which means that...the defense of the state is not what the right to bear arms is solely referencing. And we know this...because...we say so.
Now here's another thought. The good news is that this ruling at least puts the cards on the table as far as the NRA's premise that if every law abiding citizen had a gun, we'd have no violent crime. Of course, that pre-supposes that if every law abiding citizen carried a hand gun everywhere, there would never be an instance where that law abiding citizen might become a criminal based on the use of that weapon. Which is a reach. I mean, the Columbine kids were law abiding, until they weren't.
But the point is, if every one should have equal access to guns, as the NRA believes, why not give guns away? Stop making guns for profit. Offer them as a public service. Take the profit motive out of firearms and then see how much support there would be for the Second Amendment.
Finally, these two statements say it all. The first by Justice Scalia, who exposes the majority's flimsy interpretation of the Constitution by acccepting limitations on the right to bear arms:
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
And of course, the dissenters could only say this:
"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."
So, no matter what you believe is the right policy for gun ownership in this country, understand this: we have an activist Supreme Court, who will protect profits above all else.
For the political fallout, firearms issues are to Barack Obama what welfare was to Bill Clinton: he needs to break with his past policy to get elected. McCain has already called him out on it and Obama will have a few days of discomfort, but in the end it becomes a non-issue. And in this way, the Supreme Court ruling gives him cover. It's done. The debate is over. The right for individuals to bear arms in self defense is established.
The last question, of course, is that of limitations. Chris Matthews asked Wayne LaPierre if it was ok to tote a machine gun in public. He responded by saying Matthews was trying to scare the public. When pressed, LaPierre admitted that any mainstream firearm, even an automatic, should be considered ok for personal use.
So maybe, we just eliminate police departments. Give everyone over 16 a gun and see if violent crime goes down. There are many web sites dedicted to this proposition. I don't know. I thought we tried that before in a place called the Wild West and decided that professionals should take care of law enforcement. But maybe backward is the new forward.
What I know for sure is that Smith and Wesson stock is a good buy today.
Give me some thoughts on this landmark ruling or anything else you'd like to talk about by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
If you're a gun owner, you hail this ruling as a victory for common sense. Especially since the case revolved (sorry) around a security guard who was not allowed to have his licensed gun in his home because of the District of Columbia's draconian ban on personal gun ownership. (Of course, the law was created in response to the unbelieveably high numbers of gun related deaths). If you're Wayne Pierre, head of the NRA, you can pretend to hail this ruling as a victory of Second Amendment rights, when you know it really means unfettered profits for the firearms industry that you represent. And if you're the rest of us, you'll look carefully at the majority's opinion and see how a truly activist court inartfully cloaks itself in phoney constructionist gobbdleygook. The fact is, this ruling is Joe Sixpack's Roe v Wade. It's questionable jurisprudence, that validates what is for many, a cultural norm.
So how did the majority reach their opinion? By reaching back into the English history books--and interpreting what they found to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, the conclusion they reach, that the right to bear arms for personal defense has been long held in English law, is not supported by any of the sources they reference. In each case, the right to bear arms in English history came from the wish to preserve the individual's right to defend himself, not against his fellow citizen, but against an oppressive regime.
But one thing this majority does know how to do is say "they're wrong and we're right". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize its proof contradicts itself. Check this out:
"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. "
Oh, really? Can you give me some examples? No? Oh, ok. They continue:
"But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."
Who says? Not the Constititution.
Or how about this:
"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state. . . ” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . ” This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."
So in other words, all of these states, reference a defense of the state as the purpose to bear arms in each of their constitututions...which means that...the defense of the state is not what the right to bear arms is solely referencing. And we know this...because...we say so.
Now here's another thought. The good news is that this ruling at least puts the cards on the table as far as the NRA's premise that if every law abiding citizen had a gun, we'd have no violent crime. Of course, that pre-supposes that if every law abiding citizen carried a hand gun everywhere, there would never be an instance where that law abiding citizen might become a criminal based on the use of that weapon. Which is a reach. I mean, the Columbine kids were law abiding, until they weren't.
But the point is, if every one should have equal access to guns, as the NRA believes, why not give guns away? Stop making guns for profit. Offer them as a public service. Take the profit motive out of firearms and then see how much support there would be for the Second Amendment.
Finally, these two statements say it all. The first by Justice Scalia, who exposes the majority's flimsy interpretation of the Constitution by acccepting limitations on the right to bear arms:
"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
And of course, the dissenters could only say this:
"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."
So, no matter what you believe is the right policy for gun ownership in this country, understand this: we have an activist Supreme Court, who will protect profits above all else.
For the political fallout, firearms issues are to Barack Obama what welfare was to Bill Clinton: he needs to break with his past policy to get elected. McCain has already called him out on it and Obama will have a few days of discomfort, but in the end it becomes a non-issue. And in this way, the Supreme Court ruling gives him cover. It's done. The debate is over. The right for individuals to bear arms in self defense is established.
The last question, of course, is that of limitations. Chris Matthews asked Wayne LaPierre if it was ok to tote a machine gun in public. He responded by saying Matthews was trying to scare the public. When pressed, LaPierre admitted that any mainstream firearm, even an automatic, should be considered ok for personal use.
So maybe, we just eliminate police departments. Give everyone over 16 a gun and see if violent crime goes down. There are many web sites dedicted to this proposition. I don't know. I thought we tried that before in a place called the Wild West and decided that professionals should take care of law enforcement. But maybe backward is the new forward.
What I know for sure is that Smith and Wesson stock is a good buy today.
Give me some thoughts on this landmark ruling or anything else you'd like to talk about by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Hysterics
Call me crazy but I just can't get too worked up over Charlie Black's comments in Fortune magazine. John McCain's senior adviser said of a terrorist attack on American soil: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him." And he didn't mean Osama Bin Laden. He meant John McCain, because of his so called edge in the Commander-In-Chief sweepstakes. Now everyone's in hysterics about a comment that is crass, but widely believed as true.
But is it? I remember when everyone said right after 9/11, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't elect Al Gore". All I could think of was, "Why? In this kind of a crisis, wouldn't you rather have a guy who'd spent eight years in the Situation Room and knew every international player on the planet over a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who had never even traveled to Europe?"
Well, if the answer is "No", then who's to say a 1 1/2 term Senator from Illinois isn't just as capable of leading in a crisis than an ex-Navy squadron leader? The fact is, what matters is keeping your cool under fire. I'd take either of them.
The other fact is, it's impossible to control everything that campaign staffers say and do. Charlie Black was careless. So was Michelle Obama. It happens, it'll happen again.
But if you want hysterics, how about Mac talking about the "psychological lift" that tapping into our oil reserves will give Joe Sixpack at the pump, even though it'll still cost him 80 bucks to fill up his Silverado. And that was Mac's round-about-way of saying that he knew that none of his bright ideas-- gas tax holiday, off shore drilling or emptying our reserves--would actually lower gas prices. Reality bites.
But wait, there's more. How much would you pay for easing the energy crunch? $300 miiilllion dolllars? Good, because that's Mac's latest scheme. Give $300,000, 000 to anyone who creates a good enough battery to power a car. Oh, boy. Will someone get the man a copy of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE! THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! RIGHT NOW!But the oil companies are making sure it never hits market. And if you don't know that, you shouldn't run for President. And if you do know that and you're just pretending you don't know it, congratulations. You're like every other Presidential candidate. Hysterical.
At least Obama made a reasonable pass at dealing with the problem by saying he'll get serious about the Gramm, I mean, Enron loophole, that allows oil and gas futures to be traded in a wholly unregulated environment. Speculation, many believe, is a primary cause of high gas prices. Joe Sixpack believes that 10 billion dollars of profit a quarter may also have something to do with it. I'm with Joe. Common sense trumps hysterics.
Read about the campaigns' dueling energy fixes here .
