Share This

One of Hillary’s main arguments for counting the Florida and Michigan primaries, in spite of the fact that neither state followed the rules even though they knew the consequences, is that the voters’ voices must be heard.  So my question is: “What about the voices of the voters in caucus states?”  Especially Washington which had a primary with a popular vote that she’s intentionally choosing to ignore.  Could it be because she only won one of the 4 caucus states, while Obama won 3 including Washington in which he won in both the delegates and the popular vote?  Yes, I realize a popular vote doesn’t exist in the other 3 caucus states, but that doesn’t mean she should ignore them because it looks better for her.  She isn’t even acknowledging them when she says “I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else”.  Makes you wonder whether she’s deluded or deceptive - maybe both.

 So my next question is: “What makes the Florida and Michigan voters more important than the voters in Washington in Clinton Counting?”  The answer to that one is easy.  They make her position look better.  She won Florida and Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan.  She says she won more popular votes than any other candidate in Michigan, which is technically true; but there’s no way of really knowing whether Michigan voters favor Clinton or Obama since both names weren’t on the ballot.  And that also leads us back to Washington and a 3^rd question: “Why aren’t the popular votes in Washington included in Hillary’s count?”  One answer that I’m guessing would come from the Clinton camp is because they are a caucus state.  The real answer is because Hillary lost that state.  

Her claims are kind of a moot point anyway because when it comes down to it, delegates, and not popular vote that decides the candidate.  But apparently that’s not enough to stop a Democrat. If I remember right, wasn’t ‘popular vote’ Gore’s argument in the 2000 general election?  When will they learn?  And when will Hillary learn to count?

Share This

While these tactics may work if she was running for, oh, I don’t know… Prom Queen. But do we really want a prom queen for President?

I’ve already addressed the whiney call for re-votes in “Some Cheese with that Whine”.

Next let’s look at the call for delegate switching. She is correct in that the regardless of primary outcomes, delegates technically may vote for whomever they wish. Hillary even went so far as to call them “so-called” pledged delegates to further reinforce the lack of commitment. This brings up some character questions for me, as it should for all Americans regardless of political affiliation. Should someone wants to lead our country be calling for those elected by the people, in this case the delegates, not honor the sentiments of the people they represent? The Democratic Party’s selection rules for delegates say that they ought to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” Hillary in effect called for the delegates to ignore party rules. Is that any way to lead? If she doesn’t want those elected representatives to honor the interests and sentiments of the people, why should we believe she will represent the best interests of this country as she claims. There is a major conflict of messages with this issue. What this says to me is that she wants the will of the people to be represented yet ignored when it suits her best interests. If this is the way the Democratic Party is going, no wonder Gravel changed parties.

The latest in Hillary desperation statements is that Obama is trying to stop people from voting in the remaining primaries. According to MSNBC today, she told CBS’s affiliate in Billings, Montana, KTVQ, “My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama’s supporters want to end this race because they don’t want people to keep voting,” Her ‘take’ screams of desperation. She’s running out of valid accusations that she thinks won’t hurt her, and is now grasping at the nearest straw. Obama’s camp rightfully calls it ‘laughable’, and continues to support the nomination process in spite of Hillary’s accusations. For that I give him a kudo - but not too many as I’m still a Republican McCain supporter.

Let me end with a tip for Hillary: People won’t vote for someone who sounds that desperate. From my standpoint, however, I say keep it up. Do your part to elect McCain. A grateful nation will thank you for not being elected President

Share This

Share This

I have never fully understand this war. I’m not a pacifist, when the war started I was in favor because I generally trust that the government does what it can to protect my interests. Right after 9/11 we spent time in Afghanistan looking for Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, which made sense to me. I was in support of that plan. Then somehow attention shifted to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Since then the logic for our involvement has been convoluted and hard to follow. There’s no question that Saddam was aweful, but that’s not justification for war in my mind.

I’m not sure what to believe, I’ve never heard a clear argument for war in Iraq or a clear plan for how to resolve the mess. I have heard the argument for democracy in Iraq, but it doesn’t make sense to me that the U.S. armed forces are the right group for that job.

I don’t talk about the war in Iraq very much anymore because honestly it sucks all around, and there really is no good place for the conversation to go. We began this war despite no substantial support from other United Nations countries. We now know that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which was our pretext for war. We have declined to honor protections offered by the Geneva Convention to Guantanamo Bay detainees. We have troops in Iraq and for all we know we will for the next 100 years.

As I said above, I’m too far from the White House to discern the truth, but anecdotally the Frontline series Bush’s War rings true. PBS has both episodes available to view online. I’d be interested in discussing this with anyone else that has seen the show.

Share This

According to an article in today’s NY Times, the cost of the revote would be approximately $12 million; and a proposed privately funded re-vote just adds to the legal issues. If they want it privately funded, maybe it should come out of Hillary’s personal funds – not government funds or even campaign funds. Let her use the royalties from her book, although that would just give her another reason to whine that it’s unfair even.

