The Debate About Debating

This follow-up ad pretty much says it all:

The Daily Dose---2/14

Just a few of my thoughts on this Valentine's Day concerning the world of politics:

Scared?

The above video is an ad that the Clinton campaign is currently airing in Wisconsin, which holds its primary this coming Tuesday.  And while many have criticized this ad as negative, and Obama himself has dismissed it as "the politics of the past", it does raise important questions.  There was a scheduled debate in Wisconsin in which Sen. Clinton agreed to take part in; Obama did not.  Here's the problem I have with Obama on this issue---Obama consistently says there have been enough debates and there need be no more.  I disagree.  There has only been one other debate with Clinton and Obama facing each other one-on-one.  Americans still do not know where Obama stands in contrast to Clinton on the key problems facing our country.  There are policy differences and the people of Wisconsin, and America, deserve to know these issues in order to cast an informed vote.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are issues, there can never be enough debates.  And with the stakes this high, and the problems this deep, there needs to be more debates.

New Mexico Finally Decided

A week and half after Super Tuesday, we finally know the winner in the New Mexico caucus---Sen. Hillary Clinton, who defeated Barack Obama by just 1.1%.  How important is this?  Probably not much, because no matter who won, both would and will split the delegates just about even.  But what it does show is that Clinton can win in caucus states.  They're certainly not her strong-suit, considering they disenfranchise voters and, in my opinion are completely undemocratic, but she did win and that says something.  With the Texas primary being part caucus-esque, is this a foreshadowing of things to come on March 4?  We'll just have to wait and see.

Texas and Ohio

And speaking of Texas and Ohio....they are shaping up to be the decisive battleground for the Democratic nomination.  Obama is, without a doubt, the frontrunner, but with two wins in these states, Clinton can make a comeback.  It's hard to be a frontrunner when you can't win the two biggest states after nearly a month of being the frontrunner, in every sense of the word.  That's why it's equally important that Obama do well here as well.  How do I see these contests shaping up?  Hard to say just yet, but I'm sure both will be extremely close.  Ohio is probably a better state for Clinton.  She does, after all, have the support of the very popular governor, Ted Strickland, and former Senator John Glenn.  Texas will be tougher.  As I mentioned, the part of the primary that is similar to a caucus (Texas has a very complicated process), will heavily favor Obama.  Texas also has, surprisingly, a high number of African American voters, who usually outweigh the Latinos.  Both are doable for both Clinton and Obama.  But, as of right now, Clinton has the edge in Ohio, while Obama has the edge in Texas.  

A Fair Point to Make

Hillary Clinton has been ratcheting up the contrasts between herself and Obama.  She has rightfully pointed out that talk does not equal action.  Rhetoric does not equal solutions.  It's one thing to inspire hope; it's another to bring bring it about.  These are all fair criticisms of Obama.  And what is really telling is when you question voters and Obama supporters on what exactly are Obama's accomplishments.  For example, about a week ago there was a segment on television in which Obama supporters were asked to name a single Obama accomplishment or achievement.  No one, not one, could name a single accomplishment.  Today on Hardball, Wisconsin governor and Obama-backer, Jim Doyle, was asked what has Obama has done to help Wisconsin.  He literally was dumbfounded and, in essence, said that he wasn't sure.  What has Hillary done for Wisconsin?  She worked with Ted Kennedy to get thousands of kids health insurance.  She reached across the isle and worked with Republicans to get health care for thousands of Reserves and National Guard troops in Wisconsin.  I like and respect Sen. Obama, and would surely support him over McCain, but these are real questions Americans need to ask themselves.  We are, after all, electing a President, a Commander-in-Chief.  Accomplishments and records do matter.  

Strength to Fight the Tough Fight?

Does Obama have it?  Some think so, but maybe he doesn't.  It appears that in the Senate, Obama continually watered down an important bill until the special interests got their way.  The New York Times reports:

"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

…“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

… The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill…"  

I encourage you to read this very interesting article, here.

A Never Ending Debacle

The war and occupation of Iraq will be 5 years in March, less a month away.  George Bush, the President who started this mess, and Senator McCain, the man who would like to be President and supported this mess, are still living the same lie.  Both told the American people and the world that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists.  However those weapons never existed at any time during this presidents's administration.

 

Our men and women in uniform won the war before it ever got started.  So why are we still there nearly 5 years later?  Well Bush and McCain give the same excuse as a reason.  After no WMD were found, it was the insurgency that everyone knew would happen except Bush and McCain; then it was the civil war between the Sunnis and Shiite, but no one wanted to call it a civil war; then it was al Qaeda in Iraq (Note: Saddam would not let Al Qaeda operate in any part of Iraq that he controlled while he governed the country); then it was Iran sending people across the border into Iraq; then it was the Saddam loyalists; and now, get this, it's the son of Moammar Gadhafi of Lybia, who was responsible for the devastating explosion in Northern Iraq that killed 38 and wounded over 225 people according to the Associated Press.  This attack occurred just last week.