Finally, speaking of hysterics, a nod to the comedian who embodied the spirit of Power to the People: George Carlin. He died at 71, a classic iconoclast who had so many good political bits you couldn't list them all on the Washington Monument. But my two favorite bits were non-political: in a routine about getting high and going shopping, he said, "I love to go up to someone else's shopping cart and just start walking off with it. When they say, 'Hey! That's my food!' , I just smile and say, 'Not yet it isn't." Or in his routine about snappy comebacks to tired cliches, he cites the single parent who admonishes a teenage child by saying, 'I have tried to be both a mother and a father to you!' To which the teenager replies, 'Oh, yeah? Then why don't you go f*** yourself!"
That's hysterical.
So, who's funnier, George Carlin or candidates who think a President can lower gas prices? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and clicking on the anonymous or nickname button.
But is it? I remember when everyone said right after 9/11, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't elect Al Gore". All I could think of was, "Why? In this kind of a crisis, wouldn't you rather have a guy who'd spent eight years in the Situation Room and knew every international player on the planet over a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who had never even traveled to Europe?"
Well, if the answer is "No", then who's to say a 1 1/2 term Senator from Illinois isn't just as capable of leading in a crisis than an ex-Navy squadron leader? The fact is, what matters is keeping your cool under fire. I'd take either of them.
The other fact is, it's impossible to control everything that campaign staffers say and do. Charlie Black was careless. So was Michelle Obama. It happens, it'll happen again.
But if you want hysterics, how about Mac talking about the "psychological lift" that tapping into our oil reserves will give Joe Sixpack at the pump, even though it'll still cost him 80 bucks to fill up his Silverado. And that was Mac's round-about-way of saying that he knew that none of his bright ideas-- gas tax holiday, off shore drilling or emptying our reserves--would actually lower gas prices. Reality bites.
But wait, there's more. How much would you pay for easing the energy crunch? $300 miiilllion dolllars? Good, because that's Mac's latest scheme. Give $300,000, 000 to anyone who creates a good enough battery to power a car. Oh, boy. Will someone get the man a copy of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE! THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! RIGHT NOW!But the oil companies are making sure it never hits market. And if you don't know that, you shouldn't run for President. And if you do know that and you're just pretending you don't know it, congratulations. You're like every other Presidential candidate. Hysterical.
At least Obama made a reasonable pass at dealing with the problem by saying he'll get serious about the Gramm, I mean, Enron loophole, that allows oil and gas futures to be traded in a wholly unregulated environment. Speculation, many believe, is a primary cause of high gas prices. Joe Sixpack believes that 10 billion dollars of profit a quarter may also have something to do with it. I'm with Joe. Common sense trumps hysterics.
Read about the campaigns' dueling energy fixes here .
Finally, speaking of hysterics, a nod to the comedian who embodied the spirit of Power to the People: George Carlin. He died at 71, a classic iconoclast who had so many good political bits you couldn't list them all on the Washington Monument. But my two favorite bits were non-political: in a routine about getting high and going shopping, he said, "I love to go up to someone else's shopping cart and just start walking off with it. When they say, 'Hey! That's my food!' , I just smile and say, 'Not yet it isn't." Or in his routine about snappy comebacks to tired cliches, he cites the single parent who admonishes a teenage child by saying, 'I have tried to be both a mother and a father to you!' To which the teenager replies, 'Oh, yeah? Then why don't you go f*** yourself!"
That's hysterical.
So, who's funnier, George Carlin or candidates who think a President can lower gas prices? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and clicking on the anonymous or nickname button.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Big Week
June 21. My favorite day of the year, because it's the longest day of the year. Actually, the 20th is the longest day, but the 21st is the first full day of summer.
In any event, it was quite a week for Presidential politics. With the ghost of Tim Russert inspiring our brightest minds to share eloquent memories of his life in an ongoing media celebration, the two candidates went at each other, scoring points and taking hits. Since I haven't written all week, I'll try to recap in entertaining fashion.
Gore
Barack Obama rolled out another rock concert style event in Detroit, this time starring Al Gore. Gore's rousing endorsement of Obama continued to make older Democrats shake their heads as they wondered why this Al Gore, this 'Inconvenient Truth' Al Gore, relaxed, witty and purposeful, couldn't have run for President in 2000. In any event, Obama scored big on the enthusiasm meter.
Oops
What we didn't see happen at that same event was that two Muslim American women were denied seats behind Obama because they were wearing traditional Muslim headscarves. One volunteer actually said to them they couldn't be seen in the camera shots because of the '...political climate'. On Thursday, Obama personally called them and apologized. Apology accepted. Issue may linger.
Habeas Schmabeas
Obama drew criticism from McCain on Obama's endorsement of the Supreme Court's ruling last week, allowing Gitmo detainees to challenge their detention in American courts. Obama went on to further say that he thought a captured Osama Bin Laden should be tried, not summarily executed. McCain, predictably, called this approach 'naive' and characterized Obama as soft on terrorism.
Reversals
Thanks to the dastardly, but brilliant, Karl Rove spin machine, Republicans have entered a phrase into the political lexicon that has done more to limit political discourse than any other phrase since Reagan's "There you go again" chide of Jimmy Carter. It's 'flip flop'. This derrogation summons the image of a helpless fish thrashing about on a boat deck, and doomed John Kerry's candidacy in 2004. The sub-text of flip flop, of course, is political expediency. Unfortunately, it has now come to mean any change in position, for whatever reason. This interpretation has discouraged many a politician from legitimately changing a stance on an issue based on new information or new understanding. For example, I have flip flopped on the issue of the boogeyman. I once thought he existed under my bed. I have now come to believe that he does not. I suppose I'm a flip flopper. A fellow named Abraham Lincoln also flip flopped on the issue of slavery. Lucky for us. Anyway, you'll never hear me use the term 'flip flop' unless referring to footwear. I will use 'reversal'.
This week both candidates reversed themselves on different issues. Both reversals could hurt them in the 'flip flop' (damn!) department, but help them in the long run. John McCain has decided that he now supports lifting the federal moratorium for off-shore oil drilling along US coastlines. This simply means that states can decide for themselves if they want to set up rigs. The experts disagree on how quickly this exploration could yield enough oil to ease our energy crunch. Most estimates put it at 5 years, minimum. The companion idea to this is that it would scare oil producing nations to lower costs or increase production. That's debatable, as well. What isn't debatable is that McCain's reversal is a political pander. It's not. We have an energy crisis and he wants all options on the table. Fair enough. The bad news for Mac is that it once more aligns him with George Bush on policy.
Barack Obama reversed himself when he announced he would opt out of the public financing pledge he signed last year. This is a true reversal and McCain has been correct to characterize it as 'breaking his word' to the American people. Unfortunately, when a one legged man complains that his two legged opponent didn't cut off a leg to make the butt kicking contest fairer, it sounds a little like sour grapes. Especially, when the one legged man borrowed money for a prothsesis by saying he would remain a one legged man.
Obama has taken some short term heat for the decision, which is fair. But detractors can't have it both ways. They can't say he's naive and untested and not tough enough, and then when he makes a savvy, pragmatic decision to advantage himself in a fight, they say he's just another politician.
Advantage?
Generally, most observers would agree that John McCain had a slightly better week. Fewer controveries, lots of policy statements. Plenty of openings to attack Obama. My own observation is that McCain should be troubled by one thing: None of Obama's controversy has stuck. He takes his hits and moves on. If he has to apologize, he does. The public likes that. I'm not into polls, especially this early, but major polls show that Obama got a huge bounce from his primary victory and now leads in swing states like Pennsylvania. As I say, this means little now; but it does energize the Obama campaign and could deflate McCain supporters enough to affect fundraising and general perception. We'll see.
Ok that's enough for now. Summer's officially started.
Time to put on my flip flops.
