Why Michigan and Florida Shouldn’t Count

-Obama will have more delegates and popular vote anyway, so Hillary’s people aren’t accomplishing anything monumental by getting half of the delegates seated or losing anything monumental by not having 100% of the delegates seated. Hillary turned the plight of MI and FL into a reason for her to stay in the campaign, although she herself said “We all know Michigan and Florida aren’t going to count” in October of 2007.

– We can’t devalue the states that DID abide by the rules, because if we do so by allowing all the delegates from MI and FL to be seated, then DNC rules lose their meaning. We then have an even more fractured and divided party.

-You can’t equate the current situation to the 2000 election because the delegates from MI and FL are not going to decide the election. In 2000, the incident in FL decided the election. Adding MI and FL would only give Hillary a nudge up in delegate count, but it is by no means a deciding factor in the election.

-You can’t call an election in which not all the candidates’ names were on the ballot a true election, and to retroactively attempt to account for those who meant to vote for Clinton vs. those who would have voted for Obama is going to lead to more debate and confusion.

-In Florida, voters were told that their votes wouldn’t count. How are we supposed to account for the voters who would have voted had they known that their vote would count vs. those who went ahead and voted anyway? There are 4 million democrats in Florida, and 1.7 million voted. We don’t know how many were deterred from voting.

-While I sympathize with the frustration of the voters who haven’t been counted, I see the overriding necessity of having a party that is united behind its rules and not divided into warring Obama or Clinton factions. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Advertisements

John McCain Falls off the “Straight Talk Express”…Again. And Again.

DO SOMETHING!

Actions Speak Louder Than Words: In Defense of Rev. Pfleger’s Character

First of all, I do not agree with Rev. Pfleger’s recent statements, and like Barack Obama, I reject them. However, I resent the way Rev. Pfleger, fondly referred to as “father Mike” in Chicago, is being portrayed by the media. Rev. Pfleger’s comments were clearly out of line, but he is by no means the crazy, rogue reverend the media is making him out to be by playing his one sound bite over and over again. He sometimes turns to extreme measures in his social activism, but is overall a good person. I want to list a few of his achievements so that the people who read this blog have a more complete picture of who he is.

“Pfleger and his parish demanded the shutdown of a number of Auburn Gresham businesses specializing in drug paraphernalia. Pfleger also campaigned for the removal of tobacco and alcohol billboards from their neighborhood.

Pfleger has become one of the best known critics of The Jerry Springer Show, a controversial television program which is videotaped in Chicago. Believing the program to be immoral, Pfleger and his parishioners began picketing outside the show’s studios in 1991. By 1998, he had organized a boycott of the show’s advertisers. “[Springer is] glorifying violence every day…. Calling a woman a ho and a bitch is sick. This is not normal behavior,” Pfleger declared.

In 2007, Father Pfleger and the faith community of Saint Sabina erected twenty billboards across Chicago with the words “Stop Listening To Trash”, followed by a list of ten “disrespectful rappers”. Pfleger said in a press release, “If we are going to end the violence and disrespect of women, we must fight every form of negativity, including the music industry.” He explained to WMAQ-TV’s Alex Perez, “When you disrespect women and you continue to demean a community or race by names and by language, that’s unacceptable. . . We can kill with our words.”‘

Pfleger also led several protests against Chuck’s Gun Shop, which sold over 2,000 weapons that were traced to crimes committed between 1996 and 2004.

While his recent rhetoric is divisive and backward-looking, Rev. Pfleger is hardly Rev. Wright. He is not an attention-seeking egomaniac hell-bent on hurting Obama’s campaign. He has done countless good works in Chicago’s inner city and is a bold voice against drugs and crime. He himself said:

“I regret the words I chose Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

Enough with the madness, already!

Published in: on May 30, 2008 at 11:27 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Rupert Murdoch Supports Obama- WHAT?!

“He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”- Rupert Murdoch

On one hand, I am wary of Rupert Murdoch supporting Obama just as I am wary of Karl Rove heaping praise on HRC. However, the situations are different because there is really no incentive for Murdoch to support Obama, whereas it would benefit Republicans to support the losing Democratic candidate.

I say this because #1, Obama has publicly said that he supports reinforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act (divides businesses that have an unfair monopoly), a measure that could possibly sound the death knell for News Corps’ hegemony and that of Right-wing talk radio. In short, it gives Murdoch’s admiration for Obama credibility, however unlikely, because Obama supports an Act that could possibly ruin what Murdoch has created. One might ask themselves why Murdoch supports Obama, then, if there’s nothing in it for him?

