Senator Joe Biden: The Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama selected his Vice Presidential running mate, fellow Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, last Saturday.  Senator Biden was this writer's choice during the primaries for the presidential nomination.  Senator Clinton was my second choice.  I based my choice on their experience and their accomplishments.

 

Now the Democratic ticket is set and I believe it is important to the country and its people to elect a Democratic administration in November.  Journalists are already promoting the Republican talking point: how can the Biden pick represent change?  The idea being presented is that he has been in Washington too long.  Anyone who has followed what Senator Biden stands for knows that he does indeed represent change: change with regard foreign policy and change in regard to the economy.

 

Senator Clinton and her husband will do their part in the November elections.  No one knows at this point if the majority of her supporters will back the Obama-Biden ticket.  The voters themselves will have to make that decision and it will be Obama-Biden responsibility to make that case.  Journalists are betting the Clintons will upset the convention and divide the party.  It is part of their on going attempt to discredit the Clintons.  (Anyone who saw Hillary's speech last night or President Clinton's speech just a few moments ago know different.  The Clintons are 100% committed to electing Obama and Biden to the White House.)

 

This week, possibly friday, Senator McCain will announce his running mate.  Then, after both conventions and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates, the American people will start making their final decision as to who they will vote for come November.  At the present time, 10-12% of voters are still undecided.  Both candidates will try to reach those undecided voters.  The running mates of Obama and McCain might sway some of those undecideds.  We'll have to wait and see who McCain picks, but one thing is sure, whoever it is, he won't be able to match up to Joe Biden, the perfect choice for Vice-President.  

Television Journalists and Their Big Push

We all remember how, during the primary season, T.V. journalists piled on Senator Clinton everyday and promoted Senator Obama non-stop.  On the Republican side, they treated Senator McCain and his flip flops with kid gloves.

 

I mentioned during that period of time that if Obama received the Democratic nomination, in time,  journalists would turn on him and promote McCain in the general election.  Well, it is already starting to happen.  They are now promoting a so called rift between Senator Clinton, her husband, and Obama.  They are even saying that Senator Clinton wants her name to be placed in nomination at the convention, although that is pure speculation.  Mike Barnicle, while guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball on 8/7, devoted some time on the subject with 3 guests.  Their tone was that Senator Clinton was going to make demands and split or hurt the party.  What they all failed to report and/or mention is that Senator Clinton herself said that she would work for party unity at the convention and, in fact, campaigned for Senator Obama this week.

 

Journalists will continue to plant the seed that their pronouncements are fact in an effort to create and distract from the actual news on the subject.  They are showing their ass again in trying to manipulate the general election vote in McCain's favor.   Anything to hurt Sen. Obama or portray the Democratic Party weak in any way will be what journalists continue to portray until November.  Hopefully the American people wise up and do their own research in order to inform themselves since journalists can no longer be trusted to do so.  

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.  

Veepstakes: My Prediction Time

Joseph made his predictions just a few nights ago and now I guess it's my turn: 

I believe Senator McCain will choose former Governor Mitt Romney because of his experience with managing and the economy, something Senator McCain lacks in both the reality and the public mind.

 

I believe Senator Obama will choose Senator Jack Reed.  Senator Reed has military and foreign policy experience which Senator Obama lacks.  

 

My own choice for McCain would be Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Richard Lugar.  Both have common sense and political and foreign policy experience.  They would bring some sanity to McCain's know-it-all attitude.

 

My own choice for Obama would be General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb, or Senator Hillary Clinton.  I once wanted to see Senator Joe Biden as VP, but now feel that he would be more valuable as Secretary of State in an Obama administration.  Clark and Webb have military experience and although Clinton does not, she has the overall experience to make a difference.

 

If I had to pick a potential surprise, a wildcard if you will, I would go with Senator Lindsay Graham for McCain and Governor Ed Rendell or former Senator Sam Nunn for Obama.

 

Whoever Obama and McCain choose, however, lets just hope the next President does not choose another Dick Cheney type.  Only time will tell.

Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

Obama Caves; Clinton Stays Strong

As I've said previously, this FISA Bill did nothing but violate the basic rights of privacy guaranteed to every American in the Constitution.   There was and is no reason to grant the telecom companies immunity for breaking the law.  What's even more disappointing then the fact that so many Senators voted for it, was the fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President, caved in to Bush's and the Republican's tactics and voted for the bill.  

Now I've read Obama supporters on the blogs claim that he had to do this.  That if he didn't, Republicans would tear him apart.  Guess what Obama-bots?  You don't beat the Republicans by giving in to their demands.  The "change" that Obama so often talks about will not happen if Democrats allow themselves to be bullied around by Republicans.  

What does make me proud, however, is the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill.  Sure, Republicans will criticize her for it.  Sure, Republicans will call her weak on national security.  But today, Sen. Clinton actually acted on the words she spoke of during the primary --- standing your ground and taking the fight to the Republicans.  

In this hour, the contrast between the Democratic nominee and the runner-up is clear.  Our nominee, unfortunately, doesn't believe in standing up for and defending Democratic values.  He'd rather appease Republicans and stay as far away from controversy as possible.  The runner-up, however, doesn't worry about what Republicans think or say about her.  She does what she feels is right.  

Even more interesting is the feed-back I'm seeing on the blogs from some people who were highly critical of Sen. Clinton in the primary --- in other words, they bashed her non-stop.  Some, like Sean Casey at the Daily Kos, see Obama and Clinton in a new light.  Here's what Casey wrote:

"Thank you Hillary - I appreciate you standing up for my right of proivacy and the Constitution. I definitely misjudged you. Two months ago I would have bet anything that you would have voted "Yea" and he would have voted "Nea". Sincerely - Thank You - and those who voted NEA with you.

Change we can believe in? It's a change, but not the one I expected. WOW!"

Now, with all this said, let me be clear: I still unequivocally support Sen. Obama for President.  Even though I believe he was totally unjustified in his lack of courage to stand up to Republicans today, he would still be a much, much better President than Senator McCain, who apparently feels free from even showing up to vote --- for anything.  

In conclusion, I leave you with the video of Senator Russ Feingold talking with Rachel Maddow tonight on MSNBC concerning the FISA Bill, why he opposed it, and how he feels about Democrats, including Sen. Obama, not standing up to the Republicans:

Choosing a Vice-President (Democrats)

Well, two of my favorite candidates for Vice-President have already taken their name out of running: Gov. Strickland of Ohio and Sen. Webb of Virginia.  With those two once potential veeps no longer potentials, I'm going to run down those who are considered to be in the top tier of choices as well as those who I think would bring the most to the ticket.

1) Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  No, no, no...and again...no.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.  Don't get me wrong, I like her.  She's been a great, bi-partisan governor who has helped raise the profile of Democrats in one of the reddest states in America.  With that being said, however, she is boring.  She's not exactly someone who could hold her own in a town-hall meeting or a rally.  She doesn't even come across that great when being interviewed on television.  And the truth is, what more does she bring to the ticket?  Even with Sebelius, Obama is not going to win Kansas.  And it's not exactly like she has appeal in any other states.

2) Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia.  I just don't see Tim as ready for the national spot light yet.  He appears messy on camera and I don't think we've seen enough of him to know if he could be a good campaigner.  Again, a good governor, but not right for Vice-President.

3) Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.  I used to be very high on Judas...I mean...Bill Richardson.  He has everything Obama lacks: executive experience, foreign policy credentials, popularity among Hispanics (although Obama has made great in roads), from a state in a swing region, the Southwest, etc.  But after the betrayal of Sen. Clinton and the bitter taste he left in the mouthes of all her supporters, Sen. Obama would not (or at least, should not) dare put Richardson on the ticket.  If you think Obama has a problem consolidating the support of Hillary's supporters and fundraisers now, just think what it would be like if Richardson was on the ticket.  

4) Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.  The Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn route is the wrong way to go for Obama.  Don't get me wrong, I like Joe Biden, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  Obama is going to win every state in the Northeast and Biden wouldn't help in any other region.  The main consideration for Biden, of course, is his foreign policy experience.  But Biden, along with Dodd and Nunn and all their foreign policy credentials, would be a boring choice.  Barack Obama is a rockstar.  He needs someone who doesn't drag down the ticket. In other words, I just can't picture Obama and Biden standing next to each other.  I can't picture Biden rallying up supporters.  I just don't see it.    

5) Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Now here's one of my favorite choices.  Bayh fits the Vice-Presidential checklist to a "T". He has executive experience, he's from a critical swing state, he's a centrist who has proven to have huge appeal to Republicans and independent voters, he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Select Intelligence Committee and therefore has national security credentials, and plus, he has the look of a President, or in the case, Vice-President.  He's still very young (52) yet has extensive experience.  I like this guy a lot and if Obama doesn't pick my #6, he should take Bayh.  

6) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Plain and simple: Hillary should be Vice-President.  She's earned it.  Hell, she received more votes in the primaries than Barack Obama.  Plus, she ensures party unity, which seems to be on a rocky roadat the moment (with polls still showing as much as 35% of Hillary supporters backing McCain or not voting at all).  More importantly however, Hillary has strong pull in swing states.  As Chris Matthews wisely pointed out a week ago, Barack Obama might want to expand the map, which is all well and good, but all he has to do to win the White House is hold Kerry's states and win Ohio. And, to continue what Matthews said, Obama can win Ohio today by picking Hillary as VP.  In addition to Ohio, Clinton also helps Obama expand his map by making states such as Arkansas and even Kentucky and Tennessee more competitive.  And if basically guaranteeing Obama the White House wasn't enough of a reason to pick Hillary as VP, she also brings her foreign policy experience and her ability to connect with working class "Reagan Democrats" in a way few politicians ever have.  

It's Controversies Like This That Get My Blood Boiling...

Let's be clear: Wesley Clark, GENERAL Wesley Clark, neither said nor did anything to demean John McCain's service to this country.  

Here's the full quote from Gen. Clark from yesterday's Face the Nation that has stirred up all this controversy:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk.  It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.  That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn't a wartime squadron....

...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." 

What is so damn wrong about what Gen. Clark said?  He spoke the truth.  He did say, after all, that he honors McCain's service and that McCain was a hero to him.  But being in the military does not necessarily prepare you for being President.  And although it makes for a sympathetic story, being shot down and held as a POW is not a qualification for being President.  

And for Gen. Clark to be attacked by John McCain for being somehow disrespectful to the military is absurd.  McCain should apologize.  The media should apologize for making this a lead story today.  And Barack Obama also owes Gen. Clark an apology for coming out against them today.  Why isn't anyone standing up and saying that Gen. Clark has said nothing wrong?  But once again, the media and our Democratic nominee is falling into the trap of appeasing the Republicans.  John McCain says Obama needs to go to Iraq.  What does Obama do?  Schedule a trip to several countries around the world, with the anticipation of an unscheduled visit to Iraq.  McCain says that Gen. Clark was disrespectful to the military.  Obama comes out, agrees, and condemns Gen. Clark.  And all the while, the media plays along.  

I'm sick and tired of the reputation of great men and women being destroyed by the Republicans, the media, and the lack of backbone by some members of the Democratic party.  It happened to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and now Gen. Wesley Clark.  Enough is enough.

The November General Electrion And The American Voter

In six months the American people will go to the polls and cast their vote for a new President.  A process that is repeated every four years and in the last twenty eight years, three of the last four Presidents were reelected to a second term.

 

On the Presidential ballot will be a representative of the Democratic and Republican parties and one or more third party candidate representing their affiliations.  Third party candidates have been able to influence the out come of some past elections and no doubt hope to have the same influence in November.  The voting public has the right to vote the candidate of their choice or not vote at all.  That last option does not sit well with many Americans but those who choose to exercise that right are comfortable with their position. 

