Does Obama really have the Democratic nomination locked up like many pundits and journalists are saying? Is Clinton really too far behind in delegates and the popular vote to catch up as many pundits and journalists are saying?
There are so many people trying to influence the outcome of this race that it is hard to understand where they are coming from. They are also the same people who say let the people decide, a real whopper of contradiction.
The only sure thing as of this writing is that Obama is leading in delegates and the popular vote. Can Clinton catch Obama and pass him in the delegate and popular vote count? Of course she can. It is an uphill battle, but she is still in the game.
There has been much talk of what role the Super Delegates should play. The Obama supporters say they should go with the candidate with the most delegates. However, that is not the role of the Super Delegates. If it were, it would be in the DNC rules and they would not be called "Super" Delegates. They are called Super Delegates because they are free to take into consideration many other factors that go along with selecting the best person to represent the Democratic party, and ultimately be President. This is nothing new, even to those who disagree. The candidate, pundits, and journalists knew the rules before this contest even started.
Journalists who support Obama, and most of them do, fail to inform the people of the real role of the Super Delegates. Rather, they just push the idea that they should act like regular delegates. What the public needs is a pro-Clinton journalist to push the idea that maybe a regular delegate should act like a Super Delegate. Get the idea, "fair and balanced."
Then we have those pundits and journalists who want to rush to judgement and openly urge Clinton to withdraw. They camouflage that with the statement, "for the good of the party". The Democrats are having the best race in my life time and are showing the people what democracy is all about, and that is what's "good for the party", even if it goes to the convention.
The people of Florida and Michigan who went to the poles and cast their votes in the Democratic primary should have their voices heard. It is obvious that would help Clinton, but the people did vote that way. They should not have to pay for the mistakes of their state and the DNC. That is the only legitimate answer. The voters in both states casts their votes for the candidates on the ballot and/or on the uncommitted slate. That is the way they should be divided. The voters could have cast their votes for all uncommitted if they wanted to, but a majority choose Clinton. That was the voter's business and choice and it should be honored. The Obama campaign does not even want the Florida-Michigan vote to count in the popular vote. Are these people really Democrats? What will they dream up next? Just treat the people's votes as if it never happened? What kind of democracy is that?
In my judgement, what I see happening tells me this race is far from over. We are getting down to the final primaries and the American people will now have to make up their minds on who can best lead this nation to deal with the many serious challenges Bush will leave behind. I don't expect journalists to get serious because they have too many axes to grind. I do, however, expect the voting public to take a good, hard look at the remaining primaries. The Democratic process may have a surprise ending.
8 comments :
JOSEPH SAID:
There are so many people trying to influence the outcome of this race that it is hard to understand where they are coming from. They are also the same people who say let the people decide, a real whopper of contradiction.
MY RESPONSE:
No. The real contradiction is bloggers who say let the people decide and then suggest that it's the role of the super delegates to decide if the people made the right decision!!! Read your own statements!!!
JOSEPH SAID:
...The Obama supporters say they should go with the candidate with the most delegates. However, that is not the role of the Super Delegates.
JOSEPH SAID:
Then we have those pundits and journalists who want to rush to judgement and openly urge Clinton to withdraw. They camouflage that with the statement, "for the good of the party".
MY RESPONSE: The largest, most loyal democratic base has been the black voter. If Barack Obama wins the popular vote and the delegate count, anything Hillary Clinton and her Washington insiders and career politicians do to overturn the people's will would be disastrous in November. SURELY, there's some Clinton loyalists who can see that much.
JOSEPH SAID: The people of Florida and Michigan who went to the poles and cast their votes in the Democratic primary should have their voices heard. It is obvious that would help Clinton, but the people did vote that way. They should not have to pay for the mistakes of their state and the DNC. That is the only legitimate answer.
MY RESPONSE: Hillary herself said the Michigan primary was insignificant because the primary there was illegitimate. Of course, that was before Barack Obama started beating her in primary and caucuses all acroos America. Barack Obama wasn't even on the illegitimate ballot in Michigan. He never campaigned in Florida before the primary there. In both states, the democrats who voted were outnumbered 2-1 by republicans, whereas the democrats outnumbered republicans 2-1 in all of the other states. Hardly "fair and balanced". Both Michigan and Florida have had ample time to have revotes. Calling for seating these illegitimate delegates is nothing but back room Washingtom politics, something the Clintons are very good at doing.