 

These Republicans can not admit they were and are still wrong.  They continue making up excuses as they go along and are still in denial.  Neither one have character where it counts, in the heart or in their person.  Our men and women in uniform deserve better.  They won the war they were sent over there for, WMD.  This unnecessary war should be ended tomorrow and our troops should be brought home.  Bush and McCain like to use our troops to support their macho talk and all the while our troops are still paying the ultimate price with their lives over WMD that did not exist. 

 

Senator McCain likes to talk about being a Veteran and having that experience.  Well, McCain needs to look to President Eisenhower for some advice.  He was a career veteran, but was not afraid to speak out against the Military Industrial Complex and he warned the country about that problem.  The Military Industrial Complex has flexed its muscle in Iraq with the so called rebuilding of that country.  And now we all know, Congress has documented the billion dollars of waste with the no bid contracts of the Military Industrial Complex.  Much of the wasted money can not and will not ever be accounted for. 

 

Tomorrow and the next day and the next day and each day after that will bring more and more excuses as to why we are still in Iraq.  Our people knew why we were involved in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War; the reasons never changed.  The reason we are in Iraq was a lie and the reason we are still there almost 5 years later keeps changing.  And the man who wants to be our next President, Senator John McCain, keeps following along in Bush's footsteps.  Are we supposed to believe Senator McCain can really be a leader?  He has already failed that test by thinking that Bush was one.

Bush, Cheney, And McCain

The three blind mice, Bush, Cheney and McCain, are at it again.  With shades of 2004, they are warning America that Democrats are ill suited and ill equipped to protect the nation.  Senator McCain says Senator Clinton and Obama want to surrender to al Qaida.

 

It was those conservatives who abdicated their responsibility in fighting terror with the continuation of war in Iraq.  Bush and company failed to protect our country and its people on 9-11 from the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil.  And now our latest intelligence reports say al Qaida is growing and the threat is even greater now.  Why?  We took our eye off the ball and invaded Iraq.  

 

The president and McCain will try to push their phony scam right up to election time.  They are a sad chapter in American history.  McCain's big problem with the war in Iraq is that many high ranking military people want to end this unnecessary war now because they understand what is really at stake.  Does any one think McCain has the character to tell those veterans they want to surrender?  We already know how Bush acted during his generation's war.

 

The three blind mice with their pronouncements are a stark reminder to the people how those who are elected to high office can betray the trust of America and what our country stands for.  No past American President, Vice-President, or Senator, who presided during war time, stooped so low as these 3 elected officials. 

Columbus Dispatch Endorses Clinton; McCain

With the March 4 Ohio primary growing more and more important each day, there is no doubt that every little bit of support helps.  Today, the widely read Columbus dispatch endorsed Senators Clinton and McCain for President, emphasizing the experience both bring to the table. Here is some of what they said:

"The 44th president should have a strong resume of government experience. When the nation's voters go to the polls in November to choose that leader, the major-party candidates should be those who require the least on-the-job training. Of the contenders remaining in the Republican and Democratic races, the most experienced are Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton...

Clinton's background also features years of public service. She has been in the Senate since 2001, winning election in New York as she was reaching the end of her time as the nation's first lady. In addition to what sometimes was characterized as a co-presidency with her husband, during his two terms in office, she was first lady in Arkansas for 12 years.

She hopes to become the first woman to win a major-party presidential nomination. While her husband was president, she was one of the most politically involved first ladies in U.S. history. Her activism on a variety of issues earned her the kind of loyalty and opposition usually reserved for presidents.

In the Senate, Clinton serves on the Armed Services, Environmental and Public Works, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees as well as the Senate's Special Committee on Aging.

Her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, has mounted an impressive campaign for the nomination, but Obama, who was an Illinois state senator before his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, lacks his rival's experience."

Senator McCain: Appeasing the Conservative Base

Now that Senator McCain seems to be on the verge of wrapping up the Republican nomination, he is setting out to appease the holier than thou conservatives and the conservative base. 

 

It is noticeable that McCain and the conservatives never talk about being an American.  One would think after hearing their rhetoric that the constitution mandates the nominee and/or President to be a conservative. 

 

It would be wise if the American people remember, especially since we are in an election year, that America has enjoyed the following on the Democratic watch:  (1) A safer America; (2) The greatest economy; (3) The greatest job creation; (4) The best fiscally sound administration with budget surpluses; (5) The lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; (6) The lowest crime rate in 40 years; (7) The largest paydown on the national debt; (8) Better control of federal spending; (9) lowest inflation rate; (10) Protection of the people's privacy and the list goes on and on.

