The Dream Scenario

As highly unlikely as it is, the first thing that came in my mind when it was announced that Bill Clinton would speak before the Vice-Presidential nominee at the Democratic convention was that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton would be announced by her husband as the Vice-Presidential nominee at the end of his speech.  As I said, it's highly unlikely, but a man can dream can't he?  I wouldn't give it more than a 5% chance of happening at this point, but if Obama hasn't announced his VP by the start of the convention, then I would say the chances of a surprise Hillary VP announcement by Bill on Wednesday night rise sharply.

Now many commentators rightfully point out that Hillary is slated to speak on Tuesday night and if she was going to be the VP, or was even in serious consideration, her speaking slot would not be announced until much closer to the convention when a final VP choice was made.  But could this be a ruse by the Obama campaign to keep the media speculating and focused on everybody but Hillary for VP?  Secondly, it stuck me as odd that Obama would want the Clintons to take up two out of the four nights of the convention.  Let's face it, unless the VP is Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton is mostly likely going to overshadow anyone who speaks after him and will suck up at least some of the attention that a VP address would normally receive from the media.   It seems that Obama would only risk two nights of Clinton if it was to advance a larger cause --- party unity and a simply beautifully orchestrated surprise.  Plus, would Barack add insult to injury by having Bill Clinton speak and possible introduce a VP that is not his wife?  Also, it is important to look back at history for some context.  It's not unheard of that a politician can speak twice at a national convention --- George Bush did it back in 1980.  

Again, I am not projecting that this is going to happen; I am just outlining some reasons that it could happen.  Plus, can you imagine what the crowd reaction would be at the DNC --- Bill Clinton gives a great address on the values of the Democratic Party, he begins to walk off stage, then at the last second, he turns around, goes back to the mic, and says, "Oh, and by the way, I forgot one thing: the next Vice-President of the United States of America, Senator Hillary Clinton."  I get chills up my spine just thinking of such a moment.  Surely I shouldn't get my hopes up, but it's announcements like the one today that keep that hope --- as small as it might be --- alive inside me and alive inside those other 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton for President.  

Democratic Leadership -- Is It Really There?

During this Democratic Primary season, the DNC, namely their chairman, Howard Dean, has a leadership role with the committee members in not only shaping the Democratic Party but to bring the nomination to closure at the Democratic National Convention.  Those leaders of the DNC are also responsible for a lot more leading up to the general election.  Leadership is about leading but those responsible for leading at the DNC failed the voters in Michigan and Florida when they penalized those states for early primaries.

 

In the case of Florida, a Republican governor and Republican controlled state legislature was responsible for making the decision to move the states primary early and the DNC fell for the trap and penalized the Florida voters.  Because of a lack of leadership at the very beginning, the DNC rules committee had to meet this weekend and made a decision of what to do about Michigan and Florida.  That decision will not satisfy the voters in those two states and it remains to be seen how that will affect the voters in the general election.

 

The second area of leadership failure falls to Obama.  He and his supporters have already made him the nominee of his party and he has already started his campaign for the general election.  However, he has recently let Senators McCain and Graham squeeze him.  Those two Republican senators told the public Obama needs to go to Iraq to see what is going on.  And sure enough, Obama jumped at the bait and his camp announced he would be going to Iraq.  Once again, the Republicans are controlling the debate on Iraq.  Does any member of congress, much less a candidate for President, really have to go to Iraq to discover that we still have 150,000 American troops there over WMD that did not exist?  If Obama can be manipulated that easily and he is the Democratic nominee, the party and the nation are in trouble.  A lack of experience equals a lack of leadership.  And leadership is about leading, not following.

The Morning Dose --- 6/1

Today's Morning Dose comes from Taylor Marsh at TM.com.  

____________________________________________________________

Dear Rules and Bylaw Committee Power Brokers...

Could you be more out of touch? Seriously. Have you not talked to any Hillary Clinton supporters, read their emails in your inbox?

For 4 lousy delegates? How small are you people? Could you not understand what was swirling enough to allow Clinton her due in Michigan? Four lousy delegates?

You have no idea what you've done. The fury you have unleashed. Your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance and the sheer stupidity of this "compromise," which sends a message that you just don't get it. Oh, and by the way, you've also likely just thrown the 2008 election.

Taking myself out of the equation, as well as my support for Clinton which is unending, and to encapsulte the carnage wrought by Saturday's idiocy, you have simply given Hillary's supporters the reason they were craving. Outraged already, many of Hillary's supporters were waiting for a reason to raise a ruckus, and you just gave them one. A righteous one. They were already screaming for Clinton to go to Denver. Now the decibel level is ear shattering.

Over 4 delegates? This is the best solution a group of supposedly astute political minds could come up with? No wonder we lose national elections... oh, except in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton won two terms, the first to do so since F.D.R. Hey, but who's keeping score?

This could not have been handled worse. It could not have made Senator Obama's job more difficult to "unify" the Hillary supporters behind him either, which wasn't going to be easy before, but is now even harder, maybe even impossible.

Over 4 delegates?

Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.

The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves. Oh, with the help of some eager, power hungry people thinking they can push the Clintons out of the Democratic Party and take over without half of the people who support the Clintons signing on. Good luck with that one. Trust me, everyone knows what's really going on.

Pure Outrage

These videos speak for themselves and speak for me:

Is Senator Clinton's Negative Rating Really 63% As The Polls Say?

I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story.  However,  journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.

 

As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows:  Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%;  Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%.  Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.  They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.

 

Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers.  The voters have proven other wise.  Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan.  All of those states have a very diverse population.  That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours.  To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot.  The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.