Whose reversal will hurt them (or help them) the most? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
In any event, it was quite a week for Presidential politics. With the ghost of Tim Russert inspiring our brightest minds to share eloquent memories of his life in an ongoing media celebration, the two candidates went at each other, scoring points and taking hits. Since I haven't written all week, I'll try to recap in entertaining fashion.
Gore
Barack Obama rolled out another rock concert style event in Detroit, this time starring Al Gore. Gore's rousing endorsement of Obama continued to make older Democrats shake their heads as they wondered why this Al Gore, this 'Inconvenient Truth' Al Gore, relaxed, witty and purposeful, couldn't have run for President in 2000. In any event, Obama scored big on the enthusiasm meter.
Oops
What we didn't see happen at that same event was that two Muslim American women were denied seats behind Obama because they were wearing traditional Muslim headscarves. One volunteer actually said to them they couldn't be seen in the camera shots because of the '...political climate'. On Thursday, Obama personally called them and apologized. Apology accepted. Issue may linger.
Habeas Schmabeas
Obama drew criticism from McCain on Obama's endorsement of the Supreme Court's ruling last week, allowing Gitmo detainees to challenge their detention in American courts. Obama went on to further say that he thought a captured Osama Bin Laden should be tried, not summarily executed. McCain, predictably, called this approach 'naive' and characterized Obama as soft on terrorism.
Reversals
Thanks to the dastardly, but brilliant, Karl Rove spin machine, Republicans have entered a phrase into the political lexicon that has done more to limit political discourse than any other phrase since Reagan's "There you go again" chide of Jimmy Carter. It's 'flip flop'. This derrogation summons the image of a helpless fish thrashing about on a boat deck, and doomed John Kerry's candidacy in 2004. The sub-text of flip flop, of course, is political expediency. Unfortunately, it has now come to mean any change in position, for whatever reason. This interpretation has discouraged many a politician from legitimately changing a stance on an issue based on new information or new understanding. For example, I have flip flopped on the issue of the boogeyman. I once thought he existed under my bed. I have now come to believe that he does not. I suppose I'm a flip flopper. A fellow named Abraham Lincoln also flip flopped on the issue of slavery. Lucky for us. Anyway, you'll never hear me use the term 'flip flop' unless referring to footwear. I will use 'reversal'.
This week both candidates reversed themselves on different issues. Both reversals could hurt them in the 'flip flop' (damn!) department, but help them in the long run. John McCain has decided that he now supports lifting the federal moratorium for off-shore oil drilling along US coastlines. This simply means that states can decide for themselves if they want to set up rigs. The experts disagree on how quickly this exploration could yield enough oil to ease our energy crunch. Most estimates put it at 5 years, minimum. The companion idea to this is that it would scare oil producing nations to lower costs or increase production. That's debatable, as well. What isn't debatable is that McCain's reversal is a political pander. It's not. We have an energy crisis and he wants all options on the table. Fair enough. The bad news for Mac is that it once more aligns him with George Bush on policy.
Barack Obama reversed himself when he announced he would opt out of the public financing pledge he signed last year. This is a true reversal and McCain has been correct to characterize it as 'breaking his word' to the American people. Unfortunately, when a one legged man complains that his two legged opponent didn't cut off a leg to make the butt kicking contest fairer, it sounds a little like sour grapes. Especially, when the one legged man borrowed money for a prothsesis by saying he would remain a one legged man.
Obama has taken some short term heat for the decision, which is fair. But detractors can't have it both ways. They can't say he's naive and untested and not tough enough, and then when he makes a savvy, pragmatic decision to advantage himself in a fight, they say he's just another politician.
Advantage?
Generally, most observers would agree that John McCain had a slightly better week. Fewer controveries, lots of policy statements. Plenty of openings to attack Obama. My own observation is that McCain should be troubled by one thing: None of Obama's controversy has stuck. He takes his hits and moves on. If he has to apologize, he does. The public likes that. I'm not into polls, especially this early, but major polls show that Obama got a huge bounce from his primary victory and now leads in swing states like Pennsylvania. As I say, this means little now; but it does energize the Obama campaign and could deflate McCain supporters enough to affect fundraising and general perception. We'll see.
Ok that's enough for now. Summer's officially started.
Time to put on my flip flops.
Whose reversal will hurt them (or help them) the most? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Russert
I cried. And I didn't even know him. But at 3:30 on June 13--yes, Friday the 13th--I cried when I read that Timothy J. Russert had died suddenly of a heart attack while working at the NBC studios in Washington.
I can't provide a fitting obituary for this giant of TV journalism except to say this: his was the voice I trusted when I needed to get the straight dope on American politics.
We all know that Russert was the moderator of the hugely successful "Meet The Press", which he single-handedly revitalized 17 years ago. On that show, he was able to let newsmakers' own words make or break their cases. His dreaded quote cards that sat on the screen as he read them out loud, was a Washington media ritual that must have given politicians and newmakers nightmares. As all the tributes have stated, Tim Russert was the most prepared journalist anyone has ever seen.
But it was his ability to distill the facts into a simple storyline which set him apart. His famous "Florida, Florida, Florida" whiteboard in the 2000 election set the stage for those momentus events. His controversial (but correct) statement after this year's Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries, that Obama was going to win the nomination, sent a shudder through the Clinton campaign. They knew that if Tim said it, it was true.
In the extended tributes that flowed Friday night on MSNBC, much was made of Russert's everyman quality. His Buffalo, NY working class background and his obvious appreciation for his station in life made him such a universally appealing TV presence. He took his work, his friends and his family seriously. But never himself.
Some people you know are singular as you watch them. When Tiger Woods makes an impossible eagle at the U.S. Open, we know he's one of a kind. There are others who we realize are singular when we have to contemplate life without them. Russert, I think, falls in that category.
There are good TV journalists out there, but without Tim Russert, there's no one I'll really trust to give me the straight dope in this year's election. And what are we going to do at 10:30 on Sunday mornings?
Go back to church more often, I suppose. Or spend quality time with family. Because as Tim Russert's untimely death proved, life is precious and much too short.
Talk about Tim, if you'd like, by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
I can't provide a fitting obituary for this giant of TV journalism except to say this: his was the voice I trusted when I needed to get the straight dope on American politics.
We all know that Russert was the moderator of the hugely successful "Meet The Press", which he single-handedly revitalized 17 years ago. On that show, he was able to let newsmakers' own words make or break their cases. His dreaded quote cards that sat on the screen as he read them out loud, was a Washington media ritual that must have given politicians and newmakers nightmares. As all the tributes have stated, Tim Russert was the most prepared journalist anyone has ever seen.
But it was his ability to distill the facts into a simple storyline which set him apart. His famous "Florida, Florida, Florida" whiteboard in the 2000 election set the stage for those momentus events. His controversial (but correct) statement after this year's Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries, that Obama was going to win the nomination, sent a shudder through the Clinton campaign. They knew that if Tim said it, it was true.
In the extended tributes that flowed Friday night on MSNBC, much was made of Russert's everyman quality. His Buffalo, NY working class background and his obvious appreciation for his station in life made him such a universally appealing TV presence. He took his work, his friends and his family seriously. But never himself.
Some people you know are singular as you watch them. When Tiger Woods makes an impossible eagle at the U.S. Open, we know he's one of a kind. There are others who we realize are singular when we have to contemplate life without them. Russert, I think, falls in that category.
There are good TV journalists out there, but without Tim Russert, there's no one I'll really trust to give me the straight dope in this year's election. And what are we going to do at 10:30 on Sunday mornings?
Go back to church more often, I suppose. Or spend quality time with family. Because as Tim Russert's untimely death proved, life is precious and much too short.
Talk about Tim, if you'd like, by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Hoo, Boy
If we thought we were going to have a general presidential election based on just the issues, this first full week of the campaign snapped us to our senses.
In the 'gotcha' sweepstakes the winner is...no one. The loser is...the American people as honest debate gets replaced by sound bite one upsmanship.
