On Florida, both Republicans and Democrats will vote in the state's primary. Yet, the vote will only count for Republicans. The same held true for the primary in Michigan.
In an attempt to give voice to the smaller states, as well as minority candidates (blacks in South Carolina and blacks and Hispanics in Nevada), the Democratic Party ruled that no primaries or caucuses, except the primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, could be held before February 5th.
Florida and Michigan, two very important swing states, especially if Romney wins the Republican nomination, moved their primaries to a date before February 5th. In response, the Democratic Party stripped the states of their delegates and candidates agreed not to campaign in those states.
Recently the candidates (Clinton and Obama) broke their compact and decided to advertise in Florida to gain some "votes" before the Tuesday primary. Hillary Clinton will win the vote but not the delegates, as she did in Michigan. (In Michigan, neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot. Hillary won with 55% of the vote; however, uncommitted received 40%).
Clinton will challenge legally the DNC's decision to strip the states' delegates to ensure she receives those delegates. While this will certainly violate principles of fairness, that does not matter to all involved.
yet, if the lawsuit is not successful and if the Democratic campaign goes to the convention without a nominee, which it may depending on how Super Tuesday plays out, then the question is what will happen to those delegates at the convention? Will they vote in accordance to the vote during the primary? Or will they assign the votes to who they choose then?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
An interesting stat from South Carolina
In the South Carolina primaries, both Republican and Democratic, Barack Obama beat the combined vote totals of McCain and Huckabee.
Could the South be in play for the Democrats?
Could the South be in play for the Democrats?
JFK, Revisited
In the New York Times tomorrow, Caroline Kennedy presents an op-ed in which she endorses Barack Obama. Yeah, yeah, I'm a Barack supporter, so I'm posting this. But that's not the only reason. It's a well-written piece that aptly negotiates the intersection of the personal and the political. Kennedy writes of her father--in fact, the editorial is titled, "A President Like My Father"--of her children, of her hopes for the country.
The timing of this publication is crucial. Following a primary that focused intensely on race, Obama did well in all voting blocks except white women. Kennedy's writing seems particularly geared toward her own identity group. Will it add to Obama's campaign?
The timing of this publication is crucial. Following a primary that focused intensely on race, Obama did well in all voting blocks except white women. Kennedy's writing seems particularly geared toward her own identity group. Will it add to Obama's campaign?
Divergent Paths.... $3.01....
To continue a discussion started by Harrogate and developed by MegsG-H, here is my response.
The focus of Harrogate's argument is that winning matters and ending the GOP reign is the most important issue in 2008. Yet, this is not the issue; this is not the debate.
The issue for 2008 is ethos. This debate is about the ethical characterization of the US political system. While there is little choice on the Republican side, there is real choice on the Democratic side.
As I have discussed before, there are numerous signs that a Clinton nomination for the Democrats would mean that the same tactics that were used before, would be used again. I would argue that a Clinton nomination would mean not only the continuation of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush Administration as well. The signs are there: employing rendition, dividing the base by putting factions against one another, attacking candidates based on race, relying on dishonesty,the dominance of interest groups, etc.
To forgive these because they might disrupt the "endgame" of a victory would miss the point of this election entirely. To focus on winning is to miss the forest for the trees.
Hillary Clinton may win the nomination against Obama or not. She may win a general election or not. However, if she were to win, political life would not change. A victory may allow for some to feel vindication; however, after a few months, it would feel like the alcoholic at the bar asking for one last drink, night after night.
The focus of Harrogate's argument is that winning matters and ending the GOP reign is the most important issue in 2008. Yet, this is not the issue; this is not the debate.
The issue for 2008 is ethos. This debate is about the ethical characterization of the US political system. While there is little choice on the Republican side, there is real choice on the Democratic side.
As I have discussed before, there are numerous signs that a Clinton nomination for the Democrats would mean that the same tactics that were used before, would be used again. I would argue that a Clinton nomination would mean not only the continuation of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush Administration as well. The signs are there: employing rendition, dividing the base by putting factions against one another, attacking candidates based on race, relying on dishonesty,the dominance of interest groups, etc.
