That's right, folks, Feral Donkey is breaking one of the biggest stories of this election cycle; that Barack Obama has ties to the largest lobbying group in the country! No, it's not the auto industry, the NRA, big oil, or big tobacco. No, this lobby dwarfs all of these put together. Who is he beholden to, and owe much of his political success to? Big America.
According to the latest FEC statistics (http://www.fec.gov), the Obama camp has raised approximately $264.5 million dollars. In addition, 46% of his total haul has come in the form of contributions of $200 or less. Exactly $0 has come from PAC money. The sheer volume of money is impressive enough, but when you also take into consideration the fact that over 1.5 million individuals have donated to his campaign, well, that is just amazing.
By contrast, Obama's opponent, John McCain, has struggled to build his war chest. He has raised a total of about $89.2 million dollars, or roughly 1/3 the amount Obama has raised. About 31% of his total purse came from $200 or less donations, meaning more of McCain's backers have most likely maxed out on their contribution limit. Even in traditionally reliable Republican states like Texas, McCain is getting his clock cleaned when it comes to donations when compared to Obama. PAC money accounts for roughly $1 million of McCain's total to date.
What does all of this mean? In a word, change. You can't take money out of politics. Money is the life blood that keeps our government running. What you can try to keep out of politics is tainted money. Money that comes with strings attached. Barack Obama recognizes that he will not be able to change the culture of Washington until the people running it are free to do their jobs without fear of retribution from corporate benefactors.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
(Generation) X + Y = W
X+Y=W
That should be one of the mantras of the Obama campaign. It is a mathematical equation that will lead to victory in November. During the protracted Democratic primary, pundits had endlessly sliced and diced the electorate up into varying demographic groups, each one seemingly more important than the previous one.
From my perspective, the biggest demographic to watch this fall isn't male versus female, or even black/minority versus white. No, the real political war will be intergenerational. The Obama camp's loyal foot soldiers are those from Generation Y, while McCain can claim the backing of the majority of the Greatest generation. Neither of these group backings should be surprising to anybody.
The biggest fight then, will be for the votes of the middle two generations, the baby boomers and Generation X. Again, dividing these folks up by their age, most polls show Obama with a lead for the Generation X vote, and McCain with a lead for the baby boomers. The intergenerational war between the boomers and Gen X will come to a head in November. These groups have already been clashing for a number of years, particularly in the private sector where boomers have been holding fast to the executive level jobs, while the X'ers have been trying to infiltrate the upper rungs of the corporate ladder.
I believe Obama will win in November by pulling together a broad coalition of Gen Y and X. The Greatest Generation had Truman and Kennedy. The boomers had Clinton. Obama is the voice of the next generations that will lead this country back to greatness.
That should be one of the mantras of the Obama campaign. It is a mathematical equation that will lead to victory in November. During the protracted Democratic primary, pundits had endlessly sliced and diced the electorate up into varying demographic groups, each one seemingly more important than the previous one.
From my perspective, the biggest demographic to watch this fall isn't male versus female, or even black/minority versus white. No, the real political war will be intergenerational. The Obama camp's loyal foot soldiers are those from Generation Y, while McCain can claim the backing of the majority of the Greatest generation. Neither of these group backings should be surprising to anybody.
The biggest fight then, will be for the votes of the middle two generations, the baby boomers and Generation X. Again, dividing these folks up by their age, most polls show Obama with a lead for the Generation X vote, and McCain with a lead for the baby boomers. The intergenerational war between the boomers and Gen X will come to a head in November. These groups have already been clashing for a number of years, particularly in the private sector where boomers have been holding fast to the executive level jobs, while the X'ers have been trying to infiltrate the upper rungs of the corporate ladder.
I believe Obama will win in November by pulling together a broad coalition of Gen Y and X. The Greatest Generation had Truman and Kennedy. The boomers had Clinton. Obama is the voice of the next generations that will lead this country back to greatness.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Obama's Party
Wow, that's all I can say. Obviously I am jubilent at the end to this primary season. First, Barack claimed enough delegates Tuesday night to be declared the presumptive nominee, but Hillary's speech was anything but gracious with no hints of a concession. I was worried. I was worried that Hillary's folks would urge her to take this to the convention, especially when I heard the misguided chants of "Denver, Denver" at one point during her speech.
Thankfully, her advisors must have been telling her it is over. She had a couple of prominent supporters talking that way, including Ed Rendell, Barbara Boxer, and Charlie Rangel. So I would have been truly happy if we only had the news from last night that broke that Clinton would suspend her campaign on Saturday and endorse Obama. Possibly even better news broke today and has received little fanfare, and that is that the Democratic National Committee has announced they will no longer take money contributions from lobbyists or PAC's in DC. See the press release here:
http://democrats.org/a/2008/06/democratic_part_10.php
Why is this such a huge deal? Because it shows that the Democratic party is now the party of Barack Obama. It also shows Obama's committment to the change he preaches about on his campaign stops. Expect him to begin cleaning house within the DNC shortly as he takes the reigns of the party. As Barack is fond of saying, "one voice can change the world," but it must start small and build. First was his campaign that was funded by the American people, now it will be the Democratic party as a whole, and soon, hopefully, our entire government.
Obama supporters must really start contributing in droves to the DNC to help support Barack's message. As the lobbyists get booted from the DNC they will naturally flock to the Republicans so we should expect McCain's campaign coffers to begin bulging over the next few months. It is up to us to help Obama carry the change message forward. It begins with the DNC, and next up, is Washington.
Thankfully, her advisors must have been telling her it is over. She had a couple of prominent supporters talking that way, including Ed Rendell, Barbara Boxer, and Charlie Rangel. So I would have been truly happy if we only had the news from last night that broke that Clinton would suspend her campaign on Saturday and endorse Obama. Possibly even better news broke today and has received little fanfare, and that is that the Democratic National Committee has announced they will no longer take money contributions from lobbyists or PAC's in DC. See the press release here:
http://democrats.org/a/2008/06/democratic_part_10.php
Why is this such a huge deal? Because it shows that the Democratic party is now the party of Barack Obama. It also shows Obama's committment to the change he preaches about on his campaign stops. Expect him to begin cleaning house within the DNC shortly as he takes the reigns of the party. As Barack is fond of saying, "one voice can change the world," but it must start small and build. First was his campaign that was funded by the American people, now it will be the Democratic party as a whole, and soon, hopefully, our entire government.
Obama supporters must really start contributing in droves to the DNC to help support Barack's message. As the lobbyists get booted from the DNC they will naturally flock to the Republicans so we should expect McCain's campaign coffers to begin bulging over the next few months. It is up to us to help Obama carry the change message forward. It begins with the DNC, and next up, is Washington.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Triple Header
Political observers were treated to a triple header of sorts yesterday, as all three remaining candidates for President of the United States gave three very different speeches. One would be hard pressed to determine who had won what if you only went by the first few remarks of both McCain and Obama and took Clinton's speech in it's entirety. Let's break down what the three candidates had to say.
John McCain went first, using the big audience the Democratic primary would bring in to try to distance himself from Bush. His first comments, however, were directed squarely at Hillary Clinton supporters. In fact, one of the most telling lines of his speech was when he said that the pundits and party leaders had declared Obama his challenger, playing up to the incorrect assertion that somehow the primary was stolen from Clinton. He has undoubtedly heard the cries of some Clinton faithful that they will vote for McCain over Obama to spite the presumptive nominee and the party, and his pandering apparently knows no bounds. McCain's speech overall was quite poor in both substance and delivery. The only real blow he delivered to Obama, in my opinion, was when he decried him for willing to meet with foreign leaders but he hasn't setup a meeting with General Petreaus. This is something Obama must do in the coming months.
Next up came Hillary Clinton, speaking in what appeared to be an underground bunker of some kind. I also am to the point of wondering if Terry McAuliffe lives in our world or merely comes here to visit during campaign season. He not only introduced Clinton as the next President of the United States, but also was on The Daily Show and told Jon Stewart that they wouldn't mind if Obama was on the ticket with her. I digress. Clinton's speech was very confusing to me. In one breath she was calling for party unity to defeat the Republicans in the fall, and in the next breath she continued to justify not conceding the primary. News flash: We can't have party unity when one candidate and her supporters don't believe we have an official nominee.
There were conflicting reports all afternoon about whether Clinton would concede, admit and congratulate Obama on reaching the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination, or possibly suspend her campaign. None of these happened last night. Even as polls closed in South Dakota and the networks were declaring Obama the official presumptive nominee, Clinton was stating she was not sure which path she would take now that all of the contests were over. In another telling moment, the crowd of enthusiastic supporters began chanting Denver, Denver, Denver, an indication that her biggest supporters want her to take the fight to the floor of the convention this August. It was also leaked by full time Clinton surrogate, and sometimes journalist, Andrea Mitchel, that Clinton wanted to meet with Obama privately as soon as possible. Perhaps as early as today when they are both scheduled to be in New York.
