« Pew Report on Religion in America - Relevant in an Election Year | Main | Tell Me A Story... »
Don't Forget the Tomatoes
After more than 2 decades working on and off in the electoral arena, I continue to find boxing to be the most pungent source of metaphors for the blood sport of politics.
I can't really claim to be an expert on boxing. As a child growing up in the 1950s, one of my weekly thrills was watching the Friday night fights on TV with my dad, brought to us by Gillette (to look sharp, and feel sharp too, get the razor, that's right for you....I can imagine that tune still running through my brain with end stage Alzheimer's.) The undefeated Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Robinson...even the names were special then.
To start off with, most campaigns (2000 Gore/Bush being the horrible exception) have a well-defined end point, after which there will be no more campaigning.
Which doesn't mean that a campaign necessarily has to go all the way to election day before the victor is known.
You can win a campaign with a first round knockout. My favorite example was an unfortunate Republican candidate for governor in Massachusetts whose resume proudly listed a PhD degree from the University of Heidelberg. Then someone discovered that this man had never even been to the country of Germany. BAM! Gone.
You can have an election in which one candidate is on the offense the entire campaign, so that even though both candidates make it to Election Day, there was never any doubt in anyone's mind what the outcome was going to be. Very boring.
Clinton and Obama are giving us a campaign that is much like the ebb and flow of a great boxing match in which both have strengths and weaknesses, but neither has been able to put the other away. Obama won the opening round, then Clinton came back in NH; they fought to a rough draw on Super Tuesday, and then Obama really began hammering Clinton, round and round. Then this week Clinton reaches down, and climbs back into the race.
We know that this particular campaign has to end at the Democratic Convention. It appears unlikely that either campaign will have won enough delegates to win a first ballot victory.
So now we get to boxing judges and superdelegates. I can vividly remember watching some fights when I was absolutely convinced that one fighter had won, only to discover that the judges give it to the other guy on points. There was always the ugly possibility that the judges might have been fixed by mobsters trying to make a lot of money, or at least avoid losing a lot of money. Who knew? The judges were the judges, and the fight was history. To the extent that there was a public check on corruption, it was that the public, and gamblers, would only put up with so many stolen fights before they soured on the whole sport.
The superdelegates are electoral judges. Since they were all party regulars to begin with, there was an inherent bias towards the party establishment, which happens to be the Clintons in this case. Their role is inherently conservative, to give the establishment a safety valve, a way to tamp down insurgencies that weren't quite strong enough.
Unlike boxing judges and the mob, we know that Clinton and Obama have been showering money on the very superdelegates who will determine which one wins this fight. Here's a summary of their largesse, from the Boston Globe summarizing a study from the Center for Responsive Politics:
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
No clean hands here.
It's unfortunate that such tainted judges will determine the outcome, but those are the rules we are stuck with, with one rather important exception: in the end, the convention is the judge of its own rules. The delegates, elected and super, can change the rules. So we have Clinton calling for a reversal of the DNC's decision to refuse to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan.
The permutations and combinations between now and the convention become more mind-boggling by the day, given the up-and-down race we have seen thus far. When the boxing judges awarded a fight to a clear loser, the crowd could get angry, and people threw whatever they had at hand into the ring to express their disgust.
If it does all come down to the convention, there should be a good entrepreneurial opportunity for someone with a bulging cart of over-ripe tomatoes outside the convention hall.
81 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
Why do you assume that the "Party Establishment" is pro-Clinton?
Specific reference: "The superdelegates are electoral judges. Since they were all party regulars to begin with, there was an inherent bias towards the party establishment, which happens to be the Clintons in this case."
Kerry and Kennedy, for example, are against Clinton. That is a party establishment bias against Clinton. Kennedy also went against Carter. Maybe there is more than one "Party Establishment." Like I always say, I do not adhere to any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat.
On the boxing thing, I will always remember Ali-Norton, where Norton won on a split-decision, if I recall. But to me, the winner was Ali, who had his jaw busted in the first round but still fought to a split-decision. That was STRONG, baby. Ali could take a punch as well as throw a punch. I suppose he wasn't a perfect man but he was almost a perfect boxer. He was a fighter. A real scrapper. He talked a lot but he fought even more. He never gave up in a fight. I think he is from Memphis, Tennessee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0PZq6RsbBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wduzol0cpew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObiMMdO6LA&feature=related
Such a shame that the Chuck Berry footage did not include a real sound-track! I hate lip-synch! Sorry about that.... Just slipped through QA/QC.