 

No one really knows how many Americans would like to see some one on the ballot other than the Democratic and Republican nominees representing those two parties, but I believe that number is probably significant.  The long primary season has a way of distracting the people and the candidates away from the issues and continuity is lost.  A shorter primary season would bring out just as many voters and would give the lesser financed candidates a chance to compete and be heard in all the primaries.

 

In my judgement and from what I see, even at this late date, If Al Gore or Governor Ed Rendell, both democrats or Senator Chuck Hagel or Mayor  Bloomberg, both independent-minded republicans entered the race and could get on the ballots in every state as third party candidates and have the financial resources to compete, the election results would be something never heard of before. 

 

The election and reelection of George W. Bush has had a traumatic effect on the American voters even though the people gave Mr. Bush their vote twice.  The voters elected the least qualified person to be President in my life time and I go back to the WWII generation.  That is spilling over to the present election and I sense the people are in a bad mood.  Senator Obama, who is the Democratic nominee for President, has much less experience than Bush had at this same junction.  Senator McCain, who is the official Republican nominee, is a veteran with years of congressional experience but has really had no significant impact concerning those things that really matter and make a difference in leading people in the political arena.  Both Obama and McCain talk about change but has not articulated what or how they would change things and has no record of change in the Senate. 

 

So the people are caught in a gotcha situation: Who to vote for, a Democratic, a Republican or a third party candidate?  We the voters have put ourselves in this situation by not holding our elected officials accountable for their actions.  We let ourselves be divided by them as liberals, conservatives, right or left instead of being just a plain American.  In the 2000 election, state officials in Florida allowed a confusing ballot be used by the voters which sure enough confused the voters and threw the election in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

Now we are in another election year cycle and the media and others have taken sides.  Lets see if those who wanted to short circuit the process will make their voice known in the future for a shorter primary season for both parties.  I would not hold my breath. 

 

Senator Clinton and Obama are not very far apart in the popular vote yet a wedge has been used against the people for this close race with a demand for closure months ago.  Those who pursued unreasonable demands may be disappointed in the next four years.  Time will tell.

A Void In Economic Leadership

The Labor Department announced that the economy lost 49,000 jobs in May and unemployment increased to 5.5%, the largest monthly increase in unemployment since 1986.  The economy has lost jobs every month so far this year and when Bush leaves office his job creation record will be pathetic. 

 

Budget deficits and creating debt continues to be at record levels under Mr. Bush.  That is a sure way to a failed economy and insufficient job creation for an expanding work force.  This administration reversed all the benefits the Clinton administration created for the economy and the people.  And the sad part is that in a Presidential election year only Senator Clinton said her administration would return to balanced budgets.  The other candidates, both republican and democrats never spoke to the issue during the campaign.  That includes Obama and McCain, the nominees of their party.

 

If any one thinks we can have a sustained and growing  economy, low inflation, low unemployment and steady job creation without a balance budget and creating debt please name that administration.  The only administration to accomplish that in the past 50 years was the Clinton Administration.

 

Congress is about to vote on a multibillion dollar bill that includes over $150 billion for Iraq thru next year with no way to pay for it.  Lets see how Obama and McCain vote on this bill.  They may even skip out on the vote and blame it on campaigning.  A likely excuse and a failure of leadership if that happens.

 

Both Obama and McCain should be talking and promoting the greening of America to begin early in the next administration.  They should be talking about balancing the budget and creating surpluses as Clinton did instead of adding debt to the record levels we have at the present time.  The Republican ploy of reducing taxes for the most wealthy people does not get the economic job done.  The voters have fallen for that line to often.

 

If Obama and McCain do not take the balance budget issue seriously, forget about any economic prosperity in the future.  A balanced budget will allow our country to fund and pay for needed services.  Retention of the status quo, budget deficits and debt will bankrupt the United States.  Our debt is approaching 10 trillion dollars and cost the tax payers over $400 billion each year for the last two years in interest payments alone on the debt.  Wasted money, something that elected officials are good at.  The voters need to think real hard about what is happening.