Obama, for his part, gave another powerfully charismatic speech in front of a raucous crowd in St. Paul. He declared himself the nominee only after first acknowledging Clinton and how she had inspired millions of voters across the country. He had not a bad word to say about her and in fact touted her as one of the reasons we will have universal health care in this country. He then pivoted to take McCain to task for embracing the policies of George Bush during the past few years, and especially during his campaign for President. Obama landed a couple of blows to McCain, the first coming as he said he honored the accomplishments of the Senator from Arizona, even if McCain did not honor his. The second was when Obama challenged McCain to start spending time in some of America's hardest hit cities rather than in Baghdad, so that he might have a better understanding of the issues facing ordinary Americans.
The presumptive nominee will get little time to savor his primary victory, as pundits and supporters will all be clamoring for him to pick his VP candidate, and of course everyone will have their own idea as to who that candidate shall be. I'll give you a hint as to my preference. It rhymes with Schmill Wichardson.
John McCain went first, using the big audience the Democratic primary would bring in to try to distance himself from Bush. His first comments, however, were directed squarely at Hillary Clinton supporters. In fact, one of the most telling lines of his speech was when he said that the pundits and party leaders had declared Obama his challenger, playing up to the incorrect assertion that somehow the primary was stolen from Clinton. He has undoubtedly heard the cries of some Clinton faithful that they will vote for McCain over Obama to spite the presumptive nominee and the party, and his pandering apparently knows no bounds. McCain's speech overall was quite poor in both substance and delivery. The only real blow he delivered to Obama, in my opinion, was when he decried him for willing to meet with foreign leaders but he hasn't setup a meeting with General Petreaus. This is something Obama must do in the coming months.
Next up came Hillary Clinton, speaking in what appeared to be an underground bunker of some kind. I also am to the point of wondering if Terry McAuliffe lives in our world or merely comes here to visit during campaign season. He not only introduced Clinton as the next President of the United States, but also was on The Daily Show and told Jon Stewart that they wouldn't mind if Obama was on the ticket with her. I digress. Clinton's speech was very confusing to me. In one breath she was calling for party unity to defeat the Republicans in the fall, and in the next breath she continued to justify not conceding the primary. News flash: We can't have party unity when one candidate and her supporters don't believe we have an official nominee.
There were conflicting reports all afternoon about whether Clinton would concede, admit and congratulate Obama on reaching the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination, or possibly suspend her campaign. None of these happened last night. Even as polls closed in South Dakota and the networks were declaring Obama the official presumptive nominee, Clinton was stating she was not sure which path she would take now that all of the contests were over. In another telling moment, the crowd of enthusiastic supporters began chanting Denver, Denver, Denver, an indication that her biggest supporters want her to take the fight to the floor of the convention this August. It was also leaked by full time Clinton surrogate, and sometimes journalist, Andrea Mitchel, that Clinton wanted to meet with Obama privately as soon as possible. Perhaps as early as today when they are both scheduled to be in New York.
Obama, for his part, gave another powerfully charismatic speech in front of a raucous crowd in St. Paul. He declared himself the nominee only after first acknowledging Clinton and how she had inspired millions of voters across the country. He had not a bad word to say about her and in fact touted her as one of the reasons we will have universal health care in this country. He then pivoted to take McCain to task for embracing the policies of George Bush during the past few years, and especially during his campaign for President. Obama landed a couple of blows to McCain, the first coming as he said he honored the accomplishments of the Senator from Arizona, even if McCain did not honor his. The second was when Obama challenged McCain to start spending time in some of America's hardest hit cities rather than in Baghdad, so that he might have a better understanding of the issues facing ordinary Americans.
The presumptive nominee will get little time to savor his primary victory, as pundits and supporters will all be clamoring for him to pick his VP candidate, and of course everyone will have their own idea as to who that candidate shall be. I'll give you a hint as to my preference. It rhymes with Schmill Wichardson.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Emotional Dishonesty & Political Courage
I knew I would have to blog about this at some point after I began reading several comments from Clinton "supporters" who ardently exclaimed they would be voting for John McCain in November if Hillary was not the Democratic party nominee. After reading hundreds of comments and listening to quite a bit of audio commentary from these folks, they seem to fall into one of two camps.
The first camp are those people, mostly older women, who are truly devastated at the prospects of her getting so close to come up just short of the nomination. These women appear to be allowing their strong emotions to cloud their better political judgment. There was a time where I was a fan of John McCain, back in 2000 he seemed to be much less ideological and more inclined to listen to people who disagreed with him. How someone can go from debating about leaving the Republican party after Bush smeared him mercilessly (illegitimate black baby anyone?), to hugging Bush and courting the neocon loons on the right, is utterly inconceivable to me. That is not political courage, that is political expediency. By embracing McCain over Obama, this group is embracing the policies of the past 8 years over the change that both Obama and Clinton have sought.
The second group that is threatening to bolt to McCain this fall are the, how can I put this nicely, culturally insensitive. The less than politically correct crowd might even call them racists or bigots. Some of these folks have gone so far as to say out loud during interviews that they will not vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, or even because of his name. We can talk all we want about how far we have come as a nation in terms of racial healing and justice, but the exit polls from West Virginia and Kentucky (in particular) are honestly very sad and reflect the national tone from pre Civil Rights days.
I submit for your review two pieces of evidence. The first, to try and convince the first group to vote with their political brain and not their emotional hearts, I give you the website:
http://www.progressivepunch.com
This site ranks each Senate member on their Progressive thinking based on their actual voting record. How'd they do? Clinton scored a 91.11% progressive score, and ranked 20th out of 100 Senators. Obama scored a 88.54% and ranked 25th out of 100 Senators. John McCain? How about a 13.9% and a dismal ranking of 60th out of 100. Who shares your views? Also, these people who tend to say that Hillary got treated poorly by Obama or the DNC, have been asked repeatedly to show one example of such sexist behavior and to date I have seen none.
My second piece of evidence, aimed at the second group I discussed, is Ms. Harriet Christian. This older New York woman should be the next YouTube sensation (go ahead and search for her name on You Tube). She was the lady in the clip at the DNC rules and bylaws meeting from last Saturday stating the party is giving the nomination to a "inadequate black male." Her, Gerry Ferraro, and others like them are truly a waste of media coverage. To be honest, I would be very happy to NOT have these people's vote in November. Their way of thinking (pre Civil Rights) is the epitome of political past, which McCain represents.
Onward to the general, as we take victory tonight, let us celebrate a hard fought primary win. Tomorrow is a new fight, and for the good of the United States, indeed the world, it is a fight we must win.
The first camp are those people, mostly older women, who are truly devastated at the prospects of her getting so close to come up just short of the nomination. These women appear to be allowing their strong emotions to cloud their better political judgment. There was a time where I was a fan of John McCain, back in 2000 he seemed to be much less ideological and more inclined to listen to people who disagreed with him. How someone can go from debating about leaving the Republican party after Bush smeared him mercilessly (illegitimate black baby anyone?), to hugging Bush and courting the neocon loons on the right, is utterly inconceivable to me. That is not political courage, that is political expediency. By embracing McCain over Obama, this group is embracing the policies of the past 8 years over the change that both Obama and Clinton have sought.
The second group that is threatening to bolt to McCain this fall are the, how can I put this nicely, culturally insensitive. The less than politically correct crowd might even call them racists or bigots. Some of these folks have gone so far as to say out loud during interviews that they will not vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, or even because of his name. We can talk all we want about how far we have come as a nation in terms of racial healing and justice, but the exit polls from West Virginia and Kentucky (in particular) are honestly very sad and reflect the national tone from pre Civil Rights days.
I submit for your review two pieces of evidence. The first, to try and convince the first group to vote with their political brain and not their emotional hearts, I give you the website:
http://www.progressivepunch.com
This site ranks each Senate member on their Progressive thinking based on their actual voting record. How'd they do? Clinton scored a 91.11% progressive score, and ranked 20th out of 100 Senators. Obama scored a 88.54% and ranked 25th out of 100 Senators. John McCain? How about a 13.9% and a dismal ranking of 60th out of 100. Who shares your views? Also, these people who tend to say that Hillary got treated poorly by Obama or the DNC, have been asked repeatedly to show one example of such sexist behavior and to date I have seen none.
My second piece of evidence, aimed at the second group I discussed, is Ms. Harriet Christian. This older New York woman should be the next YouTube sensation (go ahead and search for her name on You Tube). She was the lady in the clip at the DNC rules and bylaws meeting from last Saturday stating the party is giving the nomination to a "inadequate black male." Her, Gerry Ferraro, and others like them are truly a waste of media coverage. To be honest, I would be very happy to NOT have these people's vote in November. Their way of thinking (pre Civil Rights) is the epitome of political past, which McCain represents.