Yesterday, there were two separate developments that had the campaigns firing shots and emails all over the place. First, on 'The Today Show', Matt Lauer's asked whether the success of the surge in Iraq has made it easier to predict when American troops could come home.John McCain started his answer with, "No, but that's not too important... casualties are what's important..." Mac then went on with his usual South Korea and Germany occupation analogy.
Predictably, the Dems jumped all over the '...it's not too important' line. Sen. John Kerry said on a conference call that this latest statement proved that Mac was, “unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans,”. The McCain campaign responded with a full explanation of the statement. You can read some of the back and forth here .
While McCain's unfortunate statement gave the Dems an opening to hammer him on Iraq, their response has not elevated the debate or provided a 'different kind of politics' as Barack Obama has promised. And worse, it has squandered the opportunity to have a real debate about McCain's philosophy. The fact is, his premise about occupation versus casualties is flawed for this reason: Iraq, unlike South Korea or Germany or Japan, has an ongoing sectarian conflict that makes it impossible to eliminate casualties for our American troops. Unless there is an historic political settlement between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, American forces will always be in the crossfire of a potential civil war.
That's one argument. There are opposing viewpoints. But this is a legitimate disagreement that two reasonable candidates should debate for the elucidation of the American people. This latest round of 'gotcha' politics precludes that.
On the Obama front, the big news is that one of his three VP vetters, Jim Johnson has decided to resign. Johnson is the ultimate Washington insider, almost universally respected. However, he had recieved a $1.7 million sweetheart loan through his association with the CEO of subprime mortgage villain Countrywide. Though Obama first defended Johnson, it became clear that having a member of his team entrenched in the subprime industry would look hypocritical in the face of Obama's critisicism of that industry. When it also became clear that the story would not go away, Obama accepted Johnson's resignation.
For McCain's campaign this was a juicy nugget. They could hammer Obama on ethics and neutralize his attacks on their own staff issues surrounding lobbyists (one of whom worked for the military Junta of Myanmar). But again, this misses the more substantive debate. How does Washington really work? It is a free country, people can work for whomever they want, but where are the real ethical lines in the sand? Can candidates actually staff their campaigns with people who have never been lobbyists or who have never advantaged themselves within legal frameworks of the political/business nexus? Is it fair to ask them to do that?
These are real questions that go to the heart of why government may or may not be as responsive to the needs of the people. And to Obama and McCain's credit, they are trying to set the standard high for ethics within their campaigns.
I just wish they'd extend that committment to an ethical debate on the issues, as they've promised. This way, we'll know how well they'll run a government, not how fast they'll email reporters.
This election has the potential to be transcendant. But so far, it's looking an awful lot like business as usual.
Are the ethical bars that these candidates have set too high? And when is enough 'gotcha' enough? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
In the 'gotcha' sweepstakes the winner is...no one. The loser is...the American people as honest debate gets replaced by sound bite one upsmanship.
Yesterday, there were two separate developments that had the campaigns firing shots and emails all over the place. First, on 'The Today Show', Matt Lauer's asked whether the success of the surge in Iraq has made it easier to predict when American troops could come home.John McCain started his answer with, "No, but that's not too important... casualties are what's important..." Mac then went on with his usual South Korea and Germany occupation analogy.
Predictably, the Dems jumped all over the '...it's not too important' line. Sen. John Kerry said on a conference call that this latest statement proved that Mac was, “unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans,”. The McCain campaign responded with a full explanation of the statement. You can read some of the back and forth here .
While McCain's unfortunate statement gave the Dems an opening to hammer him on Iraq, their response has not elevated the debate or provided a 'different kind of politics' as Barack Obama has promised. And worse, it has squandered the opportunity to have a real debate about McCain's philosophy. The fact is, his premise about occupation versus casualties is flawed for this reason: Iraq, unlike South Korea or Germany or Japan, has an ongoing sectarian conflict that makes it impossible to eliminate casualties for our American troops. Unless there is an historic political settlement between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, American forces will always be in the crossfire of a potential civil war.
That's one argument. There are opposing viewpoints. But this is a legitimate disagreement that two reasonable candidates should debate for the elucidation of the American people. This latest round of 'gotcha' politics precludes that.
On the Obama front, the big news is that one of his three VP vetters, Jim Johnson has decided to resign. Johnson is the ultimate Washington insider, almost universally respected. However, he had recieved a $1.7 million sweetheart loan through his association with the CEO of subprime mortgage villain Countrywide. Though Obama first defended Johnson, it became clear that having a member of his team entrenched in the subprime industry would look hypocritical in the face of Obama's critisicism of that industry. When it also became clear that the story would not go away, Obama accepted Johnson's resignation.
For McCain's campaign this was a juicy nugget. They could hammer Obama on ethics and neutralize his attacks on their own staff issues surrounding lobbyists (one of whom worked for the military Junta of Myanmar). But again, this misses the more substantive debate. How does Washington really work? It is a free country, people can work for whomever they want, but where are the real ethical lines in the sand? Can candidates actually staff their campaigns with people who have never been lobbyists or who have never advantaged themselves within legal frameworks of the political/business nexus? Is it fair to ask them to do that?
These are real questions that go to the heart of why government may or may not be as responsive to the needs of the people. And to Obama and McCain's credit, they are trying to set the standard high for ethics within their campaigns.
I just wish they'd extend that committment to an ethical debate on the issues, as they've promised. This way, we'll know how well they'll run a government, not how fast they'll email reporters.
This election has the potential to be transcendant. But so far, it's looking an awful lot like business as usual.
Are the ethical bars that these candidates have set too high? And when is enough 'gotcha' enough? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.
Monday, June 9, 2008
You Want History? Let's Check The List.
One of the most historical political weeks in decades has come to a close--with resolution accompanied by nagging questions.
You want history? How about the first African-American to become a party's Presidential nominee? Or the first woman to vie for that nomination? Or...how about the first loser of a Presidential nomination getting an entire day of coverage...for her concession speech--four days after she lost?! Now that's history.
But that's not even the crazy part. The crazy part is that four days after Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech possibly doomed her vice presidential hopes, Saturday's concession speech at the National Museum Building in Washington absolutely catapaulted her back into contention.
That's because Hillary made sure that Obama could sit at home and check off each required statement from his "Things Hillary Must Say" list.
'I congratulate Barack Obama on his...victory'. Check.
'I endorse Barack Obama'. Check.
'I will work hard to make sure Barack Obama is the next president of the United States". Check.
'I want you to work as hard for him as you did for me.' Check.
So in 28 little minutes, she did what she's always done. She forced Democrats to put away their 'Ten Things I Hate About Hillary" list and pick up their 'Ten things I Like About Hillary' list.
It's confusing.
We're not going to spend time analyzing her loss. Power To The People is not interested in piling on and I don't think it's fun sport to gleefully dissect her campaign's failure. Especially when her bid for the nomination was every bit as historic as Obama's. However, read this fact-based look at the inner workings of Clinton's campaign. Yes, the reporters are examining the 'collapse' of the Clinton campaign, but they reveal fascinating internal struggles that afflict all campaigns. Great stuff.
There's been a lot of talk of sexism in the wake of Hillary's loss. Much of this is based on the adverse media coverage she's garnered. And she has attracted a steady stream of unflattering commentary. Interestingly, Hillary's toughest critics have been women. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and the New York Time's leading columnists, Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd have hit often and hard. Dowd, especially, seems to have a personal axe to grind, which to my eyes invalidates anything she has to say about Hillary.
But is this sexist? I don't know. As a man, I can't comment on sexism, except to say that it exists, it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated. Growing up in a household where my mother worked, ran a business and eventually out-earned my father, I don't see women as anything but equals.
I can comment on the fact that many people, including me, object to the sometimes shameless shape-shifting that Hillary has employed in this campaign. From her dismissing Obama's speechifying, to ripping off phrases from his speeches; from her denigration of his caucus victories, to her constantly redefining the metrics of 'victory', Hillary's behavior has often provided another example of the 'do whatever it takes to get elected' mentality that turns off voters. Whether it's committed by a man or a woman.