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:

Confirmation Of The News Media Failure

In the past I have written several post concerning the Iraq war including a two part series titled, "The Rosetta Stone To The Iraq War."  My past post were about how Mr. Bush took our country to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and how he purposely mislead the American people.  I have not written any post lately concerning Iraq because I feel the people have finally understood just how reckless the Bush Presidency has been.

 

There is another part of the Iraq war that I touched upon concerning how the news media, especially T.V. journalists promoted the war on their own without seeking the truth or facts and aided and abetted the Bush administration in promoting the war.  Now we have some new revelations in a soon to be released book written by Scott McClellan, the Presidents former Press Secretary.  I will not rehash what he said about the President and Iraq because I covered that before but I do want to cover what he said about the news media because the same thing is going on today concerning the Democratic Primaries for that party's nomination.

 

Mr. McClellan called the news media "complicit enablers in the White House's carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval in the march to the Iraq war."  That my friends is the exact thing they are doing with the promotion and crowing of Barack Obama as the nominee before the process is complete and clamoring for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race.  They have chosen sides instead of covering and reporting on the process for the nomination and how there are many more issues the DNC will have to solve before a nominee can be officially chosen. 

 

Chris Matthews on Hardball ran a caption across the T.V. screen asking Is Clinton hurting the Democrats by staying in the race?  He already knew the answer because the people have already stated they wanted her to stay in the race till the process was complete.  But there he was trying to plant the seed that she is hurting her party.  He really shows his ass and how insecure and dishonest he really is.  When the nominee's for the general election is finally known you can be sure that the news media will choose sides and then go after the other guy or gal.  Journalists have already planted the seed that if Obama is the nominee and looses in the general election it will be Senator Clinton's fault.  They try to cover for Obama every way they can think of.  They have no character.  That says it all.

 

By the way, I wrote several letters to Journalists long before the Iraq war started and told them what I thought about not having the character to look for the facts concerning Iraq instead of promoting Bush's talking points.

The Morning Dose---5/18

Today's Morning Dose comes from a post written by Jerome Armstrong at MyDD concerning a conference call with the Clinton campaign and his take on the 2008 election. 

________________________________________________________

I listened in on a CC with Hillary Clinton, and took a few notes. She's going to continue her campaign, undoubtedly, because she thinks she can win, or as she said: "I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win."

The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process. I am fine with states choosing caucuses, but not if they are also having primaries. And if they do have caucuses, they should have less delegates, so the delegate to vote ratio is more closer.

Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:

1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...

2) Count the delegates of MI & FL. This is a procedural argument. Whatever the committee decides, they decide. They better damn well not punt. I think it does signal a turn in the race, on June 1st, after they've been allocated in whatever fashion they determine. We will then have a clear marker on which both candidates agree, and the contest is decided.

3) Clinton makes the argument that she's won the states with the EV's that matter. The heart of this comes back to her claim that 'she will win, and Obama could win'. As she said: "Its the map not the math".

That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too.

I don't think either of them is a given against McCain, but that Clinton does have a better shot currently at winning the GE than does Obama. You can look at the EV maps here on MyDD, of the lastest poll in each state, to come to the same conclusion.

Paul Maslin has a good post that goes through Obama's chances.

To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.

For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.

So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.

I've said it many times, and it bears repeating. I'm not a Clinton fan by choice. I've come to support her through attrition, as the one left who I see could win. If or when she is out, I'll support Obama, and hope that the GOP's use his variety of gun stances and his proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent, doesn't work against Obama out west, and that somehow, Latino voters, whom didn't support Obama in the primaries, decide they will over McCain, whom is probably the most favorable Republican to Latinos at the moment, in the GE.

The odds of the Democratic nomination greatly favor Obama. Obama's odds in the GE are a toss-up.

The Morning Dose---5/4

Today's Morning Dose comes from The Oregonian, urging the Democratic candidates to take on the issues facing Oregon ahead of its primary later this month.

__________________________________________________________

(...) Leading candidates generally like to avoid debates, for the reasons listed above and because debates cannot be completely controlled as to content or performance. There is always the chance, in other words, of committing a fatal blunder.