Onward to the general, as we take victory tonight, let us celebrate a hard fought primary win. Tomorrow is a new fight, and for the good of the United States, indeed the world, it is a fight we must win.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Five Stages of Grief
Sometimes one of my ideas comes to me in a flash of lucidness. Unfortunately for me, these flashes are too few and far between. One such flash, however, occured today while I watched coverage of the Puerto Rico primary. After Senator Clinton's crushing (and expected) victory in the commonwealth, out trotted a plethora of Clinton surrogates. A veratable who's who of political spin doctoring. Rather than being angry or even annoyed at the ludicrous attempts to paint Senator Clinton as still relevant, I found myself more sad than anything else. Sad for these people who obviously care a great deal for Clinton and who, for one reason or another, simply refuse to see the writing on the wall. In actuality, the writing has made it beyond the wall and covers the floor, the ceiling, the sky, the Great Wall, the Hubble telescope, and every other collection of cells in the Universe that is able to be written upon.
I was reminded of the now famous five stages of grief, introduced by Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and it is very easy to see which stage any one of her supporters are in by the statements they make. I firmly believe it is up to Senator Clinton to heal the political wounds her supporters feel. As long as she continues to press forward and in a sense be trying to say the nomination has been "stolen" from her as she spews out her own fuzzy arithmetic of the popular vote total, I don't believe her hard core voters will move to the Obama campaign. Therefore, in an effort to unite the party, I present for your consideration, the five stages of grief and how we as Obama supporters can help the Clintonites move through them.
Stage 1: Denial & Isolation
You may recall that Senator Clinton herself, after the May 6th primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, recoiled from public view for as long as a Presidential candidate could conceivably do that. She cancelled all of her planned network tv appearances for the following morning. This was a perfect example of isolation. The folks that are still trying to argue that she has a path to the nomination are stuck in this denial stage. On Meet The Press this morning, Harold Ickes had an epic exchange with Tim Russert where when Tim asked him a question about what Clinton will do once Obama is declared the nominee, he very defensively retorted that (the Clinton camp) believe she will be the nominee. The way to move through this stage is for the rest of the party to coalesce behind Barack Obama and declare him the winner. Until that happens, there will be some Clinton holdouts clinging to their delusions.
Stage 2: Anger
I think this is where many of Clinton's hardcore supporters are in the stages of grief. While some may harbor anger that they keep inside, many are overtly expressing their anger. One example of this was the protest at the DNC rules and bylaws committee on Saturday. This group of protestors is so angry that they audibly booed when Obama's name was mentioned, and after the meeting were arguing and truly disgruntles for what amounts to 4 delegates. You can see even more hateful rhetoric from some Clinton supporters on a number of blogs as they gleefully talk of voting for McCain in November rather than vote for Obama (I will address the lunacy of this thought process in a future blog). They feel their leader, Hillary, has been wronged, and in order to move through this stage of grief it is going to take Hillary coming out forcefully and repeatedly to tell her followers that they must vote for Obama because he is clearly the best option on the table to run our country.
Stage 3: Bargaining
Once the anger dies down, the bargaining or negotiating kicks into high gear. One prominent Clinton supporter already has indicated she is in this stage of grief. Senator Feinstein of California last week told an interviewer that Barack Obama should select Clinton as his running mate. Many other Clinton supporters have hinted at such a "unity" ticket, but not many have openly come out and said that she deserves to be givin the VP nomination. If they do not encourage Obama to give her the VP nod, many will undoubtedly be campaigning for her to get a high level cabinet position or possibly the Senate majority position. The problem is that no matter what role she plays in government after the election, there will be a good chunk of her base that is unhappy with it. This leads us to the fourth stage of grief.
Stage 4: Depression
The final realization that Clinton will not be the nominee, and quite possibly not fill the perceived desired role in the next administration, will lead to a great deal of sadness among her supporters. Not many of them are in this stage right now, although I have seen some blog comments that indicate some of her voters have reached this stage. You'll know it when you see comments such as, "our party has a nominee," or "it looks like she's not going to pull it off." This stage could last quite a while for many of her biggest supporters, and in fact might last much longer than the general election does. For those who are able to cope with their depression and sadness, they may move to the final stage.
Stage 5: Acceptance
This is what we all hope the Clinton supporters can eventually work themselves towards. I don't believe many, if any, are at this culmination of the grief cycle yet, but as the summer goes on and possibly by the time of the convention in Denver, we might see more folks at this point.
Ultimately, Senator Clinton herself needs to move through these stages of grief before we can realistically expect her supporters to do the same. In the end, I believe as long as the majority of her voters are at least past the anger stage, they will see fit to vote for Obama in the fall. Our work as a party then, is to move these people past the bitterness and anger that many are feeling now. Angry Clinton voters equals either votes for McCain or voters staying home from the polls in November.
It's sad, really.
I was reminded of the now famous five stages of grief, introduced by Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and it is very easy to see which stage any one of her supporters are in by the statements they make. I firmly believe it is up to Senator Clinton to heal the political wounds her supporters feel. As long as she continues to press forward and in a sense be trying to say the nomination has been "stolen" from her as she spews out her own fuzzy arithmetic of the popular vote total, I don't believe her hard core voters will move to the Obama campaign. Therefore, in an effort to unite the party, I present for your consideration, the five stages of grief and how we as Obama supporters can help the Clintonites move through them.
Stage 1: Denial & Isolation
You may recall that Senator Clinton herself, after the May 6th primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, recoiled from public view for as long as a Presidential candidate could conceivably do that. She cancelled all of her planned network tv appearances for the following morning. This was a perfect example of isolation. The folks that are still trying to argue that she has a path to the nomination are stuck in this denial stage. On Meet The Press this morning, Harold Ickes had an epic exchange with Tim Russert where when Tim asked him a question about what Clinton will do once Obama is declared the nominee, he very defensively retorted that (the Clinton camp) believe she will be the nominee. The way to move through this stage is for the rest of the party to coalesce behind Barack Obama and declare him the winner. Until that happens, there will be some Clinton holdouts clinging to their delusions.
Stage 2: Anger
I think this is where many of Clinton's hardcore supporters are in the stages of grief. While some may harbor anger that they keep inside, many are overtly expressing their anger. One example of this was the protest at the DNC rules and bylaws committee on Saturday. This group of protestors is so angry that they audibly booed when Obama's name was mentioned, and after the meeting were arguing and truly disgruntles for what amounts to 4 delegates. You can see even more hateful rhetoric from some Clinton supporters on a number of blogs as they gleefully talk of voting for McCain in November rather than vote for Obama (I will address the lunacy of this thought process in a future blog). They feel their leader, Hillary, has been wronged, and in order to move through this stage of grief it is going to take Hillary coming out forcefully and repeatedly to tell her followers that they must vote for Obama because he is clearly the best option on the table to run our country.
Stage 3: Bargaining
Once the anger dies down, the bargaining or negotiating kicks into high gear. One prominent Clinton supporter already has indicated she is in this stage of grief. Senator Feinstein of California last week told an interviewer that Barack Obama should select Clinton as his running mate. Many other Clinton supporters have hinted at such a "unity" ticket, but not many have openly come out and said that she deserves to be givin the VP nomination. If they do not encourage Obama to give her the VP nod, many will undoubtedly be campaigning for her to get a high level cabinet position or possibly the Senate majority position. The problem is that no matter what role she plays in government after the election, there will be a good chunk of her base that is unhappy with it. This leads us to the fourth stage of grief.
Stage 4: Depression
The final realization that Clinton will not be the nominee, and quite possibly not fill the perceived desired role in the next administration, will lead to a great deal of sadness among her supporters. Not many of them are in this stage right now, although I have seen some blog comments that indicate some of her voters have reached this stage. You'll know it when you see comments such as, "our party has a nominee," or "it looks like she's not going to pull it off." This stage could last quite a while for many of her biggest supporters, and in fact might last much longer than the general election does. For those who are able to cope with their depression and sadness, they may move to the final stage.
Stage 5: Acceptance
This is what we all hope the Clinton supporters can eventually work themselves towards. I don't believe many, if any, are at this culmination of the grief cycle yet, but as the summer goes on and possibly by the time of the convention in Denver, we might see more folks at this point.
Ultimately, Senator Clinton herself needs to move through these stages of grief before we can realistically expect her supporters to do the same. In the end, I believe as long as the majority of her voters are at least past the anger stage, they will see fit to vote for Obama in the fall. Our work as a party then, is to move these people past the bitterness and anger that many are feeling now. Angry Clinton voters equals either votes for McCain or voters staying home from the polls in November.
It's sad, really.