To forgive these because they might disrupt the "endgame" of a victory would miss the point of this election entirely. To focus on winning is to miss the forest for the trees.
Hillary Clinton may win the nomination against Obama or not. She may win a general election or not. However, if she were to win, political life would not change. A victory may allow for some to feel vindication; however, after a few months, it would feel like the alcoholic at the bar asking for one last drink, night after night.
So Now What?
While I disagree with the wise Harrogate on several issues, I think the more salient point to raise in response is, "What now?" Only a few weeks ago, I, like many Democrats, felt confidence in both--actually, all three--candidates. When Obama took Iowa and Clinton won New Hampshire, it felt like good, clean democratic debate. I supported one (actually, I had recently moved from one to the other), but the other was looking like a great second choice and I would be happy to support either/or in a general election. Now, I feel VERY strongly about my candidate and the opposition makes me feel a tiny bit dirty. People feel like this on both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide.
I've read a little about a joint ticket, but that seems unlikely. In what tangible ways will the party unite for a general election?
I've read a little about a joint ticket, but that seems unlikely. In what tangible ways will the party unite for a general election?
Shall We Continue Down This Road?
When the Mormon said he couldn't imagine Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do, it got heavy applause from the GOP audience and Chris Matthew made sure it ran again and again on that bastion of liberalism, MSNBC.
All this talk, both from the GOP and increasingly from those supporting Obama, about Bill Clinton's Presidency and its failures, about Bill Clinton "coming unhinged" or "injecting race into the primary discourse," the open willingness to invoke Clinton's affair as though it matters in the wake of all this death, in the wake of Wolfowitz running the World Bank and the American Economy falling ever more squarely into the grip of an elite cadre of individual interests, in the wake of FEMA. The nepotism, the abject incompetence, the deliberate immolation of government institutions from the inside: the fact, O Readers, that "American torture" is now a term in the common lexicon. None of where we are is Bush specific. It is the GOP platform at work.
If one is okay with the things Harrogate has listed (only a tiny sampling from the GOP fare, Harrogate might add), then Harrogate could see why one wouldn't think it important for GOP rule to end.
Shall we continue down this road is the key question that the 2008 Presidential election ought to revolve around.
All this talk, both from the GOP and increasingly from those supporting Obama, about Bill Clinton's Presidency and its failures, about Bill Clinton "coming unhinged" or "injecting race into the primary discourse," the open willingness to invoke Clinton's affair as though it matters in the wake of all this death, in the wake of Wolfowitz running the World Bank and the American Economy falling ever more squarely into the grip of an elite cadre of individual interests, in the wake of FEMA. The nepotism, the abject incompetence, the deliberate immolation of government institutions from the inside: the fact, O Readers, that "American torture" is now a term in the common lexicon. None of where we are is Bush specific. It is the GOP platform at work.
If one is okay with the things Harrogate has listed (only a tiny sampling from the GOP fare, Harrogate might add), then Harrogate could see why one wouldn't think it important for GOP rule to end.
Shall we continue down this road is the key question that the 2008 Presidential election ought to revolve around.
The case against Obama
One of the writers at Open Left presented a case against Obama. In sum, politics now is about the culture war and Obama would lose the war because he doesn't understand it. Here is an excerpt (and note, the article does not present a case for Hillary or he she would be successful in fighting the culture war or how it could be won):
The commonsense meaning of "culture war" over the past few decades is a war over social mores between hierarchical "traditional values" and the post-1950s emergence of egalitarian values, especially with respect to race and gender, more closely aligned with the traditional values at the core of our Constitution.
But there's a deeper meaning, which is clearly understood by rightwing culture warriors, and virtually unknown to everyone else. This meaning comes, ironically, from a leading Marxist theorist, the highly independent Italian leader, Antonio Gramsci, who described culture war as a struggle for ideological control of the broad range of institutions in society. And in this deeper sense, Obama's analysis is completely upside-down--the problem is not that both sides are equally to blame, but that only the right is actually fighting a coordinated culture war as Gramsci defined it. It's not a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it's a case of brining a plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war.