But not so fast- maybe there is something in it for him. Maybe he, the right wing overlord, sees the error of electing someone like John McCain, who he says “has a lot of problems.” Maybe Murdoch’s red, red blood has begun coursing Obama blue…

Messages from Obamaland and McSameland

Even if you’re a McSame supporter, you can probably appreciate the optimism with which many of my fellow registered Obama supporters are looking to the future, and helping our candidate in any way we can. I took random samplings of the first couple comments on different blog posts from both candidates’ blogs, and there is a marked difference in tone.

Samples from Obama’s Blog (there are more in Obama’s category because I was so disgusted with the McCain supporters talking about how he’s planning some massive Islamic “jihad” that I didn’t want to put them here, even though they would have been part of the random sampling)

“I am from the old school, I don’t know how to donate on line. I sent my donation, a small one, through the snail mail. I want Barack as my president.”

“Barack Obama has united people from all walks of life and will continue to do so.”

“As a teacher, I think that Obama’s no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach is a great beginning to a welcome overhaul to our education system.”

‘”we” the rank and file party members, $25 donors, the people most affected by washington and least heard are fielding a candidate that truly represents “us” for the first time since FDR.”

“Today, something monumental is happening- we have a candidate that does not have any allegiances owed to deep pocketed contributors or lobbyists.”

“YES WE CAN!”

McCain’s Blog:

“Here’s a link to Obama proving that he was in church during hate-filled sermons!!”

“It sems that a huge portion of the Democratic base are not willing to support a very liberal candidate with questionable allegiance to our country! Imagine that! John McCain needs only two commercials to win this election, both produced by the Democratic party. The first, Senator Clinton’s “3:00a.m. phone call”ad, and the second, courtesy of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.”

“Act like adults, not like the Obama supporters.”

“Yes, JSM is by far the most qualified candidate. And I’m glad you recognize the trolls for what they are…annoying.”

These are completely random selections, and by “random” I mean that I just took the first couple from each blog. I think these comments illustrate an interesting point- that Obama’s optimistic look towards the future inspires both love and hatred in people, but the choice is ours: Will we turn to love or hate? Will we turn to the past or to the future? Will we learn and move our nation forward or keep making the same mistakes?

Published in: on May 29, 2008 at 5:58 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Once-Inevitable-Hillary Accuses Everyone of “Sexism”

In light of Hillary Clinton’s recent allegations that people want her out of the race because they are “sexist,” I have to address the misconception that people who do not support a candidate can be boxed into such divisive terms as “sexist” or “racist” merely because they prefer another candidate. Interesting that there was no mention of “sexism” when she was the inevitable candidate who once proclaimed “It will be over by February 5th.”

As I watch political news, I see that we can, in effect, predict who will win a state’s primary based on the constituencies of each candidate. For example, West Virginia and Kentucky have few blacks and many whites without college degrees, so we could all predict that it would go for Clinton. North Carolina has a large black population, Oregon is more progressive, and Vermont has a lot of “latte liberals” or liberals with college degrees, so those states went for Obama.

But the misconception among, well, everyone, is that if you don’t support Hillary Clinton, then you don’t support a woman president, or that if you don’t support Barack Obama, then you’re a racist. While in some states like West Virginia where 20% of voters said that race was a factor in their vote, it is simply wrong to assume that we as a society are locked in a retrograde pattern for all eternity. To those who wonder if Obama is “electable enough,” he’s won 33 states to Hillary’s 17 and has raised much more money than either other candidate. Wouldn’t that lead someone to believe that he is electable?

While we can often predict who will vote for which candidate, we can’t define them in such general and divisive terms as “anti-woman-president” or “racist” in terms of who they do not support. For example, I fully support a woman president- I do not, however, support Hillary Clinton for president.

It is typical of Hillary to use the Republican playbook, especially the old Divide and Polarize Manouvre. Now, it seems that you’re either pro-Hillary or “sexist” with nothing in between.

This is the last anti-Hillary post I will write. I will now focus on John McCain, Obama’s opponent in the general election.

Published in: on May 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

HRC Singlehandedly “Assassinates” Chances of “Dream Ticket”

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it.” -Hillary Clinton, trying to justify her decision to remain in the race despite calls for her to exit. In doing so, she (unecessarily) references Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as an example of another campaign that went until June.

Here are the results of Hillary Clinton’s statement: No dream ticket, alienation from the democratic party, and disgust from people like me who thought that she would leave this contest with some dignity.

However, nobody should be surprised that she took the low road yet again. Like someone who is just waking up from a good dream (in her case, while sleeping in a pantsuit), her eyes are still shut as she tries with all her might to cling to the last fleeting images of her dream world, because she lucidly knows that it won’t be the same once her eyes open.