Friday, May 30, 2008
McCain's Electoral College Problem
I recently discovered a very cool site if you're an election junkie like myself. Check out:
http://www.270towin.com/
This is an interactive electoral college map that allows you to setup various scenarios for the Democratic and Republican candidates, not just for the Presidential election, they also have a similar function for Senate contests. Of course I tried to be as objective as possible, but I see more "toss up" states that have traditionally gone Republican than traditional Democratic states. Here is what my map looks like as of today, May 30th, based on my studying of recent polls, recent state voting history and patterns, and some good old fashioned guesswork:
Solid Obama States
WA, OR, CA, MN, IA, IL, DE, MD, PA, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME, and DC
Total electoral college votes solidly for Obama = 228
Solid McCain States
ID, UT, AZ, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, WV, FL
Total electoral college votes solidly for McCain = 187
Toss Up States Dems Must Defend
WI, MI, NH, MO
Total electoral votes Dems must defend = 42
Toss Up States Republicans Must Defend
MT, NV, CO, NM, IN, OH, VA, NC
Total electoral votes Republicans must defend = 81
Now, trying to estimate which way these toss up states go will be done hundreds if not thousands of times between now and election night. Again, right now, here is how I see these races going and which states we might have to stay up past midnight EST before we'll know the results of:
Wisconsin: I believe this state stays blue. Wisconsonites love a populist, and Obama did very well in the state during the primary. Pencil WI into Obama's category.
Michigan: This is one of a couple of states that I believe won't be decided until late in the evening. The Republicans view MI as one of their best shots at winning a "blue" state, and I believe they'll throw a lot of resources into it this fall. In the end, I'll give this one to McCain (especially if he either gets Romney to campaign hard for him, or even selects him as his VP).
New Hampshire: These traditionally very independent minded folks have welcomed McCain as almost like a native son. He is well liked in the state, and with the Dems focusing on some higher electoral prizes this fall, it would not surprise me to see them cede this one over. I'll give McCain NH.
Missouri: This is one of the states that probably will not be decided until late. I think in the end, strong support from the popular Claire McKaskill and Kathleen Sebelius (the popular Governor of neighboring KS) will help Obama. He will carry the KC and StL areas heavily and get just enough of the rural vote to squeak one out. I'll give this one to the Obama camp.
Montana: Yes, most people probably would not consider Montana a toss up, but if you look at their recent voting trends, this is a state the Dems can win in. I think ultimately it will go to McCain, but not by as much as many would expect.
Nevada: Bush narrowly won the state in 2004, but with McCain's name recognition, hailing from neighboring Arizona, I believe gives him a stronger footing in the state than Bush had. I'll leave this one red for the fall and line it up on McCain's side.
Colorado: This is one of the states the Dems believe they have the best chance at winning. They will spend a great deal of money in the state not just for Obama, but also in hopes that high turnout for Obama will help them claim departing Senator Wayne Allard's seat in the fall as well. Colorado could be disastrous for the Republicans this fall. I'll give this one to Obama.
New Mexico: Another state that Bush carried by a slim margin in 2004. The state has turned more blue since 2004 and with the backing of the extremely popular Governor, Bill Richardson, and possibly even VP nominee Bill Richardson, I believe Obama can and will claim NM.
Indiana: This state has been pretty solidly Republican for a time now, but Obama has a few things going for him. His staunch opposition to NAFTA will help him in the metro areas, and his name recognition in the region will help him with the rural voters. This one could go late into the night as well, but I believe Obama will eventually win it.
Ohio: I think a lot of what will determine the outcome in Ohio is how hard the state political machines work, particularly the Democratic machine, which has been solidly behind Clinton. Will the state party go all out for the Obama ticket? In the end, it might not matter as McCain is viewed quite favorably in the state. And hey, if Bush can win it after the Iraq fiasco started, I don't feel comfortable moving it this cycle. I'll give this one to McCain.
Virginia: This is another state that, like Colorado, looks to be bad news for the Republicans in the fall. Even without Obama having the mantle as official Democratic nominee, he is tied or ahead in most polls coming from the state. I think this is the election VA goes blue. Give this one to Obama.
North Carolina: With a strong African American turn out, this state may take a while to decide. However, it is a little more "southern" than Virginia in their voting, even in the recent past, so this one will be a more difficult for Obama. I think it depends on how much money the Dems put into NC. If they really try to take it, I believe they could, but I think their focus will be on flipping CO and VA, so we'll give NC to McCain. For now.
There you have it. When the dust settles and we open our papers the morning after the election, the headlines should read, President-Elect Obama garners electoral college victory: 287-251!
And this, after allowing those "big states" that Democrats "must win" (according to Hillary) going to McCain.
http://www.270towin.com/
This is an interactive electoral college map that allows you to setup various scenarios for the Democratic and Republican candidates, not just for the Presidential election, they also have a similar function for Senate contests. Of course I tried to be as objective as possible, but I see more "toss up" states that have traditionally gone Republican than traditional Democratic states. Here is what my map looks like as of today, May 30th, based on my studying of recent polls, recent state voting history and patterns, and some good old fashioned guesswork:
Solid Obama States
WA, OR, CA, MN, IA, IL, DE, MD, PA, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME, and DC
Total electoral college votes solidly for Obama = 228
Solid McCain States
ID, UT, AZ, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, AR, LA, KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, WV, FL
Total electoral college votes solidly for McCain = 187
Toss Up States Dems Must Defend
WI, MI, NH, MO
Total electoral votes Dems must defend = 42
Toss Up States Republicans Must Defend
MT, NV, CO, NM, IN, OH, VA, NC
Total electoral votes Republicans must defend = 81
Now, trying to estimate which way these toss up states go will be done hundreds if not thousands of times between now and election night. Again, right now, here is how I see these races going and which states we might have to stay up past midnight EST before we'll know the results of:
Wisconsin: I believe this state stays blue. Wisconsonites love a populist, and Obama did very well in the state during the primary. Pencil WI into Obama's category.
Michigan: This is one of a couple of states that I believe won't be decided until late in the evening. The Republicans view MI as one of their best shots at winning a "blue" state, and I believe they'll throw a lot of resources into it this fall. In the end, I'll give this one to McCain (especially if he either gets Romney to campaign hard for him, or even selects him as his VP).
New Hampshire: These traditionally very independent minded folks have welcomed McCain as almost like a native son. He is well liked in the state, and with the Dems focusing on some higher electoral prizes this fall, it would not surprise me to see them cede this one over. I'll give McCain NH.
Missouri: This is one of the states that probably will not be decided until late. I think in the end, strong support from the popular Claire McKaskill and Kathleen Sebelius (the popular Governor of neighboring KS) will help Obama. He will carry the KC and StL areas heavily and get just enough of the rural vote to squeak one out. I'll give this one to the Obama camp.
Montana: Yes, most people probably would not consider Montana a toss up, but if you look at their recent voting trends, this is a state the Dems can win in. I think ultimately it will go to McCain, but not by as much as many would expect.
Nevada: Bush narrowly won the state in 2004, but with McCain's name recognition, hailing from neighboring Arizona, I believe gives him a stronger footing in the state than Bush had. I'll leave this one red for the fall and line it up on McCain's side.
Colorado: This is one of the states the Dems believe they have the best chance at winning. They will spend a great deal of money in the state not just for Obama, but also in hopes that high turnout for Obama will help them claim departing Senator Wayne Allard's seat in the fall as well. Colorado could be disastrous for the Republicans this fall. I'll give this one to Obama.
New Mexico: Another state that Bush carried by a slim margin in 2004. The state has turned more blue since 2004 and with the backing of the extremely popular Governor, Bill Richardson, and possibly even VP nominee Bill Richardson, I believe Obama can and will claim NM.
Indiana: This state has been pretty solidly Republican for a time now, but Obama has a few things going for him. His staunch opposition to NAFTA will help him in the metro areas, and his name recognition in the region will help him with the rural voters. This one could go late into the night as well, but I believe Obama will eventually win it.
Ohio: I think a lot of what will determine the outcome in Ohio is how hard the state political machines work, particularly the Democratic machine, which has been solidly behind Clinton. Will the state party go all out for the Obama ticket? In the end, it might not matter as McCain is viewed quite favorably in the state. And hey, if Bush can win it after the Iraq fiasco started, I don't feel comfortable moving it this cycle. I'll give this one to McCain.
Virginia: This is another state that, like Colorado, looks to be bad news for the Republicans in the fall. Even without Obama having the mantle as official Democratic nominee, he is tied or ahead in most polls coming from the state. I think this is the election VA goes blue. Give this one to Obama.
North Carolina: With a strong African American turn out, this state may take a while to decide. However, it is a little more "southern" than Virginia in their voting, even in the recent past, so this one will be a more difficult for Obama. I think it depends on how much money the Dems put into NC. If they really try to take it, I believe they could, but I think their focus will be on flipping CO and VA, so we'll give NC to McCain. For now.