Fake Plastic Surgery II
One interpretation of the "Reverse Plastic Surgery" follows: Hillary is a likable person. Those that "know" her, like her. A small, power-hungry faction of the Republicans have engaged in "reverse plastic surgery" against Democrats, with "reverse plastic surgery," meaning to disfigure the Democratic party and to make it ugly. This means:
(1) There is a dissociation between appearance and reality, a common argument: The attacks are appearance only; the reality of the situation if she is very likable.
(2) Republicans are divisive, not Hillary. This is an apologia of sorts as it deflects attention away from the Democratic primary. Further, it is an attempt to blame the ideological divisions in the country for the last 20 years. For, it was not about his perjury, but a political with hunt.
Any other explanations? Is this a good metaphor to use? He has used it before.
(1) There is a dissociation between appearance and reality, a common argument: The attacks are appearance only; the reality of the situation if she is very likable.
(2) Republicans are divisive, not Hillary. This is an apologia of sorts as it deflects attention away from the Democratic primary. Further, it is an attempt to blame the ideological divisions in the country for the last 20 years. For, it was not about his perjury, but a political with hunt.
Any other explanations? Is this a good metaphor to use? He has used it before.
Reverse Plastic Surgery
I am not sure what these means. But here is Bill Clinton campaigning for his wife:
A few things: first, this is a complete non-sequitur and it sounds like he developing a conspiracy theory here. Second, if it is not about race and gender, why mention it unless you want to look sleazy. Third, is the reverse plastic surgery a good metaphor to describe the politics of the last twenty years because it eliminates the agency of democrats-- they forced us to be this way....
The former president does go on to say that if the nominees were Clinton and McMcain, they would run the most civil campaign ever. I bet they would even hold hands during it:
This is why there will never be an Obama/ Clinton ticket.
One woman stood up, pointed out that South Carolina is one of the reddest states in the country, and said she spent eight years defending Bill Clinton.
"Thanks," he deadpanned slightly rolling his eyes and getting a laugh.
She asked how to respond to critics who say Hillary Clinton is polarizing.
"The only people that she's a polarizing figure around is the people that don't know her," Bill Clinton said. "I mean, the reason I think she's the most electable Democrat has nothing to do with race or gender. It is that they have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party, and then they preformed reverse-plastic surgery on the Democrats."
A few things: first, this is a complete non-sequitur and it sounds like he developing a conspiracy theory here. Second, if it is not about race and gender, why mention it unless you want to look sleazy. Third, is the reverse plastic surgery a good metaphor to describe the politics of the last twenty years because it eliminates the agency of democrats-- they forced us to be this way....
The former president does go on to say that if the nominees were Clinton and McMcain, they would run the most civil campaign ever. I bet they would even hold hands during it:
"She and John McCain are very close," Bill Clinton said. "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their parties, it will be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid it would put the voters asleep. Because they like and respect each other."
This is why there will never be an Obama/ Clinton ticket.
Friday, January 25, 2008
John Gibson's Comments About Heath Ledger
Many of the Situation's faithful Readers may already know about sociopathic FOX News pundit John Gibson mocking Heath Ledger's death during his radio show.
Wednesday, Think Progress reported:
Go here for more, including the audio clip.
Gibson "apologized" on Thursday on FOX. Here's the link to that.
Wednesday, Think Progress reported:
Opening his radio show with funeral music yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson callously mocked the death of actor Heath Ledger, calling him a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.”
Playing an audio clip of the iconic quote, “I wish I knew how to quit you” from Ledger’s gay romance movie Brokeback Mountain, Gibson disdainfully quipped, “Well, he found out how to quit you.” Laughing, Gibson then played another clip from Brokeback Mountain in which Ledger said, “We’re dead,” followed by his own, mocking “We’re dead” before playing the clip again.
Go here for more, including the audio clip.
Gibson "apologized" on Thursday on FOX. Here's the link to that.
Let the Rumors Begin
According to Robert Novak, sources close to John Edwards state that if Edwards awards his delegates to Obama and Obama wins, John Edwards will receive the Justice Department, which big labor would adore.
Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer.
In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.
