If the American public wanted conformity to all previously held positions, it would be Kucinich vs. Paul.
I can't take another minute of blathering about this flip-flop or that flip-flop. Public finance, off-shore drilling, tax cuts, etc. Politicians lie. Even George Bush lies. As Jamie Lee Curtis pointed out in A Fish Called Wanda, even Margaret Thatcher lies!
All successful politicians lie, but the key is what they lie about.
I don't see Obama's supposed flip-flop on public financing of his campaign to be a matter of principle. His position that his army of small donors is another form of public finance is overstated, but he does not take lobbyist, PAC, or Federal contractor money. That's more than any other successful candidate has done to eliminate the appearance of influence by special interests. I won't begrudge Obama's decision to forgo public money. Circumstances--his ability to raise vast amounts of money--changed. He wants to win. Well, duh! Some of stated that it would be political malpractice for Obama to take public financing.
Same goes for McCain on off-shore drilling. The blowhards have barely mentioned the "maverick" John McCain's reversal on off-shore drilling. Drilling off Florida won't do much to lower gas prices, but there's no overriding matter of principle at stake. It's not like he's ever been an environmentalist. His initial position against off-shore drilling was probably to get votes in Florida in 2000. McCain wants votes!
So what do these episodes tell us? Obama wants to win and McCain wants votes. Shocking in an election year.
The blowhards on TV have said that Obama's change contradicts his "new politics" meme. I've been listening to Obama pretty closely, and unyielding commitment to principle hasn't been his calling card. If anything, he has indicated a flexible approach in contrast to Bush's stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality when it flies in the face of ideology. In November, no one except the stuck-in-mud Public Citizen-types will give a damn whether Obama took public money or not. In fact, if you asked the typical low-information voter whether Obama should fund his campaign with contributions or taxpayer money, the likely answer would be contributions with the question, "taxpayer money goes to these guys???"
The only downside to a $500+ million contribution-funded campaign is that the airwaves will be so saturated with Obama ads that the people will turn against him.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Why Hillary Lost
Major media outlets are running "why Hillary lost" pieces every day, sometimes several per day. She didn't run in caucuses. She didn't take Obama seriously. She didn't have a single message. Sniper fire in Bosnia. Bill losing his marbles. Racial divisions. Blah blah blah. The media has been consumed by the horse race by months, so that's where the media looks.
The real answer is Iraq. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the war, she would be the nominee. She did not vote for it because she believed in it. It was part of her campaign to suck up to the militarists. If she had been the "I told you so" candidate, Obama's campaign wouldn't have had so much oxygen. John Edwards also voted for the way, but he had the decency to admit error. Clinton tried to defend her vote until it was too late.
The real answer is Iraq. If Hillary Clinton had voted against the war, she would be the nominee. She did not vote for it because she believed in it. It was part of her campaign to suck up to the militarists. If she had been the "I told you so" candidate, Obama's campaign wouldn't have had so much oxygen. John Edwards also voted for the way, but he had the decency to admit error. Clinton tried to defend her vote until it was too late.
Patsies
If a Democratic political appointee in the Defense Department had shut down a counterintelligence inquiry involving the Secretary of Defense and leading to the Office of the Vice President, impeachment proceedings would begin and it would be BREAKING NEWS all damn week.
But since it's a Republican administration, barely a peep.
This is just alarming. In the neocons' zeal to wage war against Iraq, they were duped by the Iranians. I thought the Iranians lucked into it, but they have their act together.
But since it's a Republican administration, barely a peep.
This is just alarming. In the neocons' zeal to wage war against Iraq, they were duped by the Iranians. I thought the Iranians lucked into it, but they have their act together.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Lanny Davis is not in his time or place
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: Lanny Davis would have made a great Stalinist. Starting with a wrong premise, he argues so well and without shame.
Trotsky? Never heard of him.
His communication skills and the little eyes, glasses, and smirk remind me Goebbels.
Trotsky? Never heard of him.
His communication skills and the little eyes, glasses, and smirk remind me Goebbels.
Breaking news
It's 9 PM. MSNBC has "BREAKING NEWS" that Hillary Clinton is dropping out! After how many hours of non-stop coverage does a story cease to become a breaking story? Just sayin'.
Update @ 10:23 PM. Anderson Cooper Breaking News: Sen. Clinton's Campaign to End Saturday.
I better not wake up to the same breaking news.
Update @ 10:23 PM. Anderson Cooper Breaking News: Sen. Clinton's Campaign to End Saturday.
I better not wake up to the same breaking news.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Obama and Clinton play chess
Bad weather interfered with my satellite signal, so I didn't watch Clinton's speech, but it seems Clinton gave an extremely ungracious non-concession speech. Can she do more to sabotage Obama's chance in 2008) so she could run in 2012)? The next week will show a lot, but Obama has a real chess match on his hands.
If she forces Obama to ask her to be the VP, she could decline it and make him look like a fool. McCain will then say, "if you can't handle Hillary Clinton, how are you going to handle Ahmadinejad in these direct negotiations of yours?"
If she does accept the offer, the McCain line is just as valid, and then he's got dis-loyalists in his campaign and, hopefully, Administration. She wouldn't be accepting of a ceremonial role--she's be like Cheney with her minions spread throughout the Executive Branch. Yuck!
Finally, if he doesn't offer her the VP position, she could knee-cap him throughout the campaign.
Did you hear that it was reported by Fineman of MSNBC that the Clinton campaign is demanding that if she isn't offered the VP slot, then no woman should?
I am no longer on the Webb for VP bandwagon. I think he's got a lot of baggage, especially on women's rights. Not the sort of signal to send right now. I am thinking that Clark may be a good choice. Since he's allied with the Clintons, he may be acceptable to her.
First move goes to white.
If she forces Obama to ask her to be the VP, she could decline it and make him look like a fool. McCain will then say, "if you can't handle Hillary Clinton, how are you going to handle Ahmadinejad in these direct negotiations of yours?"
If she does accept the offer, the McCain line is just as valid, and then he's got dis-loyalists in his campaign and, hopefully, Administration. She wouldn't be accepting of a ceremonial role--she's be like Cheney with her minions spread throughout the Executive Branch. Yuck!
Finally, if he doesn't offer her the VP position, she could knee-cap him throughout the campaign.
Did you hear that it was reported by Fineman of MSNBC that the Clinton campaign is demanding that if she isn't offered the VP slot, then no woman should?
I am no longer on the Webb for VP bandwagon. I think he's got a lot of baggage, especially on women's rights. Not the sort of signal to send right now. I am thinking that Clark may be a good choice. Since he's allied with the Clintons, he may be acceptable to her.
First move goes to white.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Democracy in the Democratic Party
I'm glad the Michigan and Florida delegate issue seems to be resolved. Just as umpires and referees shouldn't make game-changing decisions with bad or ticky-tack calls, the DNC shouldn't make similar decisions this far into the primary season.
From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.
First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.
Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.
Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.
The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.
I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.
First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.
Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.
Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.
The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.
I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)