There you have it. When the dust settles and we open our papers the morning after the election, the headlines should read, President-Elect Obama garners electoral college victory: 287-251!
And this, after allowing those "big states" that Democrats "must win" (according to Hillary) going to McCain.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Lieberman
I didn't want to completely trash this guy, despite his hawkish position on the war in Iraq, but what I learned the other day was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. On Countdown last night, Keith Olberman reported that Lieberman will be making a joint speaking appearance with, John Hagee! Yes, that John Hagee, who has stated that Adolf Hitler was sent by God to enable to Holocaust in order to move the Jews back to Israel.
Um, Senator Lieberman, you are still Jewish, right? How can you possibly go through with this engagement and still consider yourself relevant and not just some political hack who turns his moral compass depending on which position is most politically expediant? I'm not sure where your warmongering position stems from. After all, you have been a pretty staunchly liberal Senator for most of your life on issues such as the environment, but it appears your political aspirations are for a higher office, and knowing that the Democrats would not select you to run on their national ticket again, you have aligned yourself with John McCain.
Right now the Democrats hold a razor thin majority in the Senate, 51-49, if we count Lieberman who does caucus with the Dems (for the time being). After the fall elections, however, I would be shocked if the Senate leadership didn't strip Lieberman of his chairmanships. He is currently the chair of the committee on Governmental Affairs and Security. Do we really want a hawk charing this committee? This election year appears to be a very tough one for Republicans in general. I doubt any of the Dems 12 Senate seats they are defending are in any real jeapordy. Meanwhile, the Republicans have to defend 21 seats this fall. Especially with the presumptive Democratic nominee being Barack Obama, turnout will most likely be quite high and have an impact on down ticket races in the Senate and the House.
The Democrats have a real shot, I believe, of picking up two more seats which would give them a clear majority even without Lieberman in the fold. They should take the Colorado seat of Allard's, and either Gordon Smith's (of Oregon) or Norm Coleman's (of Minnesota). Getting the hat trick here would be icing on the electoral cake.
Lieberman has sold his soul to the neocons. He will, unfortunately, be remembered for his support of the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history this side of Vietnam.
Um, Senator Lieberman, you are still Jewish, right? How can you possibly go through with this engagement and still consider yourself relevant and not just some political hack who turns his moral compass depending on which position is most politically expediant? I'm not sure where your warmongering position stems from. After all, you have been a pretty staunchly liberal Senator for most of your life on issues such as the environment, but it appears your political aspirations are for a higher office, and knowing that the Democrats would not select you to run on their national ticket again, you have aligned yourself with John McCain.
Right now the Democrats hold a razor thin majority in the Senate, 51-49, if we count Lieberman who does caucus with the Dems (for the time being). After the fall elections, however, I would be shocked if the Senate leadership didn't strip Lieberman of his chairmanships. He is currently the chair of the committee on Governmental Affairs and Security. Do we really want a hawk charing this committee? This election year appears to be a very tough one for Republicans in general. I doubt any of the Dems 12 Senate seats they are defending are in any real jeapordy. Meanwhile, the Republicans have to defend 21 seats this fall. Especially with the presumptive Democratic nominee being Barack Obama, turnout will most likely be quite high and have an impact on down ticket races in the Senate and the House.
The Democrats have a real shot, I believe, of picking up two more seats which would give them a clear majority even without Lieberman in the fold. They should take the Colorado seat of Allard's, and either Gordon Smith's (of Oregon) or Norm Coleman's (of Minnesota). Getting the hat trick here would be icing on the electoral cake.
Lieberman has sold his soul to the neocons. He will, unfortunately, be remembered for his support of the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history this side of Vietnam.
Monday, May 26, 2008
My Country: In Memorandom
Today we celebrate the lives of those we have lost. I'd like to add one name to the list that deserves remembrance: The United States of America (RIP 1776-2000). Oh sure, our country may still be clanking it's oppressive shackles that George Bush chains us to, like some ghost of democracy past, but rest assured, the US died the day Al Gore conceded the Presidency in 2000.
It is actually quite remarkable, that such a powerful nation could be brought to it's knees, and indeed succumb to the utter foolishness and incompetence of one single Presidential administration. Honestly, if the US was going to fall based on one administration, the smart money probably would have been on Garfield. Alas, no one could have seen Bush the second coming. The United States has survived all sorts of shots that have killed off nations in the past; Civil War, racial tensions run amok, a depression so dire that men were forced to beg for scraps to feed their children, political corruption and ill advised military campaigns. All of these took their respective toll on our proud nation, but we withstood, we persevered because, after all, that is one of the definitions of Americanism.
Corruption, greed, and incompetence were the poisons that spiked our proverbially Kool Aid that Bush forced down our throats. His administration has single handily plunged us into a war that we had no business fighting and a recession that appears more and more likely to be tail spinning into, quite possibly, a depression. Rising gas prices, homes left unsold or being foreclosed on, the price of eggs and milk, while these may be what is hurting Americans directly in the pocket book they are but a symptom of a much greater problem. Bush has left our country weak, both figuratively and in reality. Both physically and economically.
Whoever moves into the White House next January will have a daunting task ahead of them. They must cleanse this country of the cancerous cronyism that has suffocated the life from us the past 8 years. I have faith that the people of this country, however, will work hard to resuscitate America. My family, friends, colleagues, everybody is ready to undergo a major transformation. We will be back, and we will be stronger. I have hope.
It is actually quite remarkable, that such a powerful nation could be brought to it's knees, and indeed succumb to the utter foolishness and incompetence of one single Presidential administration. Honestly, if the US was going to fall based on one administration, the smart money probably would have been on Garfield. Alas, no one could have seen Bush the second coming. The United States has survived all sorts of shots that have killed off nations in the past; Civil War, racial tensions run amok, a depression so dire that men were forced to beg for scraps to feed their children, political corruption and ill advised military campaigns. All of these took their respective toll on our proud nation, but we withstood, we persevered because, after all, that is one of the definitions of Americanism.
Corruption, greed, and incompetence were the poisons that spiked our proverbially Kool Aid that Bush forced down our throats. His administration has single handily plunged us into a war that we had no business fighting and a recession that appears more and more likely to be tail spinning into, quite possibly, a depression. Rising gas prices, homes left unsold or being foreclosed on, the price of eggs and milk, while these may be what is hurting Americans directly in the pocket book they are but a symptom of a much greater problem. Bush has left our country weak, both figuratively and in reality. Both physically and economically.
Whoever moves into the White House next January will have a daunting task ahead of them. They must cleanse this country of the cancerous cronyism that has suffocated the life from us the past 8 years. I have faith that the people of this country, however, will work hard to resuscitate America. My family, friends, colleagues, everybody is ready to undergo a major transformation. We will be back, and we will be stronger. I have hope.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Ghost of RFK
I probably should wait and calm down before posting this, but I can't help myself. Much as it appears Hillary Clinton can't help herself:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1058940.aspx#comments
What are the adjectives to describe this nonsense? Shameless? Disgusting? Revolting? I'm not sure any of these words do it justice. The fact that she would even mention the fact that one reason she is staying in the race is because RFK was assassinated in June is completely inappropriate. The DNC needs to stop this, now. NOW, Mr. Dean, do you hear? She may as well be handing some racist militant a gun and winking. This, she says, after stories broke of her husband and other influential Clinton supporters supposedly pushing for her to be taken on the ticket as VP? Give me a break. Do they have the power to recall sitting Senators in New York?
Unbelievable.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/23/1058940.aspx#comments
What are the adjectives to describe this nonsense? Shameless? Disgusting? Revolting? I'm not sure any of these words do it justice. The fact that she would even mention the fact that one reason she is staying in the race is because RFK was assassinated in June is completely inappropriate. The DNC needs to stop this, now. NOW, Mr. Dean, do you hear? She may as well be handing some racist militant a gun and winking. This, she says, after stories broke of her husband and other influential Clinton supporters supposedly pushing for her to be taken on the ticket as VP? Give me a break. Do they have the power to recall sitting Senators in New York?
Unbelievable.
DNC Rules Committee
So the rules committee is meeting on 5/31 to decide the fate of the Michigan and Florida delegations. At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, perhaps the rules committee should resolve this issue by using, oh I don't know, the rules! First, let's examine how we arrived at this supposed impasse. The Democratic party has a history of allowing Iowa and New Hampshire and now Nevada and South Carolina, to be the initial primary proving grounds. These are the only four states that have been authorized to hold their primaries prior to Super Tuesday (2/5 this year). If anyone wants to debate the merits of why folks from Iowa or any of the other three states should have a louder voice in the nominating process, then we can certainly have a viable discssion on that point. However, the rules are what they are.