Holding Representatives & Senators Accountable
The editorial board of the NY Times has written an interesting piece about holding representatives and senators accountable for their voting records on judicial appointments. The article references a ad put out by People for the American Way; the features actress Kathleen Turner (a long time supporter of Planned Parenthood and a former national spokesperson for the organization) calling Maine Rep. Susan Collins to task for claiming to be pro-choice but voting for judicial appointees who are staunchly anti-choice.
In an attempt to draw the focus of The Rhetorical Situation to something other than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I wanted to highlight this key issue. In presidential election years we tend to focus on only those candidates running for the highest office, and perhaps justifiably so. That said, the congresspersons we elect have the power to reject any presidential judicial nominees. Check out the voting records of the representatives running for office in your district; you may find that you don't like what you see and you may also find, as I imagine many Maine voters would, that your representatives didn't vote in support of the issues they promised to support.
In an attempt to draw the focus of The Rhetorical Situation to something other than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I wanted to highlight this key issue. In presidential election years we tend to focus on only those candidates running for the highest office, and perhaps justifiably so. That said, the congresspersons we elect have the power to reject any presidential judicial nominees. Check out the voting records of the representatives running for office in your district; you may find that you don't like what you see and you may also find, as I imagine many Maine voters would, that your representatives didn't vote in support of the issues they promised to support.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Romney, his wealth, and the election
During the MSNBC Republican debate, Brian and Tim tried to get Romney to state how much of his own money he contributed to his campaign and whether or not he was buying the primary in Florida. Romney refused to disclose this amount and argued that he spent his own money because this was something about which he cared deeply.
While it did show his problems with fundraising and may suggest he lacks the support of people to win, it may be better in some ways because the thought of him being bought by corporations may seem less likely.
Oh the hell of campaign finances. How do you avoid this problem of fair elections and campaign finance?
While it did show his problems with fundraising and may suggest he lacks the support of people to win, it may be better in some ways because the thought of him being bought by corporations may seem less likely.
Oh the hell of campaign finances. How do you avoid this problem of fair elections and campaign finance?
The New York Times' Primary Endoresements
The paper endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain . The reasons: For Hillary, they adhere to her "ready on the first day" and "experience" arguments; for McCain, he is a likable republican who possesses some of the same beliefs as democrats.
A Political Humpty Dance? Following Reagan, Anticipating Obama: One of the 80s Boldest Rhetorical Claims
When a man says, "stop what you're doin', cause I'm about to ruin the image and the style that you're used to," he's talking a lot of shit and if he can back it up, deserves to be taken seriously. As Mark Wahlberg once pointed out in a different context.
That Reagan backed up such Epic Shit-Talking, that he was indeed "Transformational," cannot be denied. Harrogate deeply wishes the Clintons had not embarrassed themselves by pretending not to understand Obama's point on this matter, for Obama clearly was not saying Reagan transformed the political landscape to the good.
And that he is capable of achieving a similarly transformational feat--only this time, to the good of the country. Whether or not Obama's large assertion is true, however, is a different question, one that each person must wrestle with as the primary rolls towards Tsunami Tuesday on February 5th.
That Reagan backed up such Epic Shit-Talking, that he was indeed "Transformational," cannot be denied. Harrogate deeply wishes the Clintons had not embarrassed themselves by pretending not to understand Obama's point on this matter, for Obama clearly was not saying Reagan transformed the political landscape to the good.
And that he is capable of achieving a similarly transformational feat--only this time, to the good of the country. Whether or not Obama's large assertion is true, however, is a different question, one that each person must wrestle with as the primary rolls towards Tsunami Tuesday on February 5th.
Westboro Baptist Church will Protest Heath Ledger's Memorial Service
According to MSNBC's entertainment writer Courtney Hazlett, the Westboro Baptist Church, home of the radical Christian Fred Phelps, will take time out from picketing the funeral of military servicemen and women to picket Ledger's Memorial Service. Shirley Phelps, the sister...er... I mean wife of Fred, stated that they will picket the Memorial because of Heath's role in Brokeback Mountain:
“You cannot live in defiance of God. He (Ledger) got on that big screen with a big, fat message: God is a liar and it's OK to be gay,” said Shirley Phelps in a statement sent out by the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church.