What Hillary Clinton said cannot be ignored. It is not merely another gaffe in a sequence of gaffes, but rather an invocation of a national tragedy that occurred in 1968 in reference to the first black man to have a real chance at the presidency. It was unforgivably insensitive to mention RFK’s assassination on the heels of Ted Kennedy’s recent brain cancer diagnosis, especially in the blasé fashion that she mentioned it.

Furthermore, using RFK’s June campaign as justification for her to remain in the race until June is completely inaccurate, because RFK didn’t begin campaigning in 1968 until March, and her husband likewise began campaigning at a later date than she did. It is not the same thing.

The superdelegates need to stop being gutless wonders- While Hillary Clinton has been saying things that are more and more divisive as her desperation grows (i.e. comparing the DNC’s punishment of Florida and Michigan to the kind of discrimination that fueled the civil rights movement, even though that comparison is ludicrous at best and intended to affect the very uninformed and the very dimwitted) she continues to be a distraction and a liability for the democratic party. The superdelegates need to end this by moving en masse to support Obama, and they need to end it now.

For Hillary Clinton, the first candidate to say that delegates would determine the winner of the democratic primary election, to act like the delegate system is some bizarre loophole as opposed to the legitimate system of election is nothing short of ridiculous.

If Obama had, like Hillary, kept resetting the benchmark for winning the primary, he’d have been out by now. If Obama had lied about sniper fire, he would’ve been out by now. If Obama had lost ten straight contests, he’d have been out by now. Hillary is now only in the race because she’s Hillary.

Published in: on May 25, 2008 at 1:47 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

We Hate Smart People Because (Republican) Politicians Tell Us To

The current presidential election has brought into the collective psyche a hatred for intellectualism. This sentiment was created by Republican politicians (we can trace the current brand to its origins in the 2000 election, though elements of it have been floating around in the cultural stratosphere for some time) who think that the vast majority of Americans are too stupid to realize that, while they tout their everyman/woman-ness, they are also ivy-league grads and, compared to your average joe, fabulously wealthy. The reason we hate intellectuals is because politicians can fool us into believing (as we did in the 2000 election) that intellectuals are somehow out-of-touch. I think that idea has been disproven through the trials and tribulations of the failed Bush administration. Would Al Gore or John Kerry have been as “out-of-touch” as George W. Bush? My guess is, probably not, because Al Gore wouldn’t have denied global warming (and dismissed it as a figment of the liberal imagination, no less) and John Kerry would not have Ok’d the barbaric torture tactics that are currently being used. In either case, the candidate that was branded as “out of touch” and “elitist” would have been the smarter choice. Therefore, whenever the Republicans start calling someone elitist, we should all take that as an incentive to run, not walk, to the polls, and vote for them. We need to stop being distracted by who may or may not wear an enameled piece of metal (the flag pin) on their lapel and pay attention to the fact that, by electing a Republican, we will turn back the clock on human rights through an all-conservative court. We need to stop thinking that Barack isn’t patriotic enough, because he’s running for president, and he wouldn’t be doing so if he hated America. We need to stop being the wheelbarrow, hat, dog, or boot in the Republican game of Monopoly.

The funny thing is, the Republicans have invented this concept of a liberal elite that they are able to contrast to their own “normalcy.” What is rarely, if ever, mentioned, is that there is a much larger group of conservative elites- you know, the elite class that actually benefits from Bush’s economic policy?

Now, we see Barack Obama, who was raised by a single mother and whose family had to go on food stamps, being called out of touch. You know what’s really out of touch? Thinking that we’ll believe it this time around.

America: If you like a candidate because they seem like you could have a beer with them, then have a beer with them. Don’t make them President.

New Price of Oil: 4,000 American Lives

As I watched Keith Olbermann’s spectacular Special Comment in which he rightly lambasts President Bush for his arrogant, futile and reckless administration, I felt deep sadness.

I felt this sadness because I realized that I am living under the leadership of a man who bullheadedly denied all evidence that contradicted his desire to go to war in Iraq, and to be, as he once gleefully told a reporter, a “wartime president.” It pains me that 4,000 Americans have died and many more are maimed for life, and for what? They certainly haven’t died to fight terrorism, because the terrorists were in Afghanistan. They certainly haven’t died to protect our safety, because Iraq posed no nuclear threat. There are laws in place that prevent the filming of coffins coming home from Iraq. Why is this? Because if we don’t see it, then it must not exist.

There is an agreement that has been put before the Iraqi government in which it would cede 70-80% of their oil to the United States. However, they are unwilling to give us such a large slice of the pie, and this reluctance is drawing out Iraqi-American negotiations. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a series of meetings with a group of energy industry representatives and lobbyists. From these meetings, the Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.

