Count Every Vote!

-"One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls." (11/8/05)

-"Working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted." (11/20/07)

-"There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls". (1/31/07)

-"That we can participate in the political process...and that our votes will be counted." (7/24/04)

Those were the words of Senator Barack Obama, a man now apparently opposed to all that he stated previously.  The third quote really speaks to the essence of the problem with not holding revotes in Florida and Michigan.  It is now well known that it was the attorneys of the Obama campaign who blocked revotes from happening.  Why?  Because they might put him behind in the popular vote, and Obama didn't want to risk losing.  

The point is that silencing people is not the way to go.  I, as I'm sure the people of Florida and Michigan feel, could not care less about the process; couldn't care less about the DNC's stupid rules.  After all, the people of Florida and Michigan didn't choose to move their primaries up.  They didn't choose to have their delegates stripped.  But they did, however, choose to show up in huge numbers to vote for the candidate of their choice.  

Why should the American people have to suffer for the DNC's rules?  Since when did PROCESS become more important than PEOPLE in America?  There is no positive excuse for Obama to make.  He, for his political benefit, is refusing to let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in this election.  

Just remember, first, when asked if he would allow the delegates to be seated as they were, he said no, because his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't get to campaign in Florida.  Then, last month, when confronted with the opportunity to have his name on the ballot and to campaign in those two states, he rejected the plan.  Why so scared, Barack Obama?  That's really all this is---cowardice.  But let me pose a question to Obama and his supporters---Is it winning if the only way you can win is to silence millions of Americans?  I think not, but apparently Obama disagrees.  

This Is What It Means For So Many:

Happy Women's History Month!!!

Senator McCain's Speech on Foreign Policy

Senator McCain, in what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, this week in Los Angeles made the case why his supporters should vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.  The following phrases were used by Senator McCain:

 

Calls for stronger ties with allies and cautioned that American power does not mean that we can do what we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.  The government should close Guantanamo Bay prison and work with allies to forge a new understanding on how to treat detainees.  America needs to be good stewards of our planet and urge steps to limit green house gas emissions. 

 

Those are the same positions that Democrats have long been advocating.  However, this is an election year,  so John McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush and his past support of Bush's policies.  The Senator will say anything to try and mask his blunders concerning foreign policy.  McCain was an early backer of going it alone in Iraq.  His late embrace of diplomacy is only a campaign speech.  Remember the Republican control of Congress which McCain was part of backed Bush's policies to the hilt.

 

As for his call for a new understanding on how to treat detainees, it is a mere political statement because we already have one.  It's called the Geneva Convention and America's own rules and regulations for treating detainees.  McCain has flipped flopped on this issue now for sometime.  His attitude on the Iraq war is still the same: stay the course with no end in sight and no plan or policy to define success, much less end the war.

 

Senator McCain also mentioned early in his speech President Truman's leadership in foreign policy.  Republican presidential hopefuls always talk about past Democratic presidents when they are looking for votes because those Presidents were good at developing foreign policies that worked.  One thing is for certain, President Truman would never have invaded and occupied a country over WMD that did not exist.  He would have recognized that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.  He would have also had something to say in strong words to McCain, Bush, and others who still support this unnecessary war. 

 

The Senator will be making many speeches before November in an effort to change his image and positions he has held on the war, the economy, the planet, immigration and etc., and you can be sure he will be moving closer to the Democrats' positions on those issues.  What the people need to remember is that the Republicans have made an art out of lying and the policies McCain now backs away from, are the same ones he has proudly defended for many many years in the Senate.

The Morning Dose---3/29

Here's a new series, The Morning Dose,  which I would like to continue every few days, where I take an interesting article and simply post excerpts from it.  Instead of commenting on the article in my post, I'll let you, the reader, form your own opinion on it.  If necessary, I'll post a comment I have on it in the comments section.  

The Morning Dose today comes from Mark Ambinder, over at the Atlantic.  It's titled, How to Count the Popular Vote:

___________________________________________________________

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.