Michigan and Florida, being the natural rebels that they are, decided they didn't need to follow the DNC's rules and moved their primaries up prior to 2/5. In response, the DNC told them that if they went through with their plans, their delegations would not be seated at the National Convention in Denver. Our two rogue states called the DNC's bluff, most likely relying on their size and importance to bail them out of trouble with the DNC. All of the major candidates signed a pledge that they would not campaign in these states and knew full well that the penalties they would face is a loss of their delegates.
Instead of buckling to the states, the committee held true to their threat. Is it fair to the good people of Florida and Michigan? Absolutely not, but the people they should be blaming are their own state party leaders, not the DNC, not Howard Dean, and certainly not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Speaking of Senator Clinton, does anybody outside of her inner circle and most delusional of backers believe her latest tirade about why they should be seated? She claims that this is as important as the Civil Rights movement, women's sufforage, etc. Why is it she has found this moral voice only after she fell behind Obama in delegates? Are we to believe that is just a coincidence?
Now we learn that "bus loads" of Clinton supporters will siege the DNC rules committee when they convene next week. The city's drugstores had better stock up on Preparation H and Metamucil. In all seriousness, I can sympathize with these women and their desire to see a female President. It will come, most likely sooner rather than later, but this was not Hillary's time. This is Obama's time. This is our time.
The delegations will ultimately be seated, because Obama (who's campaign will take the reigns of the DNC in short order) has said he wants them to be seated. The most likely scenario is to seat the full slate of delegates, but give each of them a half vote only. The repurcussions for the fall from this delegate battle aren't crystal clear yet, but I doubt they impact the race much at all. Obama's ticket will win Michigan pretty easily (unless McCain taps Romney as his Veep, in which case the state would be up for grabs). Obama will most likely lose to McCain in Florida, no matter how the delegates get seated.
Team Clinton might have been able to successfully move the goalposts around many times during the course of the campaign to help her define victory, but they will fail at trying to get the rule book changed in the middle of the fight. Goalposts are made to be moved in politics, which is a perceptions game. Mathematics, however, is not a matter of perception, so the rules committee will not side with her. It just won't happen.
Michigan and Florida, being the natural rebels that they are, decided they didn't need to follow the DNC's rules and moved their primaries up prior to 2/5. In response, the DNC told them that if they went through with their plans, their delegations would not be seated at the National Convention in Denver. Our two rogue states called the DNC's bluff, most likely relying on their size and importance to bail them out of trouble with the DNC. All of the major candidates signed a pledge that they would not campaign in these states and knew full well that the penalties they would face is a loss of their delegates.
Instead of buckling to the states, the committee held true to their threat. Is it fair to the good people of Florida and Michigan? Absolutely not, but the people they should be blaming are their own state party leaders, not the DNC, not Howard Dean, and certainly not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Speaking of Senator Clinton, does anybody outside of her inner circle and most delusional of backers believe her latest tirade about why they should be seated? She claims that this is as important as the Civil Rights movement, women's sufforage, etc. Why is it she has found this moral voice only after she fell behind Obama in delegates? Are we to believe that is just a coincidence?
Now we learn that "bus loads" of Clinton supporters will siege the DNC rules committee when they convene next week. The city's drugstores had better stock up on Preparation H and Metamucil. In all seriousness, I can sympathize with these women and their desire to see a female President. It will come, most likely sooner rather than later, but this was not Hillary's time. This is Obama's time. This is our time.
The delegations will ultimately be seated, because Obama (who's campaign will take the reigns of the DNC in short order) has said he wants them to be seated. The most likely scenario is to seat the full slate of delegates, but give each of them a half vote only. The repurcussions for the fall from this delegate battle aren't crystal clear yet, but I doubt they impact the race much at all. Obama's ticket will win Michigan pretty easily (unless McCain taps Romney as his Veep, in which case the state would be up for grabs). Obama will most likely lose to McCain in Florida, no matter how the delegates get seated.
Team Clinton might have been able to successfully move the goalposts around many times during the course of the campaign to help her define victory, but they will fail at trying to get the rule book changed in the middle of the fight. Goalposts are made to be moved in politics, which is a perceptions game. Mathematics, however, is not a matter of perception, so the rules committee will not side with her. It just won't happen.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Veepstakes Begins!
So, word has been leaked out that the Obama campaign has begun it's process of finding a suitable running mate. Everybody and their mother has an opinion on who the Senator should select. I, of course, am no different. I love the speculation and analysis that goes into trying to pick who the VP will be. I'll list out who the conventional wisdom of the day is saying should be included on the "short" lists for Obama. I'll list the positives and negatives of each candidate from my perspective and hopefully come up with no more than 2 or 3 likely nominees. We are also assuming that with the VP nominee, Obama will be looking to bolster his votes with a chunk of the electorate he either hasn't been winning, or not winning in big enough numbers.
Hillary Clinton
I realize this is not the ideal scenario for many of Obama's followers. The so called "dream ticket" would be a rather unusual coupling, in my opinion. While the New York Senator has proven she is a tenacious fighter, she is also very much tied to Washington DC. Her connections to lobbyists and PAC's would put a damper on Obama's message of changing Washington. In addition, the rhetoric from not only her surrogates, but even Hillary herself, has reached epoch proportions during the campaign. I stopped believing the "dream ticket" could work that day she insinuated that both she and John McCain were qualified to be President, but cast doubts on Obama's ability to lead the nation. The quagmire for Obama, however, is how to tell Clinton "no" without further alienating her base? Democrats must carry the female vote in November by a healthy margin if they expect to defeat McCain. The Obama team must walk a very fine line with handling Clinton, but I also don't see them selecting her to run with them. Hillary would be well served to run as Governor of New York, in my opinion.
John Edwards
If you saw the rally in Michigan where Edwards came out to throw his support to Obama, then you know how energized that crowd was. Also, the two men standing up there on the stage together just felt right to many people, me included. The positives? Edwards is well respected within the Democratic party. He's very intelligent and hails from a Southern state. Potential negatives? He has already run as a VP and couldn't help Kerry seal the deal in 2004. He is not the strongest of campaigners, and particularly the Vice Presidential candidate needs to be able to go on the offensive during the campaign. Does Edwards have the fight in him to do it? He also couldn't help Kerry carry any of the Southern states he needed, and failed to bring over the rural white vote in droves. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives of an Edwards nomination. Let's keep John in the cabinet though. Attorney General Edwards, anyone?
Kathleen Sebelius
The two term Democratic Governor of the very Republican state of Kansas. Sebelius, despite her years as the executive of Kansas, has not been nationally vetted, unlike Edwards and Clinton. While she has supported Obama for quite some time now, I also haven't seen her showing up on many news shows as one of his top surrogates. She is by all accounts a conservative Democrat who has overseen a solid, if not spectacular, administration. She would almost certainly help appeal to some of Hillary's base, but the question remains, are the hard core Clinton backers really wanting to see just a female on the ticket, or would nothing short of Hillary on the ticket satisfy them? As far as helping carry any additional states, Kansas, while it would be a diffcult chore to turn it blue, even if that feat was accomplished, does not hold many electoral votes. She could possibly influence nearby Missouri, which of course will be a key battle ground this fall. She definitely could be chosen, depending on the outcome of her vetting period.
Jim Webb
The junior Senator from Virginia. Former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Webb's resume' speaks for itself, and he would bring instant credibility, and indeed mitigate, any potential perceived advantage McCain might have in a military/foregin policy debate. In addition, he is from Virginia, which team Obama believes they can put in play this fall. He does have some baggage that we know of already, without having been fully vetted. He is on his third marriage. He has written some not so eloquent statements regarding women during his days in the Navy in the 80's, and he has a lack of elected experience. In addition, he has not even come out to support Obama yet and has more than hinted that he has no ambition for the Vice Presidency. He seems to me to be the Democratic version of Fred Thompson. While many people are clamboring for Webb, I don't see him as the top choice for Obama.
Claire McCaskill
The junior Senator from the great state of Missouri. Again, she would be an obvious candidate if for nother reason than the fact she is from the all important battle ground of Missouri. She is also a very vocal defender and supporter of Obama. She has been an outspoken, articulate, and passionate advocate for Barack. She also would theoretically be able to attract more of the female vote. The only down side to Senator McCaskill that I see at this time, is her relative inexperience. She is a rising star in the party though, just as Barack was in 2004. I'm looking for great things from McCaskill down the road, I'm just not sure if this is quite her time yet.
Tim Kaine
The Democratic Governor of Virginia. Kaine has the advantages of being a fairly popular Governor in a state that has historically been difficult for Democrats to succeed in. As mentioned earlier, Obama also believes Virginia is a place where he can win in the fall, and having the Governor on the ticket would almost certainly improve his chances of turning Virginia blue. Also, the fact that his has executive experience and is not from the Senate, should help his chances for the nomination as well. Kaine has been able to keep his popularity despite holding some pretty left leaning positions, such as his opposition to the gay marriage ban. I actually see no downsides to having Kaine on the ticket at this time, except and unless something sordid is turned up during the vetting process.