So, is she the best VP choice? We don't make predictions here. Personally, I'm a Jim Webb guy. He can help deliver Virginia (maybe), he's an ex-Republican, ex-marine, he wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia, he's opposed to Iraq, and he wants to change the way business is conducted in Washington. He seems like a perfect compliment to Obama. On the other hand, Hillary gives you a lot of women, a lot of Latinos and some Joe Sixpack. It makes a lot of sense from a down and dirty demographic standpoint.
The question is, if Hillary has to be Obama's number one surrogate, can she keep her shape? And we're not talking about her figure.
That would be sexist.
I'm looking for any thoughts on Hillary. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.
You want history? How about the first African-American to become a party's Presidential nominee? Or the first woman to vie for that nomination? Or...how about the first loser of a Presidential nomination getting an entire day of coverage...for her concession speech--four days after she lost?! Now that's history.
But that's not even the crazy part. The crazy part is that four days after Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech possibly doomed her vice presidential hopes, Saturday's concession speech at the National Museum Building in Washington absolutely catapaulted her back into contention.
That's because Hillary made sure that Obama could sit at home and check off each required statement from his "Things Hillary Must Say" list.
'I congratulate Barack Obama on his...victory'. Check.
'I endorse Barack Obama'. Check.
'I will work hard to make sure Barack Obama is the next president of the United States". Check.
'I want you to work as hard for him as you did for me.' Check.
So in 28 little minutes, she did what she's always done. She forced Democrats to put away their 'Ten Things I Hate About Hillary" list and pick up their 'Ten things I Like About Hillary' list.
It's confusing.
We're not going to spend time analyzing her loss. Power To The People is not interested in piling on and I don't think it's fun sport to gleefully dissect her campaign's failure. Especially when her bid for the nomination was every bit as historic as Obama's. However, read this fact-based look at the inner workings of Clinton's campaign. Yes, the reporters are examining the 'collapse' of the Clinton campaign, but they reveal fascinating internal struggles that afflict all campaigns. Great stuff.
There's been a lot of talk of sexism in the wake of Hillary's loss. Much of this is based on the adverse media coverage she's garnered. And she has attracted a steady stream of unflattering commentary. Interestingly, Hillary's toughest critics have been women. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and the New York Time's leading columnists, Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd have hit often and hard. Dowd, especially, seems to have a personal axe to grind, which to my eyes invalidates anything she has to say about Hillary.
But is this sexist? I don't know. As a man, I can't comment on sexism, except to say that it exists, it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated. Growing up in a household where my mother worked, ran a business and eventually out-earned my father, I don't see women as anything but equals.
I can comment on the fact that many people, including me, object to the sometimes shameless shape-shifting that Hillary has employed in this campaign. From her dismissing Obama's speechifying, to ripping off phrases from his speeches; from her denigration of his caucus victories, to her constantly redefining the metrics of 'victory', Hillary's behavior has often provided another example of the 'do whatever it takes to get elected' mentality that turns off voters. Whether it's committed by a man or a woman.
So, is she the best VP choice? We don't make predictions here. Personally, I'm a Jim Webb guy. He can help deliver Virginia (maybe), he's an ex-Republican, ex-marine, he wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia, he's opposed to Iraq, and he wants to change the way business is conducted in Washington. He seems like a perfect compliment to Obama. On the other hand, Hillary gives you a lot of women, a lot of Latinos and some Joe Sixpack. It makes a lot of sense from a down and dirty demographic standpoint.
The question is, if Hillary has to be Obama's number one surrogate, can she keep her shape? And we're not talking about her figure.
That would be sexist.
I'm looking for any thoughts on Hillary. Click on 'comments' below, by pass the Google sign up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Blowback
Whether it was hubrus or stunning political miscalculation, Hillary Clinton's refusal to acknowledge Barack Obama's victory, in both word and deed, quickly diminished much of the goodwill and leverage she enjoyed after her historic primary campaign. As a result, the calls to officially end her campaign (coming mostly from her staunchest supporters) grew loud throughout Wednesday. And now, reports from various news sources indicate that Hillary has decided to listen. She will formally suspend her campaign on Friday and endorse Obama.
But the blowback from her truculence may cost her dearly.
While the Obama camp silently seethed at her graceless speech Tuesday night, more friendly folks were simply left scratching their heads. Starting with Terry McCauliffe introducing Hillary as "the next President of the United States" and continuing with her own proclamations of the campaign's successes, viewers across the country were wondering if she had received the news that Barack Obama had clinched the delegate total needed to secure the nomination. After she told the crowd at Baruch College in New York that she would make no decisions about her political future that night, she urged her supporters to write and email and call to tell her what to do.
And, boy, did they ever. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, some of Hillary's aides secretly implored eight Senators, including Chuck Schumer, to convince her to get out of the race. A group of Congressional supporters, including New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, told her flatly that she needed to release them so that they could now get behind Obama. And with every new revelation of strong arming to get her to do the right thing, her stature and leverage diminished.
So what was she thinking? Detractors will point to their long held belief that the Clinton's are self deluded and self-centered; this episode is just another brick in the wall. More generous observers may say that it's tough to come down from such a grueling campaign. All I'll say is that I thought Hillary was a more savvy political animal than she has demonstrated.
It well may cost her. If she seriously wanted to be a VP, she's made it a tougher hill to climb. If she wanted to throw around the weight of the 18 million people (her number) who voted for her, the rest of the Democratic Party will now push back any attempts at hostage taking.
And the most damaging aspect of her behavior is that it has embarrassed her own supporters. She may have done the impossible and given them Clinton fatigue. Fortunately, they may have done the impossible and rescued her in time. If Hillary does all the right things on Friday, she will be forgiven.
I doubt, however, that Barack Obama will ever forget. What that means for Hillary's political future remains to be seen.
Blowback 2
I can't sign off without mentioning the biggest non-story of the day. Tony Rezko was found guilty on 16 felony counts, including bribery and fraud. For you conspiracy theorists out there, ever wonder about the timing? Convicted the day after Obama clinched? What impact would this story have had if he had been convicted 2 weeks ago? Or two days ago? Verrry interethting.
So what was Hillary thinking? Please, anyone, lay it out for me. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
But the blowback from her truculence may cost her dearly.
While the Obama camp silently seethed at her graceless speech Tuesday night, more friendly folks were simply left scratching their heads. Starting with Terry McCauliffe introducing Hillary as "the next President of the United States" and continuing with her own proclamations of the campaign's successes, viewers across the country were wondering if she had received the news that Barack Obama had clinched the delegate total needed to secure the nomination. After she told the crowd at Baruch College in New York that she would make no decisions about her political future that night, she urged her supporters to write and email and call to tell her what to do.
And, boy, did they ever. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, some of Hillary's aides secretly implored eight Senators, including Chuck Schumer, to convince her to get out of the race. A group of Congressional supporters, including New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, told her flatly that she needed to release them so that they could now get behind Obama. And with every new revelation of strong arming to get her to do the right thing, her stature and leverage diminished.
So what was she thinking? Detractors will point to their long held belief that the Clinton's are self deluded and self-centered; this episode is just another brick in the wall. More generous observers may say that it's tough to come down from such a grueling campaign. All I'll say is that I thought Hillary was a more savvy political animal than she has demonstrated.
It well may cost her. If she seriously wanted to be a VP, she's made it a tougher hill to climb. If she wanted to throw around the weight of the 18 million people (her number) who voted for her, the rest of the Democratic Party will now push back any attempts at hostage taking.
And the most damaging aspect of her behavior is that it has embarrassed her own supporters. She may have done the impossible and given them Clinton fatigue. Fortunately, they may have done the impossible and rescued her in time. If Hillary does all the right things on Friday, she will be forgiven.