And this is still on-topic as it has to do with Memphis Tennessee, but here is Chuck Berry again, struggling, but sometimes coming out on top (no lip synching at least):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCz4pXYoVo&feature=related
And here is him and John Lennon and Yoko trying to keep each other honest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWGerBpYPK4&feature=related
Ralph:
It posted three times. How do you see the future of Iraq? How does it relate to relations in and between the USA, Turkey, the EU, Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and others? Israel? Palestine? Energy independence? Energy dependence? Global warming?
Oy, I left out Japan and South East Asia!
Ralph:
By the way, just so you know, I, as a former resident of Oscoda, Michigan (I was five or six years old on the USAF Base), think that you all in Michigan, including Ted Nugent, deserve to have a full-on primary election.
Richard:
On the theme, I like the way the daughter of a Chief Petty Officer in the US Navy (not admirals like the McCains of course) and the grand-daughter of coal-miners in Pennsylvania and before that Wales can mix it up with the high and mighty. I think that is strong (back to a prior Karen theme):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9_ipu9GKw&feature=related
When it's over so they say
It'll rain a sunny day....
Richard:
On the theme, I like the way the daughter of a Chief Petty Officer in the US Navy (not admirals like the McCains of course) and the grand-daughter of coal-miners in Pennsylvania and before that Wales can mix it up with the high and mighty. I think that is strong (back to a prior Karen theme):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9_ipu9GKw&feature=related
When it's over so they say
It'll rain a sunny day....
Yes, I get the metaphor. And political campaigning is truly nasty/bloody. It's the money that's involved. John Howard cancelled the law that political parties couldn't accept gifts of more than $2000 and his last campaign cost millions every day. Actually he spent taxpayer's money on the last one.
Now Kevin Rudd is reinstalling the old law, he's also reduced the amount to $1200.
Campaigning has to stay on track when there are so few dollars that every single word must have value. Until America gets corporate ownership out of its government, it will always be the absolute worst of a truly horrible sport.
The Democrats better just hope that "the fix isn't in" - because that perception, coming in this particular campaign, at his particular moment in history, would lead to both electoral and organizational disaster.
If Hillary lands in Denver with more delegates honestly acquired in contested elections, then she deserves the right to face McCain in November. But if Barak has earned more delegates and more votes the American way, and then they give the decision to Hillary...then this party deserves to follow in the footsteps of the Federalists and the Whigs, into the dustbin of American history.
Parties have self-destructed before. It could easily can happen again - especially when a plurality of Americans now describe themselves as independents.
In answer to Chuck's question about why I wrote that the superdelegate apparatus tilted in HRC's direction: it's all about networks.
BHO is a new-comer on the political scene. Very few superdelegates were involved in any of his previous campaigns.
The Clintons, on the other hand, are deeply embedded in the political lives and experience of most of the superdelegates for a decade and a half. During that time, they have most likely met almost all the superdelegates, and have worked on many campaigns together, both the presidential campaigns and all of the Congressional and state level campaigns in which one Clinton or the other has showed up for a Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinner, or an individual candidate fundraiser.
My assumption is that many, if not most, of the superdelegates have had positive working relationships with the Clintons. So moving to support Obama is not making a choice starting from a neutral position; the SDs have to move away from Clinton just to get to netural.
More than that, as President, Bill Clinton was the head of the party, and was in position for two terms to install as many people as he could in positions of power within the party, both at the DNC and in state parties. Even though he left office in 2000, many of these people continue to hold positions of power and responsibility.
I am not denying that there are multiple centers of power within the DP. Kennedy is one of those centers. But the Clintons control the most powerful faction right now.
Would Clinton's superdelegates abandon her? If they thought she had lost, yes, many of them would. Politics ain't beanbag. But with the wins in Ohio and TX, she is back on the offensive for a while. Obama has to turn the momentum back. If we end up at the convention with HRC having won the remaining contests, but BHO still having the most elected delegates, I would expect the superdelegates to break for HRC, and BHO would have to cut the best deal he could cut. In case you missed it, HRC opened the door wide open to a ticket with BHO as VP.