JOSEPH SAID: In my judgement, what I see happening tells me this race is far from over. We are getting down to the final primaries and the American people will now have to make up their minds on who can best lead this nation to deal with the many serious challenges Bush will leave behind.
MY RESPONSE: Hillary should win Pennsylvania, since she has the support of all the career politicians there. However, I see her winning margin at less than 20%. She needs to win by better than 20% in ALL of the remaining primaries to catch Obama. I don't see her winning another primary after Pennsylvania. She's NOT going to win over the super delegates unless she can pass Obama in delegates and popular vote. Barack Obama already has an unsurmountable lead in delegates and states won and it's improbable that Hillary can catch him in popular vote. How do you honestly feel that it's "fair and balanced" for the super delegates to overturn the "will of the people"?
Political reporters Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen of The Politico have finally said with prodigious, black-and-white clarity what so many others in the mainstream press have been fudging and dancing around: "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning."
Thank you.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
In all immodesty, however, I said much the same on Iowa's morning after, although for more ecumenical reasons (which we'll get back to shortly) than those delineated yesterday by Vandehei and Allen.
For them, now, as it has been for the realistically grounded for some time, it is all about -- yep -- the math. You can cut, slice, rearrange and bounce the pledged-delegate and popular-vote numbers any which way you want, but they always come back to one inalterable conclusion: Barack Obama wins.
Ah, but there are those superdelegates, you say, who are beholden to nothing and nobody but their own consciences and political futures. One never knows which way those winds may be blowing down the road, so there's still a chance. To which, with butcher knives in hand, Vandehei and Allen had this to say:
"The only way she wins [with] Democratic superdelegates [is if they're] ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency." Then, the two journalists' death blow to such fantastical musings: "People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet."
In effect, Vandehei and Allen continue, the mainstream press and broadcast media have been playing mind games with the electorate -- and especially Hillary's supporters. "Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is," and mostly, almost exclusively, because journalists love a good horse race and didn't want to see this one at the finish line.
Virtual and honestly reported fait accomplis don't sell newspapers or ramp up ratings. Can you hear it? Tune in again tomorrow, folks, when we'll remind you, again, that it's seven long months to the next major showdown.
Click. This far out, covering Betty Crocker Bake-offs would hold more news-consumer appeal.
So those journalistic partners with the Clinton campaign perpetuated "the myth," as the Politico titled its story, of Hillary's fighting viability. Oh, the drama of it all.
But to get back to what I promised, the real and determining drama of the Obama-Clinton race came decisively on the evening of January 3. The following morning I opened a column with, "Barack Obama can start taking drape measurements at the White House," for "it's hard to see how, and by whom, he can be stopped now." I closed it with this: "You may pre-order your Obama Inaugural Ball tickets today."
I wasn't riding some personal wave of Obamamania when I wrote that. In fact, in a moment of mistaken objectivity I had largely written off Obama's chances in an earlier piece. It was, merely, that Iowa delivered a crushing confirmation of what most voters were screaming for -- "change."
Abrupt, incontrovertible, unmistakable change. That hung in the air, voters would not be denied, and it didn't take many tea leaves to read the immediate electoral future. That was the new objectivity, only this time there was proof.
And that was the wave on which Hillary tumbled -- early, decisively and irreversibly. She and her staff of old-politics, 45-percent-coalition advisers immeasurably misread the national mood.
After seven years of vastly experienced presidential lying, conniving, weaseling, obfuscating, twisting, manipulating and swindling, the last thing most voters wanted was more Washington experience. But what did Hillary give them? Thirty-five bloody years of it. Reams of it. Mountains of it. Endless lectures and tutorials about it.
For a candidate known for her slyly calculating nature, it was one of the most colossal miscalculations in American political history. And that, I'm sure, is how future political historians will write her political obituary of 2008, just after noting another colossal and preceding miscalculation -- her 2002 Iraq war vote.