I doubt, however, that Barack Obama will ever forget. What that means for Hillary's political future remains to be seen.
Blowback 2
I can't sign off without mentioning the biggest non-story of the day. Tony Rezko was found guilty on 16 felony counts, including bribery and fraud. For you conspiracy theorists out there, ever wonder about the timing? Convicted the day after Obama clinched? What impact would this story have had if he had been convicted 2 weeks ago? Or two days ago? Verrry interethting.
So what was Hillary thinking? Please, anyone, lay it out for me. Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Let The Games Begin...Part 2
On the historic night Barack Obama clinched enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee for President, all three Presidential candidates employed political gamesmanship to foreshadow their approach for the near future.
John McCain
Mac gave a speech in New Orleans that signaled his gameplan in the general. First, go to places like New Orleans that suggest to moderates and independents that you A) care about poor people and B) that you are not George Bush. His speech was a clear recognition that he is in a 'change' election. He offered himself as the agent of safe change, not change for change's sake. I ask for your input as to whether this can be an effective argument against Barack Obama. It seems to me that it is playing on the other guy's field, which can be dangerous. But Mac has done dangerous things politically and lived to tell about it. So maybe this is the way to go. Or maybe he has no choice.
Hillary Clinton
On a night when Barack Obama became the presumptive Presidential nominee and Hillary had a chance to become the presumptive VP nominee, she may have blown it. In an unyielding speech that sounded as if she hadn't heard the news that Obama had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination, she stated emphatically that she would make no decisions on the future of her campaign last night. Wow. While no one expected her to roll over and die, this was not even a concession speech. If you did not know the results last night, you would've thought she had won. Seriously. (Early this morning on CNN, a long time surrogate Bob Johnson, announced he had petitioned the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate. Talk about mixed messages) . What her speech revealed is that she is not going quietly into the night. And underneath the usual rhetoric, it didn't sound as if party unity was really on her mind--unless the party gave in to her demands in a big way. Give her points for Chutzpah.
Barack Obama
In spite of attempted upstaging by the other two, Barack Obama made sure this was still his night. In yet another display of skilled campaign showmanship, he held a huge rally at the XL Center in St. Paul, the site of the Republican convention. 17,000 inside, 15,000 outside. Really. 15,000 people were outside to hear the speech inside. For all the problems he may have with working class whites, poor whites, Latinos, and women, more people have come to see him speak than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined. There hasn't been a politician who commanded these types of crowds since Kennedy in Berlin. So he must be doing something right. In any event, his speech clearly laid out the path before him. Conciliation with Hillary, direct confrontation with John McCain, and relenteless reminders that he is the true agent of change.
For everyone who wonders if Obama can overcome the obstacles so many have pointed out, it's important to remember that his campaign out politicked and out campaigned one of the most daunting political machines in US history. He basically ran against two candidates, one a former President, and won.
Let the games begin. This time for the whole enchilada.
Which way forward will be the most effective? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
John McCain
Mac gave a speech in New Orleans that signaled his gameplan in the general. First, go to places like New Orleans that suggest to moderates and independents that you A) care about poor people and B) that you are not George Bush. His speech was a clear recognition that he is in a 'change' election. He offered himself as the agent of safe change, not change for change's sake. I ask for your input as to whether this can be an effective argument against Barack Obama. It seems to me that it is playing on the other guy's field, which can be dangerous. But Mac has done dangerous things politically and lived to tell about it. So maybe this is the way to go. Or maybe he has no choice.
Hillary Clinton
On a night when Barack Obama became the presumptive Presidential nominee and Hillary had a chance to become the presumptive VP nominee, she may have blown it. In an unyielding speech that sounded as if she hadn't heard the news that Obama had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination, she stated emphatically that she would make no decisions on the future of her campaign last night. Wow. While no one expected her to roll over and die, this was not even a concession speech. If you did not know the results last night, you would've thought she had won. Seriously. (Early this morning on CNN, a long time surrogate Bob Johnson, announced he had petitioned the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate. Talk about mixed messages) . What her speech revealed is that she is not going quietly into the night. And underneath the usual rhetoric, it didn't sound as if party unity was really on her mind--unless the party gave in to her demands in a big way. Give her points for Chutzpah.
Barack Obama
In spite of attempted upstaging by the other two, Barack Obama made sure this was still his night. In yet another display of skilled campaign showmanship, he held a huge rally at the XL Center in St. Paul, the site of the Republican convention. 17,000 inside, 15,000 outside. Really. 15,000 people were outside to hear the speech inside. For all the problems he may have with working class whites, poor whites, Latinos, and women, more people have come to see him speak than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined. There hasn't been a politician who commanded these types of crowds since Kennedy in Berlin. So he must be doing something right. In any event, his speech clearly laid out the path before him. Conciliation with Hillary, direct confrontation with John McCain, and relenteless reminders that he is the true agent of change.
For everyone who wonders if Obama can overcome the obstacles so many have pointed out, it's important to remember that his campaign out politicked and out campaigned one of the most daunting political machines in US history. He basically ran against two candidates, one a former President, and won.
Let the games begin. This time for the whole enchilada.
Which way forward will be the most effective? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Escape From Hillaryland
A day after Hillary's "great" victory in Puerto Rico, the Democratic Party is planning its escape from Hillaryland.
You know Hillaryland. The place where whatever Hillary wants to happen, can happen.
Right now, it's where more people have voted for her than any other candidate in the history of the universe. That's because in Hillaryland, invalidated primaries where her name alone remains on the ballot means...she won that contest! And all the votes go to her. And no one else. Because the others took their names off the ballot voluntarily. Even though they signed the pledge, along with Hillary, to not recognize that primary as legitimate. (Actually, that pledge happened outside of Hillaryland, in some place called the United States). Oh, and in Hillaryland, that popular vote total doesn't include any of the caucus states, because they don't count individual votes. Which is kind of lucky because Hillary got pretty well trounced in those states. But it's ok. In Hillaryland caucuses don't count. So she's recieved more votes than any person ever in any election ever...in the universe...ever.
By the way, in Hillaryland, the popular vote just became the new goalpost for victory. But it can be changed whenever she wants. The goalpost used to be pledged delegates, a long time ago. Everyone agreed it would be 2,025. But that didn't help Hillary, because she wasn't close to that. So she got it changed to 2,118. But now that new number hasn't helped her either. Wait... we just got a new directive: move the goalposts again...it's about stealing super delegates. Wow. Things come and go so fast in Hillaryland.
In Hillaryland, there's good talk of party unity. Party unity in Hillaryland means pointing out that the Republican nominee is more qualified to be the President than the other Democtratic nominee. It means crying sexism when people don't vote for you. It means threatening to take a resolved issue to the convention--to unresolve it. (Hey, that would be fun!)
Party unity also means Hillary will do everything in her power to support the eventual nominee. Which in Hillaryland, means her. The other people who are running in an election outside of Hillaryland, she... well, she supports them, too. And in Hillaryland, support means being able to say negative stuff like "He's got a real Latino problem"--without it being negative! Pretty cool, huh?
That's what's great about Hillaryland. If you can think of anything that will be good for Hillary, it will automatically happen. And nothing else matters.
Which is why the Democratic Party has had enough of Hillaryland. This became evident when the Democratic Rules and By-laws Committee actually ventured into Hillaryland. They seated the Florida and Michigan delegates, legitimizing those two primaries, just as Hillary wanted. They awarded the bulk of the delegates to Hillary. But that was as far across the border as they were going. They gave each delegate only a half vote (as punishment for violating the timing window of the early primaries) and they awarded Barack Obama Michigan delegates, even though his name was not on the ballot. Apparently, there were enough votes to actually pass the Obama solution, which would have meant splitting the Michigan delegates 50-50. But the Obama folks, in the interest of real party unity, went with the more generous proposal for Hillary. (Wow. That wouldn't have happened in Hillaryland). It was more than Hillary could have hoped for, yet she was angry that they didn't observe the rules of Hillaryland by giving her everything she wanted. 100% voting rights for 100% of the delegates. All of the Michigan delegates.