Chuck Hagel
Granted, this one may be a bit of a long shot, but here me out on Chuck Hagel. He's a Republican from the state of Nebraska. You won't find a more respected Senator today, than him. He has all but endorsed Obama when he lashed out and chided John McCain for his foreign policy tone and rhetoric. He has a military background but is also staunchly against the war in Iraq. Obviously, since he is a Republican there are stark policy differences on many issues, and many of Obama's supporters would probably say the differences are too vast to overcome. The flirtations between Hagel and Obama have not been all that secretive, and by any objective observers take, Hagel has been showing overtures to the Obama camp recently. The irony that is certainly not lost on me is the somewhat real possibility we could have a McCain/Lieberman Versus Obama/Hagel race in November. Now that would truly be something to witness. In terms of the oft cited "unity ticket," there would certainly be no better option out there right now than the Senator from Nebraska.
Bill Richardson
The Governor of New Mexico, former ambassador to the United Nations, and former Clinton confidante. Richardson easily passes the resume' test. His extensive foregin policy experience would balance Obama very nicely. Also, New Mexico is a state the Dems believe they can win this election cycle. Also, Richardson is Hispanic and still carries quite a bit of sway with Latino voters. He very well could have tipped the primary vote to Obama in Texas had he endorsed him early enough. Since his endorsement, however, he has also been a very vocal supporter of Senator Obama. He is also pretty well vetted having been in the national spotlight for some time now and having run his own unsuccessfull bid for the White House. The only negative I can see with Richardson, and would only be a negative with certain voters, is that because he is also a minority candidate, the ticket could be seen as not being "white" enough for some voters. As sad as that statement is, just look at some of the comments from voters in West Virginia and Kentucky and you'll know it's the truth.
There are certainly other candidates, and I did not leave them off the list due to their chances, but rather due to my tired fingers pounding away at this keyboard. Others such s Michael Bloomberg, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc all merit discussion. But, it will be a discussion for a later date.
If I had to select the top 2-3 candidates from our list we've discussed thus far, they would be Tim Kaine and Bill Richardson, with Chuck Hagel being a wild card. In terms of helping the ticket, I don't think Obama could do any better than Kaine or Richardson.
Obama/Kaine or Obama/Richardson 2008!
Hillary Clinton
I realize this is not the ideal scenario for many of Obama's followers. The so called "dream ticket" would be a rather unusual coupling, in my opinion. While the New York Senator has proven she is a tenacious fighter, she is also very much tied to Washington DC. Her connections to lobbyists and PAC's would put a damper on Obama's message of changing Washington. In addition, the rhetoric from not only her surrogates, but even Hillary herself, has reached epoch proportions during the campaign. I stopped believing the "dream ticket" could work that day she insinuated that both she and John McCain were qualified to be President, but cast doubts on Obama's ability to lead the nation. The quagmire for Obama, however, is how to tell Clinton "no" without further alienating her base? Democrats must carry the female vote in November by a healthy margin if they expect to defeat McCain. The Obama team must walk a very fine line with handling Clinton, but I also don't see them selecting her to run with them. Hillary would be well served to run as Governor of New York, in my opinion.
John Edwards
If you saw the rally in Michigan where Edwards came out to throw his support to Obama, then you know how energized that crowd was. Also, the two men standing up there on the stage together just felt right to many people, me included. The positives? Edwards is well respected within the Democratic party. He's very intelligent and hails from a Southern state. Potential negatives? He has already run as a VP and couldn't help Kerry seal the deal in 2004. He is not the strongest of campaigners, and particularly the Vice Presidential candidate needs to be able to go on the offensive during the campaign. Does Edwards have the fight in him to do it? He also couldn't help Kerry carry any of the Southern states he needed, and failed to bring over the rural white vote in droves. I believe the negatives outweigh the positives of an Edwards nomination. Let's keep John in the cabinet though. Attorney General Edwards, anyone?
Kathleen Sebelius
The two term Democratic Governor of the very Republican state of Kansas. Sebelius, despite her years as the executive of Kansas, has not been nationally vetted, unlike Edwards and Clinton. While she has supported Obama for quite some time now, I also haven't seen her showing up on many news shows as one of his top surrogates. She is by all accounts a conservative Democrat who has overseen a solid, if not spectacular, administration. She would almost certainly help appeal to some of Hillary's base, but the question remains, are the hard core Clinton backers really wanting to see just a female on the ticket, or would nothing short of Hillary on the ticket satisfy them? As far as helping carry any additional states, Kansas, while it would be a diffcult chore to turn it blue, even if that feat was accomplished, does not hold many electoral votes. She could possibly influence nearby Missouri, which of course will be a key battle ground this fall. She definitely could be chosen, depending on the outcome of her vetting period.
Jim Webb
The junior Senator from Virginia. Former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Webb's resume' speaks for itself, and he would bring instant credibility, and indeed mitigate, any potential perceived advantage McCain might have in a military/foregin policy debate. In addition, he is from Virginia, which team Obama believes they can put in play this fall. He does have some baggage that we know of already, without having been fully vetted. He is on his third marriage. He has written some not so eloquent statements regarding women during his days in the Navy in the 80's, and he has a lack of elected experience. In addition, he has not even come out to support Obama yet and has more than hinted that he has no ambition for the Vice Presidency. He seems to me to be the Democratic version of Fred Thompson. While many people are clamboring for Webb, I don't see him as the top choice for Obama.
Claire McCaskill
The junior Senator from the great state of Missouri. Again, she would be an obvious candidate if for nother reason than the fact she is from the all important battle ground of Missouri. She is also a very vocal defender and supporter of Obama. She has been an outspoken, articulate, and passionate advocate for Barack. She also would theoretically be able to attract more of the female vote. The only down side to Senator McCaskill that I see at this time, is her relative inexperience. She is a rising star in the party though, just as Barack was in 2004. I'm looking for great things from McCaskill down the road, I'm just not sure if this is quite her time yet.
Tim Kaine
The Democratic Governor of Virginia. Kaine has the advantages of being a fairly popular Governor in a state that has historically been difficult for Democrats to succeed in. As mentioned earlier, Obama also believes Virginia is a place where he can win in the fall, and having the Governor on the ticket would almost certainly improve his chances of turning Virginia blue. Also, the fact that his has executive experience and is not from the Senate, should help his chances for the nomination as well. Kaine has been able to keep his popularity despite holding some pretty left leaning positions, such as his opposition to the gay marriage ban. I actually see no downsides to having Kaine on the ticket at this time, except and unless something sordid is turned up during the vetting process.
Chuck Hagel
Granted, this one may be a bit of a long shot, but here me out on Chuck Hagel. He's a Republican from the state of Nebraska. You won't find a more respected Senator today, than him. He has all but endorsed Obama when he lashed out and chided John McCain for his foreign policy tone and rhetoric. He has a military background but is also staunchly against the war in Iraq. Obviously, since he is a Republican there are stark policy differences on many issues, and many of Obama's supporters would probably say the differences are too vast to overcome. The flirtations between Hagel and Obama have not been all that secretive, and by any objective observers take, Hagel has been showing overtures to the Obama camp recently. The irony that is certainly not lost on me is the somewhat real possibility we could have a McCain/Lieberman Versus Obama/Hagel race in November. Now that would truly be something to witness. In terms of the oft cited "unity ticket," there would certainly be no better option out there right now than the Senator from Nebraska.
Bill Richardson
The Governor of New Mexico, former ambassador to the United Nations, and former Clinton confidante. Richardson easily passes the resume' test. His extensive foregin policy experience would balance Obama very nicely. Also, New Mexico is a state the Dems believe they can win this election cycle. Also, Richardson is Hispanic and still carries quite a bit of sway with Latino voters. He very well could have tipped the primary vote to Obama in Texas had he endorsed him early enough. Since his endorsement, however, he has also been a very vocal supporter of Senator Obama. He is also pretty well vetted having been in the national spotlight for some time now and having run his own unsuccessfull bid for the White House. The only negative I can see with Richardson, and would only be a negative with certain voters, is that because he is also a minority candidate, the ticket could be seen as not being "white" enough for some voters. As sad as that statement is, just look at some of the comments from voters in West Virginia and Kentucky and you'll know it's the truth.
There are certainly other candidates, and I did not leave them off the list due to their chances, but rather due to my tired fingers pounding away at this keyboard. Others such s Michael Bloomberg, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, etc all merit discussion. But, it will be a discussion for a later date.
If I had to select the top 2-3 candidates from our list we've discussed thus far, they would be Tim Kaine and Bill Richardson, with Chuck Hagel being a wild card. In terms of helping the ticket, I don't think Obama could do any better than Kaine or Richardson.