So again, thank you, Messrs. Vandehei and Allen, for finally writing what other journalists already knew but shied away from saying with such piercing clarity at point-blank range. Once the striking reality of it dawns on Hillary's base, perhaps a new day of progressive unity will dawn as well. Or at least begin dawning.
It's about time. Because this race was over as of January 4. It just took a while for journalists to get around to reporting it.
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Even if you're a Hillary supporter who saw her candidate helped by these illegal tactics, you gotta love this item.-----v
Using Public Airwaves To Encourage Criminal Acts
By: Jamie on Saturday, March 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 PM - PDT
We all remember earlier this month when Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary in Texas and Ohio’s primaries. In Ohio when you change parties you must sign a form stating you are doing so because you believe in the political ideals of that party. Lying on that form is a criminal act, and has now spawned an investigation:
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.
Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party. And at least one board member, Sandy McNair, a Democrat, wants the county prosecutor to review the findings.
But it remained unclear Wednesday whether the four-member board will agree to pursue prosecution. A 2-2 vote would mean that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, would have to break the tie.
After the election a lot of these cross overs went on the air and proudly proclaimed that they did it for Rush. Little did they know they were admitting before the nation that they may have just broken the law.
Now the question remains about Rush’s involvement in this. Using the public airwaves to encourage people to break the law has been a shady area in the past. If charges do come out of the investigation, then the FCC needs to look at Rush’s involvement and possibly take action against him, as well as all affiliates that carry his show.
^Just to point out to anonymous, it was no I (Joseph) who wrote this post, it was John.
^My apologies. It's hard to keep the focus that early in the morning and before my first cup of Java.
Well guys remember, it ain't over till its over even if you dislike Clinton. As far as Vandehei and Allen they are no better than the other journalist who are promoting Obama. Also Obama choose not to have his name on the ballot in Michigan because he knew he would not win that states popular vote. And as for the Super Delegates, there are not enough of them to swing the nomination by themselves. They need the regular delegates to get to 2024 delegates, the number needed to win the nomination. Future democratic nominations will have the same problem when there are two candidates that can not reach the magic number. Clinton did not campaign in Florida either, that is why the vote should count, neither had an advantage over the other. The votes in Florida and Michigan are not back room Washington because the people cast their votes in the primary. Clinton will win more than just Pennsylvania by the way and I believe the Clinton haters will be surprised just how close this race will get. Even Vandehei and Allen may have to eat crow. As a Democrat I have never had a problem with the people's vote because in the end we have to live with who we vote for. Remember all the Bush voters? Only a minority still support him but they have no one to blame but themself.
The folly of seating the Michigan and Florida delegates and who's REALLY holding the delegates there hostage:
"We cannot simply say, 'OK, allow those events as if they had followed the rules,' " said James Roosevelt Jr., a Massachusetts health-care executive and co-chair of the DNC's rules committee. "If we don't follow the rules, we'll have primaries on Halloween 2011."
Roosevelt encouraged Michigan to return to its original plan, adopted before the Jan. 15 primary was set. Party caucuses had been planned for Feb. 9, and Roosevelt suggested the party could hold caucuses sometime in May or June. "The Michigan party knows how to run an alternative process," he said.
But the Clinton campaign, which pushed hard for the state-run primary that died in the Legislature on Thursday, ruled out caucuses on Friday.
In other words, Hillary only wants Michigan and Florida's delegates to count if she gets the ones obtained when the states broke party rules!! She doesn't care about Michigan or Florida being represented unless it benefits HER!!
In the Michigan primary uncommitted slate got the least votes, Clinton got the most. Of course Obama wants to go to caucus now in Michigan, just like he wants to split the delegates in Florida even though Clinton got the most votes there also. Its obvious a caucus vote would be more unfair to Clinton that to Obama because she won the popular vote. It is obvious also that Obama and his supporters would love that. Obama and his supporters are in no position to be judged as fair, its their way or blame it on Clinton. The bottom line is that the voters of those two states should not be penalized because of the wrong action of the DNC or the States.
Post a Comment