 

Democratic Presidents have accomplished those things that conservatives only talk about.  Why?  Because Democrats put America and its needs first.  America is the Democratic ideology.  Phony conservatism is the Republican ideology and it's sad that McCain is now sucking up to them.  

A Way Out In The Democratic Primaries

It appears that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama will have the 2025 delegates required to secure the Democratic Nomination for President after the primary season is over.  Howard Dean, the Democratic National Chairman, was quoted as saying that if that occurs, the two candidates would need to sit down and decide who the nominee would be.  Dean also has repeatedly said that he does not want a brokered convention.  

 

So what is fair for the candidates and the people who took time to express their support with their vote?  If neither candidate reaches the magic number of required delegates, I have a suggestion.  Let the delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated at the convention and cast their delegates in line with the outcome of their states primary election.  The candidates did not campaign in these states, so neither had the advantage over the other.  Let the winner of the state primary in each state get the super delegates of that state.  If neither candidate reaches the 2025 delegates needed after all that, let the candidate with the largest popular vote of all the primary states be declared the Democratic nominee.

 

I think that will be the fairest way since the vote of the people will control the outcome.  You can not get any more democratic than that.  Any suggestions?  I would like to hear some other thoughts, as I don't pretend to have all the answers.

My Daily Rant---2/9

Just a few thoughts from today:

When Will They Learn?

When will the media learn?  It is becoming more and more humorous to watch the supposed "political experts" after these primaries.  After Iowa, the narrative was how unstoppable Obama was.  Then after New Hampshire it was the Clinton comeback.  Then after South Carolina, they crowned Obama the nominee once again.  Then after Super Tuesday, even though many predicted Obama would win California and Massachusetts and he didn't, they claimed he had a great night. And of course tonight they have crowned him the nominee once again.  Here's the deal guys: polls mean nothing---we've learned that from how grossly wrong they got New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday states like California and Massachusetts.  The media narrative means nothing---for once the voters aren't listening to the media's side of the story to decide how to vote.  The "big-Mo" means very little this year, as voters are looking at their own needs, not those of a state that voted before them, in casting an informed vote.  In short, here's the straight fact that many in the media are simply not willing to say: there is no frontrunner on the Democratic side; Obama and Clinton are neck and neck, and no one, and I mean no one, knows how or when this thing is going to end.  

Unbelievable Fundraising

In just 4 days, the Clinton campaign has raised over $10 million from over 75,000 donors. Remember the media narrative that the Clinton cash machine had run out of gas?  Well this amazing feat just emphasizes the point I made in the first paragraph.  No one would have guessed this amount of money could be raised by the Clinton campaign over the internet in just 4 days, but it has been; truly amazing.   

Speaking of Fundraising...

An interesting point was made by the roundtable guests on the Tim Russert Show this morning. A very likely scenario as to why Obama has been able to out perform Clinton in the money department could be directly linked to the demographics of their supporters.  Clinton has two bases: the smaller "Wall-Street" crowd, who have already maxed out on donations, and the those making under $50,000, who have little extra money to spare.  Obama, on the other hand, has support from those who make over $50,000 a year and are more affluent.  This base allows Obama to have a greater base of fundraising because just about all of his supporters have extra money to contribute, whereas many of Clinton's simply do not.  But as we've seen, when Clinton asks for a little help, her supporters respond.  And the thing is that this time, we're seeing a lot more smaller donations to the Clinton campaign, which really just demonstrates how strongly people from both camps believe in their respective candidates.  It's truly inspiring to see our Democratic contenders both have such strong, loyal support, who have proven to be willing to go the distance for their candidate. 

Obama Comments on Role of Superdelegates 

Obama made a very interesting comment concerning the role superdelegates should play.  He said that superdelegates who are elected (governors, congressmen, senators, etc.), should cast their vote at the convention for the winner of their state's primary/caucus.  This is very interesting because if the superdelegates did this, Clinton would have an overwhelming amount of their support.  Clinton has won the big states, with many congressional districts which mostly are held by Democrats.  In contrast, Obama has won states like Utah, Kansas, Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc. These states have almost no Democratic elected leaders (exception being Sebelius of Kansas).  I can promise you that if Obama had his way and superdelegates voted with their state, Clinton would come out significantly ahead. She is the one winning states with many Democratic elected leaders; he is winning red states with almost all Republican leaders.  

Upcoming Posts

Within the next day, I will be posting an article about possible ways to avoid a brokered convention that would inevitably hurt the Democratic party, regardless of the end result.  John Lucia will also have a post with his suggestion for a solution in choosing the Democratic nominee.  John will also have a post dealing with McCain and his "sucking-up" to the conservative wing of the Republican party.  