That's when the RBC knew it was time to leave Hillaryland.
And now, we'll see super delegates making their escape as well.
The reason Hillaryland is disturbing to many people is because it reveals a public servant who convinces herself of a narrative that is consistently contradicted by facts. And when that happens, the public servant becomes obssessed with a private agenda--often at the expense of the public's best interests.
That transformation never works out well in the end. Just ask the resident of... BushWorld.
So, yes, a 'great' victory for Hillary from the people of Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, turnout was low. Perhaps, many felt that if they couldn't vote in the general, (Puerto Rico is not a state) what was the point of voting in a primary.
Perhaps. Or maybe they were planning their escape from Hillaryland.
You know Hillaryland. The place where whatever Hillary wants to happen, can happen.
Right now, it's where more people have voted for her than any other candidate in the history of the universe. That's because in Hillaryland, invalidated primaries where her name alone remains on the ballot means...she won that contest! And all the votes go to her. And no one else. Because the others took their names off the ballot voluntarily. Even though they signed the pledge, along with Hillary, to not recognize that primary as legitimate. (Actually, that pledge happened outside of Hillaryland, in some place called the United States). Oh, and in Hillaryland, that popular vote total doesn't include any of the caucus states, because they don't count individual votes. Which is kind of lucky because Hillary got pretty well trounced in those states. But it's ok. In Hillaryland caucuses don't count. So she's recieved more votes than any person ever in any election ever...in the universe...ever.
By the way, in Hillaryland, the popular vote just became the new goalpost for victory. But it can be changed whenever she wants. The goalpost used to be pledged delegates, a long time ago. Everyone agreed it would be 2,025. But that didn't help Hillary, because she wasn't close to that. So she got it changed to 2,118. But now that new number hasn't helped her either. Wait... we just got a new directive: move the goalposts again...it's about stealing super delegates. Wow. Things come and go so fast in Hillaryland.
In Hillaryland, there's good talk of party unity. Party unity in Hillaryland means pointing out that the Republican nominee is more qualified to be the President than the other Democtratic nominee. It means crying sexism when people don't vote for you. It means threatening to take a resolved issue to the convention--to unresolve it. (Hey, that would be fun!)
Party unity also means Hillary will do everything in her power to support the eventual nominee. Which in Hillaryland, means her. The other people who are running in an election outside of Hillaryland, she... well, she supports them, too. And in Hillaryland, support means being able to say negative stuff like "He's got a real Latino problem"--without it being negative! Pretty cool, huh?
That's what's great about Hillaryland. If you can think of anything that will be good for Hillary, it will automatically happen. And nothing else matters.
Which is why the Democratic Party has had enough of Hillaryland. This became evident when the Democratic Rules and By-laws Committee actually ventured into Hillaryland. They seated the Florida and Michigan delegates, legitimizing those two primaries, just as Hillary wanted. They awarded the bulk of the delegates to Hillary. But that was as far across the border as they were going. They gave each delegate only a half vote (as punishment for violating the timing window of the early primaries) and they awarded Barack Obama Michigan delegates, even though his name was not on the ballot. Apparently, there were enough votes to actually pass the Obama solution, which would have meant splitting the Michigan delegates 50-50. But the Obama folks, in the interest of real party unity, went with the more generous proposal for Hillary. (Wow. That wouldn't have happened in Hillaryland). It was more than Hillary could have hoped for, yet she was angry that they didn't observe the rules of Hillaryland by giving her everything she wanted. 100% voting rights for 100% of the delegates. All of the Michigan delegates.
That's when the RBC knew it was time to leave Hillaryland.
And now, we'll see super delegates making their escape as well.
The reason Hillaryland is disturbing to many people is because it reveals a public servant who convinces herself of a narrative that is consistently contradicted by facts. And when that happens, the public servant becomes obssessed with a private agenda--often at the expense of the public's best interests.
That transformation never works out well in the end. Just ask the resident of... BushWorld.
So, yes, a 'great' victory for Hillary from the people of Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, turnout was low. Perhaps, many felt that if they couldn't vote in the general, (Puerto Rico is not a state) what was the point of voting in a primary.
Perhaps. Or maybe they were planning their escape from Hillaryland.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
United?
United. It was the word of the day as the Democratic Rules and By-laws Comittee forged a compromise on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, and Barack Obama took my advice and resigned from Trinity United Church.
If you missed the RBC festivities today, no worries, I watched the whole thing. And what a show it was. Under the glare of television cameras and in front of a raucous crowd of mostly Clinton supporters, inside party politics took center stage. What could have been deadly dull parlimentary manuevering turned into compelling political theater, thanks to the passion of the presenters and the crowd.
Just to recap the problem: Florida and Michigan violated the timing window of the Democratic primary sequence, so their primaries didn't "count". Each state held a primary but none of the candidates campaigned in either state. And in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. But suddenly, with the primary so close, the Clintons pressed for these two states to be reinstated so she could get more of the popular vote and a few more delegates. This day was viewed as critical to Hillary's nomination chances.
Ok. So John Ausman presented the main petition for Florida. He was particularly articulate and good natured in advocating the restoration of at least 1/2 vote per delgate for the full Florida delegation. He pointed out that the committee's charter granted them the power to do this. He also wanted the Florida super delegates to get their original full vote per. After questions from the committee, he was followed by a feisty Sen. Bill Nelson, who clearly explained how the Florida Republican Party cornered the Florida Democratic Party into violating the primary date window.
It's worth laying it out briefly. In a bill to insure a paper trail for verifying electronic ballots, the Republican controlled state legislature included moving the primary to a date they knew was unacceptable for the Democrats. Faced with a choice of no paper trail (to avoid what happened in 2000) or a primary in violation of the party time window, state Democrats supported the bill. Republicans had succeeded in their mischief.
Nelson was followed by the passionate state senator Altheria Joyner, who advocated for the Clinton campaign and then by US Rep. Robert Wexler for the Obama campaign. Wexler laid out the first big move of the day. He said the Obama camp was willing to accept a solution whereby the Florida delegation would be seated, each with a 1/2 vote, and would accept the delegate apportionment of the original vote. This conceded up to 19 delegates to Clinton. Wexler ably made this sound like a huge concession. He was exposed a little by Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy when she asked if Obama would support a full reinstatement of the Florida delegation (1 full vote per delegate). When she chided him for his pat answer of "We support the Ausman petition", he followed with an impassioned (ok, he was shouting) defense of his own lifelong committment to voting rights. It was fun. Then Harold Ickes, a senior campaign advisor for Clinton who was on the committee (how is that allowed?) tried to get into Wexler's grill, asking acidly, "Are you familiar with the concept of 'fair reflection'?" Wexler shot back, "No, why don't you enlighten me". Ickes then stomped away. It was real fun.
The committee then heard from Michigan. Michigan was the tricky one, because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. State Dem. chairman Mark Brewer presented the Michigan solution. It was a novel idea. He suggested a 69- 59 split of the delegates for Clinton and Obama. This was forged from a variety of exit polls which indicated that this was a "fair reflection"of the voters' will. Most importantly, it was acceptable to the Michigan State Democratic Party. Whether or not it's constitutional is another story.
Senator Carl Levin (who could be Danny DeVito's brother) then explained heatedly how Michigan wound up in violation of the Democratic rules. It's not worth going into, but let's say it was a protest against Iowa and New Hampshire's first states status in every Presidential election. David Bonior (ex-campaign manager for John Edwards) represented the Obama campaign. He was the least interesting of all the presenters, but he stated Obama's case: they wanted a 50-50 delegate split, with the full delegation seated, each with a half vote.