Matt is correct that the possibility exists for the Democratic Party to do itself in if either candidate wins the nomination in Denver through a process that the public perceives as unfair.
However, awarding the nomination to whoever has the most elected/caucus delegates could be almost as big a mistake. In my mind, the primary process is exactly that, a process, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. In a situation in which neither candidate has enough delegates to win on a first ballot, we have to look more closely at the process itself, and how voting at the end of the process differs from voting at the beginning.
The job of the candidate is to close the deal with the voters. But what is "the deal"? Voters perceptions of what "the deal" is change as they know more about the candidates. In a see-saw race like this one, I think it is legitimate to give more weight to what the voters are doing at the end of the process than at the beginning. If Clinton should win the remaining races, for example, I would view that as a failure by HBO to close the deal when he was in a position to do so after winning 11 races in a row. Something happened that caused the voters in TX and OH to vote for HRC in such numbers that they put her back on her feet. If she stays on the offensive, even though she might arrive at the convention with fewer delegates than BHO, there will be a heavy premium for her among superdelegates because she can claim that she was closing the deal down the stretch.
On the other hand, if BHO comes back, and arrives at the convention with wins down the stretch and more delegates, there will be a very strong case for SDs to throw their support behind him.
Of course there's also the worst of all possible worlds, in which the last races only continue to muddy the waters, with neither candidate making a convincing showing that he or she has closed the deal. In this 3rd scenario, we could have a very nasty convention indeed.
Who are HRC and BHO? Is either one of them, or both, capable of transcending the lust for power in order to avoid a train wreck that would almost guarantee McCain the White House?
Dick, my take would be that if Hillary finishes strong, it will be because she's gone negative on Obama - and will do anything, including alienating the progressive / African-American bases of the party to retain her grip on power. That makes her a grave danger - that and the fact that her negatives in a general election are already set in granite, and consequently she has almost no chance to defeat a viable Republican candidate in a two person race.
Honestly, everything about her candidacy says usurper to me - her utter lack of respect for the obvious intentions of the 22nd Amendment, her belief in expanded Presidential power, her continued contempt for the opinions of constituents who were proven right about Iraq, etc, and her utter lack of shame about dragging her revolting marriage back into the public square. I mean, I can passionately and powerfully argue for the right of two people of the same sex to be united in marriage. But I have no clue what good comes from these two knaves still being married. The Clinton marriage is the definition of "unnatural" to me - far more than any same sex union.
Hillary really is the embodiment of the "me generation" in politics. Between the two Clintons and Dubya, I have never been more embarrassed by my own generation than I am today.
And it's not merely bad enough that Wolfson is comparing Barak to Ken Starr.
Now, according to Obermannn, it was the Clinton campaign that was doing the double talking about NAFTA, not the Obama campaign. We have this from a high-ranking Canadian official.
As the old line goes: How do you know when Dubya, Bill, and Hillary are lying? Whenever they move their lips.
Richard:
Thanks for addressing that on the "Party Establishment." I take it that Hillary has a lot of experience with these folks and Barack has a little. And, the converse, they have a lot of experience with Hillary but little with Barack. And that there are multiple centers of power in the Democratic Party. I always cringe when I hear such statements or the "Clinton Machine." The Clinton's had a bit of a machine in Arkansas. I actually know that from direct second-hand input (i.e., not me but some friends and neighbors). To be charitable, that is what I would call "retail politics." You ain't got a thing if you ain't got that swing....
But, in that same sense, they did not command the other main Democrat machines and were, in fact, I think, somewhat distrusted by them. A lot of the opposition to Hillary's health care plan back in the early nineties came, if I recall correctly, from the liberal wing of the Democractic Party (I wonder what Ted Kennedy's position on all that was, come to think on it). The Clinton's always struck me as outsiders in Washington -- just like Carter and for many of the same reasons (and with many of the same opponents -- e.g. the Kennedy dynasty).
Anyway, thanks again; interesting take and interesting race. I almost want it to go the distance for sociological reasons -- if the Barack-Hillary duel goes through all the primaries, that will be a huge amount of data to crunch to enlighten us as to who we really are as a people. OK, I know I am a geek. I've admitted it before but there you have it again.
Thanks!