POLITIDOSE's Beat The Press

Back by popular demand, (or simply because I want it back, you decide), it's POLITIDOSE's Beat the Press.  I have often been critical of the main stream media and pundits for their clear biased against Sen. Hillary Clinton and for whomever appears as her chief rival at a given time.  In this edition of Beat the Press, I'm going to look at two instances where MSNBC has been clearly biased against Hillary in recent weeks.  

First off, here is a video montage showing Hardball's Chris Matthews belittling Hillary Clinton and being just plain rude while gushing over the Republican candidates and Democrat Barack Obama: 

And it was just yesterday when one of my favorite MSNBC analysts, David Shuster, made an outright disrespectful comment of Chelsea Clinton, saying that Chelsea was being "pimped out" by her mom to campaign for her.  Here's the video: 

Seriously, shouldn't children of politicians be left alone?  Chelsea isn't out there attacking Obama or making policies.  She is campaigning on behalf of her mother, something I believe everyone can respect.  Just imagine the outrage if this comment would have been made about Obama's girls.  No matter how you look at it, this was completely inappropriate on behalf of Shuster and MSNBC.  

On the flip side, I would like to commend MSNBC anchors and analysts Dan Abrams, Rachel Maddow, and Pat Buchannan for what is mostly fair, balanced coverage and analysis of this campaign.  Chris Matthews, David Shuster, Tucker Carlson, and as of late, Keith Olbermann could all learn from them.  

My Daily Rant---2/7

Here are just a few things I want to get off my chest.

More Media Bias

Everyone remember yesterday when the entire media narrative was Clinton's supposed money problems and the headline of every morning show and newspaper was the same?  I know I do.  But suddenly, you hear nothing at all about it.  Why?  Because just in the last day or two, Clinton has raised over $6.4 million.  So is it too much to ask of these same people who were burying Clinton last night because of those "money problems" to come out tonight and say that those money problems seem to be long gone?  Even the Huffington Post had on their homepage a huge picture of Clinton with the headline concerning money problems.  Where's the updated info tonight?  In a tiny box buried under the headline, not even in the main section of news.  Fair?  Balanced?  I think not. 

More Debates?

Sen. Clinton has called for more debates, one per week, from now leading up to the Ohio/Texas primaries on March 4. Barack Obama says no so far.  He says that people are tired of debates.  It really is despicable to me that in an election this big, this close, that a candidate would refuse to debate, which in essence denies the undecided viewer a forum to decide on whom he/she will vote for.  There has only been one 1 on 1 debate so far.  There needs to be more.  Although both Obama and Clinton are 100 times better than the Republicans, and I would support either over McCain, there are real, substantive differences on key issues.  The voters deserve to hear these candidates in a debate format---not a one-sided stump speech or biased media coverage, but a one-on-one debate centered on issues.  And all the talk about Obama being bad at debates and therefore needing to skip out on them....bull!  Although Obama may not be the best debater in the world, he has steadily improved and his last debate performance was his best yet.  But even if it wasn't, he still owes the American people a chance to hear the differences he has with Sen. Clinton.  

A Brokered Convention?

The phrase itself gives me mixed feelings.  On one hand, as a political junkie, a brokered convention is a dream.  But on the other hand, a brokered convention would surely divide the Democratic party at a time when we all need to be united behind our nominee, whomever that may be, because he or she will be better than McCain any day of the week.  Howard Dean has proposed a plan, which I would go along with, where in mid-April to May, Obama and Clinton get together and essentially work out a deal.  The only problem I see---neither candidate is going to back down, and to their credit, there is really no reason for them to.  Clinton would surely never give up.  And I can't see Obama accepting a VP slot. But at the same time, Dean seems dead set on having this thing settled before the convention.  It's a good idea, and I hope it happens for the sake of this party, but the only question is, how?

GOP Split; A Dem Opportunity

This thing on the Republican side with McCain vs. conservatives is really getting heated.  With Romney out of the race, what are the right-wing looneys going to do?  From what it appears, they will continue their attack.  Tom Delay appeared on Hardball today and basically ruled out supporting John McCain.  He even went as far as saying he would consider backing Clinton or Obama.  We've heard the same thing from other right-wingers such as Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.  In fact, Limbaugh apparently claimed that if McCain is the nominee, he would not only vote for the Democrat, but fundraise for him/her as well.  One thing if for sure, this is good news for Democrats in '08.  If the GOP is divided and far right conservatives stay home, or better yet vote for our nominee, and Democrats stay united, we will surely win.  But that brings me back to my point earlier, us Democrats must stay united, whomever the nominee is.  I'm a Hillary supporter, and I do disagree with Obama on several issues, but when I compare Obama to McCain, the choice is obvious on who would be better for this country.  A vote for McCain would be a vote for 4 more years of Bush and a vote for a third party, or not voting at all, would essentially be a vote for McCain as well, and as we've established, that's unacceptable.