Finally, ex-Governor Jim Blanchard advocated for the Clinton campaign. He was great. Unflappable and enthusiastic, he even survived a sally from Donna Brazile, the grand dame of democratic insiders, (ex-Al Gore campaign manager), who called out the Clintons for trying to change the rules at the end of the game. Blanchard presented the Clinton solution: let the votes stand as they were counted, with Clinton getting her 55% and Obama getting nothing. Hmm.
With presentations over, the committee recessed for lunch. And as transparent as the proceedings appeared to be, the deal was still cut in a back room, away from the cameras and the crowds. But a bombshell was yet to come.
The final solutions? The Florida delegation would be fully seated, each with a 1/2 vote; Clinton would get an additional 15 or so delegates. The committee went for the 69-59 delegate split, with the entire delegation seated, also with 1/2 a vote. Now...on a day when Hillary Clinton got an additional 20 delegates and a legitimate claim to hundreds of thousands of popular votes, they were upset with the Michigan solution. Ickes, after saying "you bet your ass" several times, added, " "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity." Then he lowered the boom: "Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention. Wow.
We'll see if this is an idle threat or not. The truth is, that on a day when the Clinton camp got their wish to have these two primaries legitimized, Obama really won. The magic number is now 2,118 and if he and Hillary split the pledged delegates in these last three primaries, he'll only need about 25 super delegates to secure the nomination unless... there's a Credentials Committee hearing about the Michigan ruling.
After the votes were rendered, the protests began. Clinton supporters shouted over the committee members' closing remarks and stormed out of the room. They continued carrying on in the lobby of the Marriott. It could be a long, hot summer.
Nevertheless, the RBC did their job today. They tackled thorny issues and approved compomise solutions that re-enfranchised voters in important states. This should start the process of getting the party united for the fall.
Speaking of united, Barack Obama officially resigned from Trinity United Church. Here is an interview explaining his reasons. Bottom line is he had to do it for his campaign. America can't keep seeing pictures of his congregation whooping it up while pastors lampoon subjects most Americans don't find very funny. I don't care what the African American worship tradition is, this is supposed to be a Christian church. Where's the love and compassion and tolerance? All we see is ridicule and anger and hostility.
Obama did the right thing by putting United behind him.
Now let's see if Obama can get Democrats united behind him.
Do you agree with the RBC's decisions? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
If you missed the RBC festivities today, no worries, I watched the whole thing. And what a show it was. Under the glare of television cameras and in front of a raucous crowd of mostly Clinton supporters, inside party politics took center stage. What could have been deadly dull parlimentary manuevering turned into compelling political theater, thanks to the passion of the presenters and the crowd.
Just to recap the problem: Florida and Michigan violated the timing window of the Democratic primary sequence, so their primaries didn't "count". Each state held a primary but none of the candidates campaigned in either state. And in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. But suddenly, with the primary so close, the Clintons pressed for these two states to be reinstated so she could get more of the popular vote and a few more delegates. This day was viewed as critical to Hillary's nomination chances.
Ok. So John Ausman presented the main petition for Florida. He was particularly articulate and good natured in advocating the restoration of at least 1/2 vote per delgate for the full Florida delegation. He pointed out that the committee's charter granted them the power to do this. He also wanted the Florida super delegates to get their original full vote per. After questions from the committee, he was followed by a feisty Sen. Bill Nelson, who clearly explained how the Florida Republican Party cornered the Florida Democratic Party into violating the primary date window.
It's worth laying it out briefly. In a bill to insure a paper trail for verifying electronic ballots, the Republican controlled state legislature included moving the primary to a date they knew was unacceptable for the Democrats. Faced with a choice of no paper trail (to avoid what happened in 2000) or a primary in violation of the party time window, state Democrats supported the bill. Republicans had succeeded in their mischief.
Nelson was followed by the passionate state senator Altheria Joyner, who advocated for the Clinton campaign and then by US Rep. Robert Wexler for the Obama campaign. Wexler laid out the first big move of the day. He said the Obama camp was willing to accept a solution whereby the Florida delegation would be seated, each with a 1/2 vote, and would accept the delegate apportionment of the original vote. This conceded up to 19 delegates to Clinton. Wexler ably made this sound like a huge concession. He was exposed a little by Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy when she asked if Obama would support a full reinstatement of the Florida delegation (1 full vote per delegate). When she chided him for his pat answer of "We support the Ausman petition", he followed with an impassioned (ok, he was shouting) defense of his own lifelong committment to voting rights. It was fun. Then Harold Ickes, a senior campaign advisor for Clinton who was on the committee (how is that allowed?) tried to get into Wexler's grill, asking acidly, "Are you familiar with the concept of 'fair reflection'?" Wexler shot back, "No, why don't you enlighten me". Ickes then stomped away. It was real fun.
The committee then heard from Michigan. Michigan was the tricky one, because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. State Dem. chairman Mark Brewer presented the Michigan solution. It was a novel idea. He suggested a 69- 59 split of the delegates for Clinton and Obama. This was forged from a variety of exit polls which indicated that this was a "fair reflection"of the voters' will. Most importantly, it was acceptable to the Michigan State Democratic Party. Whether or not it's constitutional is another story.
Senator Carl Levin (who could be Danny DeVito's brother) then explained heatedly how Michigan wound up in violation of the Democratic rules. It's not worth going into, but let's say it was a protest against Iowa and New Hampshire's first states status in every Presidential election. David Bonior (ex-campaign manager for John Edwards) represented the Obama campaign. He was the least interesting of all the presenters, but he stated Obama's case: they wanted a 50-50 delegate split, with the full delegation seated, each with a half vote.
Finally, ex-Governor Jim Blanchard advocated for the Clinton campaign. He was great. Unflappable and enthusiastic, he even survived a sally from Donna Brazile, the grand dame of democratic insiders, (ex-Al Gore campaign manager), who called out the Clintons for trying to change the rules at the end of the game. Blanchard presented the Clinton solution: let the votes stand as they were counted, with Clinton getting her 55% and Obama getting nothing. Hmm.
With presentations over, the committee recessed for lunch. And as transparent as the proceedings appeared to be, the deal was still cut in a back room, away from the cameras and the crowds. But a bombshell was yet to come.
The final solutions? The Florida delegation would be fully seated, each with a 1/2 vote; Clinton would get an additional 15 or so delegates. The committee went for the 69-59 delegate split, with the entire delegation seated, also with 1/2 a vote. Now...on a day when Hillary Clinton got an additional 20 delegates and a legitimate claim to hundreds of thousands of popular votes, they were upset with the Michigan solution. Ickes, after saying "you bet your ass" several times, added, " "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity." Then he lowered the boom: "Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention. Wow.
We'll see if this is an idle threat or not. The truth is, that on a day when the Clinton camp got their wish to have these two primaries legitimized, Obama really won. The magic number is now 2,118 and if he and Hillary split the pledged delegates in these last three primaries, he'll only need about 25 super delegates to secure the nomination unless... there's a Credentials Committee hearing about the Michigan ruling.
After the votes were rendered, the protests began. Clinton supporters shouted over the committee members' closing remarks and stormed out of the room. They continued carrying on in the lobby of the Marriott. It could be a long, hot summer.
Nevertheless, the RBC did their job today. They tackled thorny issues and approved compomise solutions that re-enfranchised voters in important states. This should start the process of getting the party united for the fall.
Speaking of united, Barack Obama officially resigned from Trinity United Church. Here is an interview explaining his reasons. Bottom line is he had to do it for his campaign. America can't keep seeing pictures of his congregation whooping it up while pastors lampoon subjects most Americans don't find very funny. I don't care what the African American worship tradition is, this is supposed to be a Christian church. Where's the love and compassion and tolerance? All we see is ridicule and anger and hostility.
Obama did the right thing by putting United behind him.
Now let's see if Obama can get Democrats united behind him.
Do you agree with the RBC's decisions? Talk about this or anything else by clicking 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