Richard:
Also, for the sake of clarity/disclosure, I have to admit that I have always been a big fan of Bill Clinton. He never lied to me (about anything that was my business) and is the only POTUS in my adult life that made me proud of my POTUS and that educated me on some things. When he was cornered, he came out with some home-truths that I had not thought of before. I can't say that of any other POTUS in my memory (like Obama, I am 47). When this race started, I did not think much of Hillary as presidential material, truth be told. I liked her in the Senate on C-Span (I would not like to be subjected to her cross-examination if I had something to hide) but I did not believe that she understood retail politics. I rather hoped Kerry or Edwards or Gore would take the mantle. But I was pleasantly surprised by what she brought to the table during this campaign. Anyway, in the interests of full disclosure, there you have it, for what little it is worth.
if the Barack-Hillary duel goes through all the primaries, that will be a huge amount of data to crunch to enlighten us as to who we really are as a people. OK, I know I am a geek. I've admitted it before but there you have it again.
Thanks!
@@@@@@
Who we are as a people???
"We" are a people who have let the last two presidential elections to be stolen and still have not fixed the problems.
"We" have voting machines which few people understand but those machines can easily and quickly be tampered with by people in the know.
"We" have allowed a war to be launched on a bunch of very truthy lies.
"We" have allowed that - phony/unnecessary - war to be mishandled in almost every possible way.
"We" are likely to get two candidates - Hillary and McCain - who supported that idiotic war whole-heartedly as the two main candidates for president...
t posted three times. How do you see the future of Iraq? How does it relate to relations in and between the USA, Turkey, the EU, Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and ot
@@@@@@@@@
LOL grande
How do I see the future of Iraq?
BAD
Like almost every other backward, underdeveloped, over-populated, under-educated, poor Middle East country...
BTW: Experts in the State Department and the CIA told Dumbya Bush; this - he, of course, didn't listen, didn't even take it into consideration. NO PLANNING, NONE...
Ralph:
Life is a process! I guess that's kind of Zen. Like my dad used to say, big things turn about as fast as a battleship at flank-speed.
As far as fixing the problem, and going back to the original intent of the DCP, our ENTIRE electoral system -- from the primaries to the electoral college, is FUBAR!!!!! That is the lesson I am taking away from all of this. Not sure of where to go with that though. And, from conversations with my VERY GOP colleagues here in Houston in the oil-patch, it is indeed a very non-denominational issue.
All the Best and GOTV '08!!
I will say it again and again.
'00 was stolen, but '04 was NOT.
Sure, there were irregularities, but W would've won '04 fair and square anyway. Thank Karl Rove and his gay-baiting.
Ralph:
Also, true enough about how we screwed up going into Iraq. But as Obama says, we have to be as careful disengaging as we were careless in engaging (or words to that effect).
We are a great power and have responsibilities. How do we disengage from Iraq carefully? That, by the way, is not a rhetorical or "gottcha" question on my part. I meant that sincerely. There will be very serious consequences to how we handle this, which I take as the substance of my above paraphrase from Obama.
but '04 was NOT.
@@@@
There was election tampering going on in Ohio and New Mexico and Wisconsin (and perhaps other states) - I refer you to Greg Palast's book and John Conyers.
But who cares if Diebold still owns lots of voting machines that were used in 2000 and could still be hacked in 2008?
But as Obama says, we have to be as careful disengaging as we were careless in engaging (or words to that effect).
@@@@@
I am not beholden to Obama. All I know is that HIllary, based on everything that she has done in the Senate IS NOT SUITED to be president.
Disengaging will be messy, but Americans don't like the truth if it is inconvenient.
The Middle East has been (for centuries?), and will continue to be, VERY MESSY. Regardless of what we - the United States- do. And Democrats like Hillary - who went along with Bush's war without questioning - bear much of the responibility for the disaster.
Ralph:
Likewise, and in the same spirit, it seems to me that Hillary is very suited but that Barack still needs some serious tempering. 8 years should do the trick. But that is off topic! My bad....
By the way, and on topic I think, is the distinction between caucuses and primaries. Here in Texas, I had the onerous duty of having to participate in both. And look at the results. I almost couldn't caucus due to work issues. But I did. I think that the caucus process is very undemocratic as it violates the very basic principle of secret ballots. I did it because I felt I had to but I was very uncomfortable. Our process is not good. The final results are polluted as a result.