Gerald R. Ford did it in 1976, when he asserted bizarrely, in a debate with Jimmy Carter, that Poland had not fallen under Soviet domination in the Cold War. You could almost hear the "sproing" as his campaign began falling apart.

You may remember, too, that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost big to George H.W. Bush in 1988. Dukakis kicked out the pebble that started the landslide in his answer to this debate question: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [the governor's wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied flatly, without emotion: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

His polling numbers dropped seven points that night and his campaign never recovered.

In recent days, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a point of challenging Sen. Barack Obama to a debate at every opportunity. Her Oregon campaign also has pushed the idea in connection to the May 20 primary here. Clinton's people argue that a debate in Oregon would give citizens of this state their only opportunity to see the candidates jointly address issues of regional importance. They also argue that the viewership numbers suggest few Oregonians have watched the earlier televised debates in the other primaries.

The Obama campaign argues that Americans have had plenty of chances to see the candidates face to face and that enough is enough.

We agree with the Clinton arguments.(...)

(...) An Oregon debate between Obama and Clinton would be good for democracy here and the country generally. As a general principle, voters should be given the chance to compare the candidates, face to face, in at least one televised event.

If there is a race to be run in Oregon, let it be a strong one, but let it be punctuated by a real face-off between the candidates.

The Morning Dose---5/3

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Indianapolis Star and its endorsement of Sen. Hillary for President:

_______________________________________________________ 

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability.

Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.(...)

(...)Yet, one thing is clear: The next commander in chief will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad. The challenges -- including those posed by a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran -- are complex.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.

Clinton: A Sure Democratic Win; Obama: Not So Sure

Latest polling released from Quinnipiac from critical November swing states shows who is the clear favorite: Sen. Hillary Clinton.  Here are the results:

Florida

Clinton defeats McCain by 8%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Ohio

Clinton defeats McCain by 10%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Pennsylvania

Clinton wins by 14%

Obama wins by 9%

Overall, it appears Obama can carry Pennsylvania, but that still just puts Democrats where we were 4 and 8 years ago. Democrats must win either Ohio or Florida (I'd like to see us win both) to win the White House.  Sen. Clinton can do that. Obama seems to be having problems.  

The point is this: Do Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can't win?  Or would they rather nominate a candidate who has clear strength in the crucial swing states?  If I were a superdelegate, the choice would be clear --- nominate the winner. 

The Democratic Race: It's Closer Than One Thinks

There are those journalists and pundits who are continuing to urge Senator Clinton to withdraw on the basis that she is too far behind Senator Obama to catch up.  That is still their thought after what happened in Pennsylvania this past week.

 

USA Today published some facts in their newspaper dated April 25 as follows:  Popular Vote:  Obama 14,417,619 million, Clinton 13,917,009;   Popular Vote with Florida:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 14,787,995;   Popular vote with Florida and Michigan:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 15,116,304 million.

 

Electoral votes based on States won.   Clinton 284,   Obama 202.  Obama has won 17 primaries and Clinton has won 16.  Obama has won 13 Caucuses,  Clinton has won 2.  There are still several primaries and caucuses left in the Democratic process, so a rush to judgement is uncalled for.  The people's vote should be taken before any candidate drops out.  It should be noted just this week, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid said they would like to see the super delegates make up their minds by the end of June.  A far cry from their statements made a few weeks ago when both clearly implied that they wanted Clinton to withdraw.  Reality finally caught up to them.

 

Over the last month or so, journalists and pundits have also tried to brain wash the voters into believing that the Democratic campaign has been so negative that whom ever wins the nomination will lose the support of the other candidate and his or her voters.  That's a croc, because those voters will only be hurting themselves and what they say they stand for if they vote Republican.  

 

The upcoming primaries are going to be pivotal as to what is really on the voters mind.  The American people should be enjoying this race while they can because the general election will really show what negative campaigning is all about and it will be coming from the Republican Party and Senator McCain you can bet on that. 

Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Speech