Obama/Kaine or Obama/Richardson 2008!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
How Does Hillary Change A Light Bulb?
A little break from the campaign stress and emotion...
Q: How does Hillary change a light bulb?
A1: I change the big light bulbs that matter. Small light bulbs don't matter.
A2: I have 35 years of experience at changing light bulbs. My husband was a professional light bulb changer.
A3: I propose a light bulb changing holiday. Too many hard working white Americans are having to change light bulbs. From Memorial Day to Labor Day I propose no one change any light bulbs.
Q: Why did Hillary cross the road?
A1: Because Gallup showed that 50.1% of people wanted her to, versus the 49.9% who didn't.
A2: They were having a giant half off sale at Pantsuit Emporium.
A3: She was under sniper fire.
A4: So she could ask another 11 year old boy to sell his precious toys and donate the money to her campaign.
Anyone care to add to these two jokes, or perhaps come up with your own?
Q: How does Hillary change a light bulb?
A1: I change the big light bulbs that matter. Small light bulbs don't matter.
A2: I have 35 years of experience at changing light bulbs. My husband was a professional light bulb changer.
A3: I propose a light bulb changing holiday. Too many hard working white Americans are having to change light bulbs. From Memorial Day to Labor Day I propose no one change any light bulbs.
Q: Why did Hillary cross the road?
A1: Because Gallup showed that 50.1% of people wanted her to, versus the 49.9% who didn't.
A2: They were having a giant half off sale at Pantsuit Emporium.
A3: She was under sniper fire.
A4: So she could ask another 11 year old boy to sell his precious toys and donate the money to her campaign.
Anyone care to add to these two jokes, or perhaps come up with your own?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
A Response to Hillary's Speech...
Alright, everyone knows that politicians words and speeches are carefully crafted masterpieces of gooey feel good say nothing rhetoric. Still, with a little intuition and perhaps some professional body language analysis (thanks BillO), we can read between the lines, and between the smirks and half hearted congratulations to what they actually meant to say. Here are some excerpts of Hillary's speech tonight, (courtesy of our friends at http://www.msnbc.com) post Kentucky blow out of Obama. My response to Senator Clinton is in red.
"Tonight, we've achieved an important victory. It's not just Kentucky bluegrass that's music to my ears. It's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence, even in the face of some pretty tough odds."
- Actually, in the grand scheme of things it is not an important victory. The only reason it could conceivably be seen as important is the fact it gave Senator Obama a plurality of the pledged delegates up for grabs nationwide. So, yes, important for Senator Obama, not so much for you.
"Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You've never given up on me, because you know I'll never give up on you."
- Who said Kentucky's votes didn't matter? As I explained earlier, the great state of Kentucky has helped ensure Barack Obama will have the most pledged delegates at the end of this primary season. Who claimed allowing people to vote was a mistake? Oh wait, you did, when you said that caucus states were dominated by "party activists" and wouldn't vote Democratic in the fall. This statement more than anything the Obama camp has said is aimed at disenfranchising voters.
"This is one of the closest races for a party's nomination in modern history. We're winning the popular vote, and I'm more determined — more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot counted."
- You're winning the popular vote? Really? When you have to rely on Karl "Turdblossom" Rove's math and objective analytical skills, I'd say it is about time to pack it in. I suppose you have a point though, Senator Clinton. If we don't count the millions of votes from those pesky caucus states, and only count the votes that you got in Florida and Michigan (which you yourself said would not count last year due to the state party's moving up their primary), then yes, you might be ahead. Congratulations.
"We are in this race because we believe it will take a commander in chief with the strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq, safely and quickly, and a president with experience, representing the people of the United States in more than 80 countries, to restore our leadership and moral authority in the world."
- Strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq? Of course you said nothing about the wisdom to not get our country into unnecessary wars to begin with. On a more personal note, I must admit I threw up a little in my own mouth hearing a Clinton discuss moral authority.
"Now, it's especially sweet tonight because Kentucky has a knack for picking presidents."
- As apparently so does West Virginia, Arkansas, New Jersey, and every other state you won.
"Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination. And because this race is so close, still separated by less than 200 delegates out of more than 4,400, neither Senator Obama nor I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends on June the 3rd."
- WRONG! It takes 2,026 delegates to secure the nomination. The Clinton campaign has moved the goal posts so many times and so far away that they're a mere small shadow off in the horizon.
Senator Clinton must know that she cannot secure the nomination. Superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the Democratic voters. It just won't happen. Knowing this, one must ask themselves, what is Hillary's end game in all of this? What is she hoping to accomplish? Those sympathetic to the New York Senator might say she is simply wanting all of those millions of women who view her as a role model to see her finish out the campaign and not quit before all of the contests have been completed. Those a little more cynical to her motives might say she is trying to divide the party deeply enough to keep Senator Obama from winning in November, and thus paving the way for her to run again in 2012.
The truth is, nobody really knows what the answer is, what her motivations are for continuing this historic primary fight. What is clear, is that for the sake of the Democratic party, women, especially older women, are going to have to coalesce around Barack Obama in order for us to win the White House. As disappointed as they are that Senator Clinton will not win the nomination, they must not take out their frustrations on Obama at the ballot box, because it will ultimately only hurt their children down the road. Senator McCain has promised he will appoint "conservative" judges to the Supreme Court which will ultimately lead to the reversal of Roe V. Wade. He has also promised to continue the misguided foregin policy of George Bush, complete with the strong armed tough guy approach that has worked so wonderfully in Iraq and Iran.
"Tonight, we've achieved an important victory. It's not just Kentucky bluegrass that's music to my ears. It's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence, even in the face of some pretty tough odds."
- Actually, in the grand scheme of things it is not an important victory. The only reason it could conceivably be seen as important is the fact it gave Senator Obama a plurality of the pledged delegates up for grabs nationwide. So, yes, important for Senator Obama, not so much for you.
"Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You've never given up on me, because you know I'll never give up on you."
- Who said Kentucky's votes didn't matter? As I explained earlier, the great state of Kentucky has helped ensure Barack Obama will have the most pledged delegates at the end of this primary season. Who claimed allowing people to vote was a mistake? Oh wait, you did, when you said that caucus states were dominated by "party activists" and wouldn't vote Democratic in the fall. This statement more than anything the Obama camp has said is aimed at disenfranchising voters.
"This is one of the closest races for a party's nomination in modern history. We're winning the popular vote, and I'm more determined — more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot counted."
- You're winning the popular vote? Really? When you have to rely on Karl "Turdblossom" Rove's math and objective analytical skills, I'd say it is about time to pack it in. I suppose you have a point though, Senator Clinton. If we don't count the millions of votes from those pesky caucus states, and only count the votes that you got in Florida and Michigan (which you yourself said would not count last year due to the state party's moving up their primary), then yes, you might be ahead. Congratulations.
"We are in this race because we believe it will take a commander in chief with the strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq, safely and quickly, and a president with experience, representing the people of the United States in more than 80 countries, to restore our leadership and moral authority in the world."
- Strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq? Of course you said nothing about the wisdom to not get our country into unnecessary wars to begin with. On a more personal note, I must admit I threw up a little in my own mouth hearing a Clinton discuss moral authority.
"Now, it's especially sweet tonight because Kentucky has a knack for picking presidents."
- As apparently so does West Virginia, Arkansas, New Jersey, and every other state you won.
"Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination. And because this race is so close, still separated by less than 200 delegates out of more than 4,400, neither Senator Obama nor I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends on June the 3rd."
- WRONG! It takes 2,026 delegates to secure the nomination. The Clinton campaign has moved the goal posts so many times and so far away that they're a mere small shadow off in the horizon.
Senator Clinton must know that she cannot secure the nomination. Superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the Democratic voters. It just won't happen. Knowing this, one must ask themselves, what is Hillary's end game in all of this? What is she hoping to accomplish? Those sympathetic to the New York Senator might say she is simply wanting all of those millions of women who view her as a role model to see her finish out the campaign and not quit before all of the contests have been completed. Those a little more cynical to her motives might say she is trying to divide the party deeply enough to keep Senator Obama from winning in November, and thus paving the way for her to run again in 2012.
The truth is, nobody really knows what the answer is, what her motivations are for continuing this historic primary fight. What is clear, is that for the sake of the Democratic party, women, especially older women, are going to have to coalesce around Barack Obama in order for us to win the White House. As disappointed as they are that Senator Clinton will not win the nomination, they must not take out their frustrations on Obama at the ballot box, because it will ultimately only hurt their children down the road. Senator McCain has promised he will appoint "conservative" judges to the Supreme Court which will ultimately lead to the reversal of Roe V. Wade. He has also promised to continue the misguided foregin policy of George Bush, complete with the strong armed tough guy approach that has worked so wonderfully in Iraq and Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)