Ralph:
I don't know why I even try any more. When you write:
"Democrats like Hillary - who went along with Bush's war without questioning"
don't you realize that you are propogating, how shall I phrase it, untruths? Is that helpful in the bigger picture?
Giving POTUS the authorizaton to use force IS NOT a declaration of war any more than giving a policeman the right to use deadly force UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES give such a policeman the right to walk out and shoot dead anybody. We are really shooting ourselves in the foot when we fight that particular fight (which, by the way, is negative campaigning for those of you in the tank). I mean, heck, Kerry is four-square Obma and he voted just like Hillary did! And Obama said that was OK in 2004!
I am having a flash-back to 2004 on the old Kerry blog. Here goes. The IWR was in the fall of 2003. The invasionof Iraq was in spring 2004. Prior to the IWR, the Bush administration was floating a similar authorization not limited to Iraq. It could have passed on a narrow partisan vote. Thank God (or savvy Senators) it didn't. Prior to that, the admin said it could go without congressional or UN support. So the IWR already achieved something by whittling down a huge power-grab. Next, it achieved its object: inspectors went back in. THAT WAS A GOOD THING! But then they didn't find anything! So, the IWR "YES" vote was a great thing -- it got the UN inspectors back in and provided a process to get out of this situation diplomatically. BUT, our President decided otherwise. He kicked the inspectors out and went to war. Dumb. But that was his call not the Senate's! Can it realy be, Ralph and others, that you do not understand that? Like half a year transpired between the IWR and the invasion. I personaly consider it to be slime politics (negative, what have you), when people conflate those two events. Kind of like low-blows in boxing, to try to keep on-topic.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
http://www.hycyber.com/VERSE/friends_romans.html
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!
Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Giving POTUS the authorizaton to use force IS NOT a declaration of war any more than giving a policeman the right to use deadly force UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES give such a policeman the right to walk out and shoot dead anybody.
@@@@@
Chuck,
This is an ULTRA-LAME TALKING POINT....
I recommend that you use it on people less informed than I....
EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON knew that Bush was leading the country into war.
HILLARY DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP IT OR EVEN QUESTION IT - THEN SHE SUPPORTED IT VIGOROUSLY..
Hillary has blood on her hands - I cannot support her...
Ralph:
It's not a "talking point." It is a fact.
Chuck:
Hillary voted for the authorization of force;
Hillary spoke in favor of the invasion
Hillary supported the invasion and occupation
Those are the facts. Get rid of lame/lawyerly talking points..
Ralph:
Honestly, it is not a talking point (I am not even sure what that is). It is a simple fact.
Are you saying she spoke in favor of the invasion and occupation, as distinct from the authorization? If so, can you provide a citation? I don't remember ever hearing anything like that. So I don't think that is true.
From today NY Daily News:
"During an interview with The Scotsman, Samantha Power, one of Obama's unpaid advisers, said Clinton would stop at nothing in her zeal to seize the lead from Obama."
"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything," Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark. "
Powers was forced to apologize, but she shouldn't have. Powers, who has watched more than her share of monsters operate on the international scene, knows what she's talking about.
Just for the record, my problem isn't with Hillary voting for the IWR. I can live with that.
My problem is with the tone she assumed when continuents like myself began to write her in February-March 2003, and urged her to help stop the President's rush to war.
Or when we wrote her later, and urged her to stand up to Bush, and put an early end to this foolish military adventure. Each time she wrote back, in an astoundingly arrogant tone, citing the view of "her husband's administration" - as if to justify it - that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States of America, and to the region.
So, you see, the issue was never the IWR. Honestly, even I wasn't positive in October 2002 that Dubya was dumb enough to make the mistake that his father never would had made.
But the real strike against Hillary's character in my view isn't her IWR resolution vote, as worrisome as it was, but rather her vote to call the Republican Guard a terrorist organization. You see, by 2006, everyone with a brain - and Hillary is as smart as they come - knew that this President saw himself as on a mission from God. And he was being urged on by the neo-cons to attack Iran - despite the fact that any attack against the Shiite regime of that country would compromise the safety of the US forced in Iraq, especially those stationed in the heavily Shiite areas. And Hillary knew that she was planning to run for President - and by voting for that 2nd resolution, she would have little credibility later if Bush decided to strike Iran during the last few months of his Presidency, as has been speculated. And yet she still voted for it. Why?