Of course the accusations and finger pointing continue too. Hillary’s camp says that Obama is trying to disenfranchise the Michigan voters by not urging them to support a revote, as well as trying to block a revote. They claim he’s saying he doesn’t want a primary in Michigan. I think they need a reality check. There was a primary held in Michigan. As simple as it sounds, just because there will be no delegates from Michigan counted for the nomination doesn’t mean there wasn’t a primary held. But of course Hillary doesn’t see it that way because it offers no advantage to her; and after all she won’t do anything or fight (beg, plead, whine) for anything that doesn’t provide some advantage to her or her campaign.

Most analysts, however, including Hillary’s Michigan co-chair, believe a revote in Michigan won’t make much of a difference because Democrats in that state are split. And it looks like the lawmakers in Lansing don’t necessarily think it’s worth it either. It appears they may not be able to get the 2/3 vote required hold another primary. I like what CNN’s Glenn Beck had to say last week about the issue of disenfranchised voters and revotes:

“Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about “alienating” them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It’s only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about “enfranchising” them.

“Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it’s time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

“After all, what would it say about personal responsibility in this country if we allow the two states that broke all the rules to end up having the biggest say of all?”

The rest of this story where Glenn talks about disenfranchised America and the lack of leadership is at CNN. He has some interesting points on it. Maybe Hillary should take some notes.

Personally though, I’m not even sure what she’s whining about. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard anything coming from the DNC indicating that another primary in either Florida or Michigan would results in delegates being seated at the convention. Until they say that, all her whining is useless.

Want some cheese with that whine Hillary?

Share This

It’s well past time to enter the gracious winding-down stage of this long, and until recently, healthy campaign. The last candidate I can remember to keep punching like this even after the race was effectively decided was Jerry Brown in 1992. I’m sure Clinton remembers the unpleasantness of that 1992 convention. I doubt that she wants to be that guy.

Will she have the same dogged staying power that Mike Gravel has? It seems to me that Clinton staying in the race will most benefit John McCain. If she stays and she and Obama continue to publicly shred one another it’ll hurt the Democrats more than it will help either one of them. So I won’t mind if Clinton rides the clock.

By the way, I need to cry uncle. I’ve been claiming that Gravel would be the next candidate to drop since September. I’ll admit it, I was wrong.

Share This

There has been fairly consistent coverage of her demands (not requests, mind you, but demands) In the latest CNN Article, she’s quoted as saying the results in both states are “fair”. Maybe someone ought to get Hillary a dictionary.

While I admit I want the weakest Democratic nominee as possible to run against McCain, but let’s not throw fairness and common decency out the window. There are a couple of reasons why those primaries shouldn’t be counted now:

1. Let’s start with the obvious… there are consequences for actions. Neither state’s Democratic Party played by the rules. They knew what the consequences would be scheduling their primaries early, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Fairness dictates they should live with the consequences of their actions. If Democrats in Florida and Michigan have a problem with it, they need to become more active in their party to prevent it from happening again.
2. Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot because of the sanctions against the Michigan Democratic Party by the DNC; and he didn’t campaign in either state. He was paying attention to the rules and their consequences; and decided to use his resources elsewhere as any decent strategist would. That alone would make counting Michigan votes now unfair, no matter what Hillary says.

If Hillary truly wanted fairness in this matter, she would abide by the decisions already made by the DNC.

However, if the Democratic Parties in these states call for a new primary there are a couple of things that should be required:

1. Both candidates should be on the ballots and campaigning in those states. That’s the only way for the voters in those states to truly have their voices heard. Only one candidate on the ballot when two or more are running is no way to have voices heard.
2. No taxpayer funds at all should be used to pay for the do-over vote. The Democratic Parties in Michigan & Florida are the ones who messed it up, so they should be the ones to pay for fixing it.

Like I said earlier, if Hillary was truly interested in fairness, she would have, and should have taken action prior to the primaries, and definitely before she fell behind in the delegate count. This whiney, pre-adolescent crying “it isn’t fair” when things don’t go her way is no way for a presidential candidate to act. I wonder if she learned that tactic from Al Gore. Hmmm…

Share This

While this certainly makes a point that resonates with many Americans, its difficult to imagine that the President, or anyone in his administration would let a town sheriff take Bush or Cheney into custody. Last December, when the towns were petitioning for the legislation, the Vermont Attorney General, William Sorrell, whose office has sued the Bush administration over environmental issues, stated that the move is “of very dubious legality.” As far as I know the White House has not responded to the charge, and why on earth would they?

Share This

You’d be a fool to think that people will or will not vote for Barack because he’s black, and America should be ashamed of that. And for Hillary, or anyone else for that matter, to exploit the fact that Obama is black to sway voters is beyond despicable, it’s detestable. Regardless of what you think of Obama’s politics or views, the man is qualified to hold the office.

Share This