The reason George W. Bush truly wanted to go into Iraq was for the oil-  and now that it’s probable that we won’t get our 80% of Iraqi oil (because who really wants to be weaned off our foreign oil dependency, anyway?) he will have failed at that, too. Bush and his twin, John McCain, want to stay in Iraq not for some high minded debt we think we owe the Iraqi government/people, but rather for the same prize that has motivated nearly every action of the Bush administration since 2000: Oil.

The responsibility for the loss of 4,000 Americans rests squarely on George Bush’s shoulders. The barbaric torture practiced by his administration is completely un-American, and not only that, but inhuman.  Bush exploited the fears of post-9/11 America so that he could plunge the US further into the oil-dependent abyss we’re in. 4,000 lives were lost so that oil companies could continue to profit and Americans could keep fueling their gas-guzzling SUVs. President Bush has become so apathetic to basic human rights that he was perfectly willing to destroy families, send 20-year-olds to be blown up by suicide bombers, and make American citizens more vulnerable because of a thinly-spread, overextended military. This war, as Keith Olbermann said, is George Bush’s war.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, the Constitution, and the United States of America- but not to its President. Oil prices have risen again, and now, we see that the true cost of oil is not just $100 a barrel, but 4,000 American lives. And counting.

Published in: on May 15, 2008 at 6:00 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

“Dream ticket” a nightmare

There has been a lot of speculation both in the media and amongst us ordinary folk about the possibility of a “dream ticket” of Obama-Clinton. While I understand the rationale behind this idea, I think that the “dream” would prove to be a nightmare. Here are the three most common arguments for an Obama-Clinton ticket and why they aren’t strong enough to justify its existence.

Argument 1: Clinton’s supporters won’t vote for Obama. Therefore, she needs to be his running mate.

Why it doesn’t hold up: Clinton supporters are still democrats, and when the general election begins, democrats will see the clear contrast between John McC (aka GWB’s third term) and Barack Obama, and they will vote for the democrat. John McC is not a viable alternative to a democratic candidate. Those who say they’ll vote for him instead of Obama are short-sighted and unwilling to give up the dream for Clinton- and if they really will vote for John McC instead of Obama, then they’re idiots.

Argument 2: Hillary wins swing states that Obama can’t win.

Why it doesn’t hold up: First of all, Obama is redefining the electoral map. He is bringing in states for the democratic party that have been red states for some time. Secondly, does anybody really think Californians will vote for a pro-life Republican candidate over Obama?

Argument 3: There’s so much excitement and voter turnout for these two candidates that we risk losing the voter turnout if we don’t have a “dream ticket.”

Why it doesn’t hold up: As in my previous refutation, if Obama is the nominee, Hillary supporters will not flock in droves to John McC. It just won’t happen. However, if Hillary is the nominee, you can bet that many African American voters won’t vote. The ratio of African American Obama supporters to African American Hillary supporters is 9:1. If Hillary is nominated at this point, with the math against her, it will look like she stole the nomination from Obama. Which, in effect, is exactly what it would be. In order for her to win, (though even discussing this is far-fetched and I wouldn’t be discussing it at all if Obama’s and Clinton’s roles were reversed) Michigan and Florida would have to count. Neither of the “elections” in these states were true elections. Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan because they knew that the date set for the primary was outside party rules. Hillary, however, let her name remain on the ballot (because when has she actually cared about rules?) and picked up the votes. She even said in October that “Michigan won’t count for anything and everyone knows that.” In Florida, all candidates were forbidden from campaigning because the date set for the primary was likewise illegal according to democratic party rules. Now Hillary wants the vote to count. She wants two states that conducted their primaries illegally to essentially tip the popular vote scale in her favor. She wants illegal primaries to determine the outcome of the election, which in my mind equals a nomination theft.

Furthermore, all gramps would have to do is replay that clip of Hillary saying “John McCain and I both have a lifetime of experience” over and over again if she were Obama’s running mate.

We won’t lose voters sans-“dream ticket” because they will be energized by the general election- the contrast of old vs. new, progress vs. maintaining the status quo, inspiration vs. complete lack of vision- and they will unite behind Obama. He doesn’t need Clinton, but she needs him.

Also, Clinton seems to have an unnerving effect on Obama, and is, as the NYT called her, his “jane jinx.” He needs a running mate who likewise voted against the Iraq war (we need to have a distinct contrast with John McC on that topic) and who will fit in with Obama’s message of hope, inspiration, and a return to America’s greatness. HRC is not that candidate.

Coming soon: The real “dream ticket” and who’s on it.