I think the answer is obvious. Hillary calculated that supporting that resolution fit in with her general election "triangulation" strategy, and Clintonian Prime Directive - "retain political viability" at all costs. The good of the nation is a secondary consideration the Clintons' personal ambitions.
Ralph,
Edwards not only voted for the IWR but he aggressively promoted that vote at the time, and yet you indicated you would vote for him--simply because he said he was wrong.
I think you are more willing to forgive Edwards for his votes than Hillary for hers because you are already prejudiced against her.
Ralph
You can cheat your way to a 10,000-vote victory.
You can NEVER cheat your way to a 3-million vote victory, which W had in '04.
Seriously, the irregularities would've ensured that W would win by 3 million votes, as opposed to 2.5 million votes fair and square.
Again, thank Karl Rove and his gay-baiting.
Ally,
Sorry to disagree with you but 2004 was stolen in many different states: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico...and those are right from the top of my head.
I did a lot of research after that election and had numerous people sending me more information on it.
There was even computer glitches in states that were clearly Bush's but it helped up his popular vote--states such as Texas, Indiana, etc...
Furthermore, I was in Ohio the day of the election theft. I saw what happened with the supression and lack of ballots in highly democratic areas. Also, there were things that the new Secretary of State of Ohio researched about the 04 election that resently proved how they overall manipulated the votes and the ballots and how Kenneth Blackwell was able to supress the investigation into missing ballots and misc. info.
Yes, I'm saying in otherwords that there is clear and convincing evidence that the election in 2004 was more dirty than the one in 2000 and that John Kerry did win in 2004.
Sparrow
I do know that irregularities were everywhere.
But it's NOT easy suppressing 3 million voters for the challenger.
All the Latinos and other immigrants in my area loved W's homophobic stance, and voted for him in droves. And these are the DEMOCRATIC BASE, if I am to keep believing the white liberal pipe dreams.
If indeed 3 million opponent votes CAN be suppressed, then there is no point in voting anymore.
In fact, the most incredulous moment of November 2, 2004, was when the media immediately called California for Kerry.
The California I know would've given W a landslide.
I am starting to think California was rigged too, as a consolation prize for the Dems in exchange for other rigged Republican victories elsewhere...
Ralph,
Edwards not only voted for the IWR but he aggressively promoted that vote at the time, and yet you indicated you would vote for him--simply because he said he was wrong.
I think you are more willing to forgive Edwards for his votes than Hillary for hers because you are already prejudiced against her.
March 7, 2008 11:51 AM
@@@@@@
1) Edwards, early on, renounced his IWR vote. Hillary, in her arrogance, has not done so.
2) Edwards comes from a much less priviledged background
3) Amazingly, Hillary voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which basically threatens war with Iran
4) Hillary, before her awful vote on the IWR, did even not bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. THIS FACT ALONE should disqualify Hillary from the presidency...
5) Most of Hillary's campaign contributors are Fat Cats - I think close to 80% of her campaign funds were raised from big donors - $4,600 - who had maxed out. Rich folks like Hillary
6) Hillary is an ardent member of the DLC - Democrat Leadership Committee
7) Edwards had - very tangibly - helped "regular people" by representing them in court. Hillary, in her "35 year career" of hanging around Bill Clinton, has done nothing of the sort.
FINALLY:
I don't want our country to turn into a banana republic
BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON-????????????????
Ralph
We already are a banana republic, if 3 million votes for John Kerry can just evaporate into open air, various states can be rigged Republican, and California can be rigged Democratic as a consolation prize.
Banana Republic:
nominating Hillary seals the deal....
Ally,
You don't need to suppress 3 million voters to win. They simply knew which states were borderline (swing states) that they could steal enough to get the electoral votes from. Then to pad the 'win' they added votes in solid red states.
It's not that difficult when you look at the elction boards across this country and realize how many things were done by Republicans in both big ways and little ways. (And let's remember, private firms were hired to add new registrations and many were ripped up before the general election even came.)
Although, I'm not denying your assertion that gay hate added to the win column. It most definitely did. However even taking that into account, the close election would have been Kerry's had all the votes been counted as the voter casted them and not as the machine or handcounters changed them
Sparrow
Thanks for the clarification, but there still are things to look at.
- Why did the Republicans, and only the Republicans, have such sophisticated methods for swinging the swing states their way? Are the Democrats that brain-dead nationwide? (I know my state Democrats are.)