Man I Miss Texas: Why are UFO sightings only in the South
Of course, because NYC has too many lights... There would be no other reason, right?
The US Air Force stated that the lights over the small town in Texas was not a UFO but F-16 fighter jets. Those who saw the lights remain skeptical.
Noe, who are you going to believe: the government, which does not always tell the truth, or citizens of rural Texas, who um... I will stop right here.
The US Air Force stated that the lights over the small town in Texas was not a UFO but F-16 fighter jets. Those who saw the lights remain skeptical.
Noe, who are you going to believe: the government, which does not always tell the truth, or citizens of rural Texas, who um... I will stop right here.
Why the Candidate Matters: The Case Against Hillary Clinton
This is in response to the comments found here.
It is not important that a Democratic candidate wins the 2008 presidential election. In fact, because of problems with Iraq, especially in terms of leaving Iraq, a candidate that runs on leaving Iraq may not accomplish his/her goal. Since there is construction of military bases and embassies, it may be unlikely that the US Military will leave any time soon. Senator McCain may be correct on this.
Yet, despite Iraq, here are three reasons why the correct candidate matters.
First, listen to this recent Hillary Clinton Ad against Barack Obama:
Reason One: This ad is intellectually dishonest. The intent behind Barack's comments is that he believed that the Reagan Presidency was transformative because Reagan reached out to Democrats to gain their support for policy, which is something the Democrats now should do. Unfortunately, the former Clinton administration could not do this because of ideological opposition between the parties. More importantly, if the Clinton camp is resorting to these tactics during the Primary, what reason is she giving the country that these acts of intellectual dishonesty would change during a general election or during her administration. And remember, intellectual dishonesty is one of the most important criticisms of the Bush Administration.
Reason Two: This ad perpetuates the ideological divisions in the country, which undermined the Clinton administration. Republicans gained control of Congress and forced President Clinton's hand on many issues, making him useless on many grounds. This will continue under a Hillary Clinton administration because of the ideological opposition to her. It is a fact that many would not vote for her or support her policies.
Reason Three: If the Clinton administration won the general election, which I am not sure she can do, and unless the Democrats win a super-majority in the House and Senate, which is unlikely, then the Clinton administration would not be able to accomplish major goals. Opponents to her ideology would have no reason to support her and every reason to object to her. Consequently, her opposition would persuade their base and independents that her presidency has not met her goals and should be voted out.
It is not important that a Democratic candidate wins the 2008 presidential election. In fact, because of problems with Iraq, especially in terms of leaving Iraq, a candidate that runs on leaving Iraq may not accomplish his/her goal. Since there is construction of military bases and embassies, it may be unlikely that the US Military will leave any time soon. Senator McCain may be correct on this.
Yet, despite Iraq, here are three reasons why the correct candidate matters.
First, listen to this recent Hillary Clinton Ad against Barack Obama:
Reason One: This ad is intellectually dishonest. The intent behind Barack's comments is that he believed that the Reagan Presidency was transformative because Reagan reached out to Democrats to gain their support for policy, which is something the Democrats now should do. Unfortunately, the former Clinton administration could not do this because of ideological opposition between the parties. More importantly, if the Clinton camp is resorting to these tactics during the Primary, what reason is she giving the country that these acts of intellectual dishonesty would change during a general election or during her administration. And remember, intellectual dishonesty is one of the most important criticisms of the Bush Administration.
Reason Two: This ad perpetuates the ideological divisions in the country, which undermined the Clinton administration. Republicans gained control of Congress and forced President Clinton's hand on many issues, making him useless on many grounds. This will continue under a Hillary Clinton administration because of the ideological opposition to her. It is a fact that many would not vote for her or support her policies.
Reason Three: If the Clinton administration won the general election, which I am not sure she can do, and unless the Democrats win a super-majority in the House and Senate, which is unlikely, then the Clinton administration would not be able to accomplish major goals. Opponents to her ideology would have no reason to support her and every reason to object to her. Consequently, her opposition would persuade their base and independents that her presidency has not met her goals and should be voted out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)