 

Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy.  Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President.  All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there.  Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote.  They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage.  That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with.  In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.  

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.  

The State of the '08 Democratic Race

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.   

Florida & Michigan: What Should Be Done?

As is well known, the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates for moving their primaries up before February 5.  Now, with the race essentially tied, Democrats are looking to Florida and Michigan to help decide this nomination.  I think we can all agree that Florida and Michigan need to be seated at the convention, the only question is how. Several proposals have been put on the table and here are my take on each of them:

1) Let the Florida and Michigan Delegations be Seated According to their January Results.

I myself would be fine with this solution.  It wouldn't waste any of Michigan or Florida's taxpayers' money nor would it force the DNC or the candidates themselves to put out valuable money.  

Florida was a fair playing field.  Neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there and both abided by the rules. Their names, however, remained on the ballot.  Over a million Democrats showed up to the polls and voted. Some argue that Obama wasn't known to the Florida voters, and therefore had no shot at winning.  Well, with that logic, neither did Sen. Clinton.  But the truth is that both were well known by the end of January. Obama had received an overdose of media attention, all positive for that matter, following his big wins in Iowa and South Carolina.  By January 29, I'm sure that 99% of Democrats in this country knew who Sen. Barack Obama was.  With all that being known, the voters of Florida still showed up in enormous numbers to have their voices heard, and their voices should be respected. 

Michigan is a different story.  Obama did not have his name on the ballot there. He had taken his name off even though this act was not required by the DNC pledge and although Gov. Granholm had asked all the candidates to remain on the ballot.  But come election day, Obama and Edwards urged their supporters to show up to the polls and vote "uncommitted".  "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote, a speculative combination of the votes that Obama and Edwards would have received.  Here's what I would be willing to do: have all of those "uncommitted" delegates vote for Sen. Obama.  This would make the state total 40% Obama, 55% Clinton.  This would be a fair way to seat Michigan delegates.  The only problem I see with giving 100% of the "uncommitted" vote to Obama would be that some voters, who voted for Edwards, would have voted for Clinton had Edwards not been in the race.  But with that being said, I still believe that would be a fair way to sort through the mess with Florida and Michigan.  Keep in mind that I was against this penalization of Florida and Michigan back in the fall, before this mess was even started.  It's not as if I'm flip-flopping to help one candidate over another.  I always had thought that the original votes should have counted, even before they happened.

2) Split the Delegations 50-50

Some have suggested that the Florida and Michigan delegations be split: half for Obama, half for Clinton.  I say that if you're going to go that route, you might as well not even count Florida or Michigan.  The point of a primary election is to let the people of a particular state vote for who they want to be President.  If you're going to not even worry about what the people decided, why even bother seating the delegates?  It's just as disenfranchising to voters to discount their wishes as it is to not even ask them what their wishes are.

3) Caucuses to Determine the Delegates

Again, this is the wrong way to go.  Caucuses are, in many ways, undemocratic.  Those who can't get out of their houses don't get their voices heard.  Those who would normally vote absentee don't get their voices heard.  Those who work shifts that occur during the caucus time frame, don't get their voices heard.  Those who are uncomfortable with sharing their political opinions in front of their friends, neighbors, bosses, etc., don't get their voices heard.  And to top it all off, Florida and Michigan are not used to caucuses.  They don't have systems, like Iowa, that have been perfected over years. Many things could go wrong and many traditional voters, who are unaccustomed to caucusing, might just not show up. This election is too important for all those things; caucuses are the wrong option.

4) Hold New Primaries

I'm open to this.  Again, I don't think that the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan should have to pay for another election, nor do I think that the DNC or the candidates should have to either.  But at the same time, this is the next best solution, next to having the delegations seated as they were originally determined.  Primaries wouldn't disenfranchise voters and would give all voters a chance to participate.  

____________________________________________________________

All in all, I don't think there is one perfect solution, but there are those which are better than others.  We must make sure that the people of Florida and Michigan have their voices heard and respected.  For that reason alone, not to mention that Florida and Michigan are crucial swing states come November, a solution to this mess must be figured out and Florida and Michigan must have their delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

Why Michigan And Florida Need To Count

There has been a ton of buzz, both on the blogs and in the media, because Sen. Hillary Clinton asked the DNC that both Michigan and Florida delegates be seated at the convention.  Many have suggested that this is unfair; that Hillary Clinton is only doing this because she won Michigan and might win Florida.  Well, maybe thats partly the truth, but nonetheless, Michigan and Florida need to count.

Reason 1:  Both Michigan and Florida are key swing states come November.  The Democratic nominee will need every last vote they can get in those states.  By not seating the delegates, some Democratic voters get pretty pissed off and simply won't vote. And they certainly have a right to get angry at the Democratic party. That brings me to reason two.

Reason 2: Every last voter in this country deserves to get their voice heard, regardless of who they voted for.  It's unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida that the voters of 48 other states will have their voices heard at the convention, but they won't.  

Reason 3: The reason the DNC gave for stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates was that they moved their primary up too early.  I usually agree with the DNC, but they were wrong in this situation.  Every state should get a change to have an equally strong voice in the nomination process.  Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina shouldn't be the only states to get in on the action.  Thats why I have said repeatedly that there needs to be a national primary come 2012.  

So along with Sen. Clinton and the people of Michigan and Florida, who have voted and will soon vote, I ask the Democratic National Convention to seat their delegates at the convention.  Every American who chooses to vote deserves his or her voice be heard when it comes to selecting the next President of the United States.