- Even if Kerry won the electoral vote (which I do think had a good chance), I don't see a scenario where he could've won the popular vote. Sure, only the electoral vote counts, but if you are the loser of the popular vote, you will be taunted - like W himself early in his first term, before 9/11 happened and he reinvented himself into a "wartime hero" that he never was.
Ally,
Kerry did not win the popular vote. But Presidential elections are not won by the popular vote. They are won by the electoral vote. Think of it this way...Gore won the popular vote but via the supreme court cheating and allowing the last vote count to stand, they handed Bush the electoral count. However, Gore actually won both and would have won by bigger margins had the suppression and fraud not occurred.
Now with Kerry's 2004 election, Kerry was fighting an even bigger conspiracy of suppression and vote fraud in many more states than just Florida (Gore-Bush 2000). I remember during the election hearing about Kerry's team going to Florida and trying to stop the suppression before the election day. And there was more in Ohio. THere were dropped votes for Kerry (most likely) in North Carolina, because every exit poll in NC stated that Kerry was running away with the early voting there. Then voila...all of a sudden, the machines had lost thousands of votes! (All the early voters!)
So pick up things around the country and you have a very close popular count.
Also, I want to remind everyone that after the election, there was no comments of military votes. But I read around different military blogs that they were suppressed as well, by things like the CO not telling them how to vote, when to vote, how to get it in on time...
AND furthermore, the international voters were not allowed to vote on the servers because they 'were leaving it open for the military to vote'.
All those ways they used to suppress the voters could very well have been the difference to Kerry winning the popular vote. But I guarantee you that he won the electoral vote--just like Gore did. they just did a better job of hiding it in multiple states in 04.
Remember, the best way to cheat is 'just a little here and there but nothing big and grand to draw attention to it. Florida in 2000 was big and grand it boy did it get attention!
Trying to blog a little on the road. I wrote about "Why Mexico Doesn't Need More Walmarts," with 3 photos to illustrate.
Silenced Majority Portal
Now reading from bottom to top:
It looks like voting irregularities are a hot topic. I have seen 3 different Obrador stands which detail the theft of the Mexican election and the consequent privatization of PemEx etc.
I think the characterization of "Banana Republic" is about right if the will of the people is not listened to.
Right now there are waaaaaay too many factors to keep track of. We can not know what is going on behind the scenes but you can bet it's not for the benefit of the people so much as for corporations and the military industrial complex.
For now, I did the Walmart story and next comes Pemex. I came to Mexico to have a vacation and I'm learning more about NAFTA and globalization.
The question is asked which is the bigger issue - the war & security or the economy. They're linked, is the answer.
That's not the way it will be spun. NAFTA is a big issue now because it was done without controls and is ruining lives and threatening the world economy through imbalance.
Mexico, for example, could do fine if they put some controls on their population and went back to being more self-sufficient. As it is, they are too tied to our economy, as is Canada. Both countries were damn smart not to have gone to war in Iraq.
The wars are a drain on the economy and we are living on credit as individuals and as a country. One in 20 American homes has a delinquent mortgage payment and four in 10 are worth less than is owed on them. We appear prosperous but it's on credit, and the way many individuals live is just the way the government runs the country but on a smaller scale.
We need to get the hell out of the middle east, end our dependency on foreign oil and on petroleum in general as fast as we possibly can. We need to invest in education and health. We need to regulate even though Republicans think it's a bad word. Corporations left to their own devices do not act ethically, in many cases. We may even need to tax the rich.
The other thing I see in Mexico is where I think we're headed. The very rich top percent owns most of the country. Now that is true in our country as well. I never thought I'd see the day when we'd be like India or Mexico as far economic disparity.
Remember in Reagan's day "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer" - it's even more true today. Edwards did talk the talk. Clinton and Obama will now feel pressure from the forces that will help them get elected. Let's hope the one with the most wisdom, intuition and ethics triumphs, not the one with the most connections.
Connections is how things are run in Banana Republics, like in the Mafia. Favors are done behind the scenes.
How are we going to survive the next few months of this crap and when is it ever going to stop? Enough of us need to find ways not to feed it.
I really hate the primaries. I know it's supposed to be a time for airing of issues but to me ti seems like "buying of the president" and haggling and dirty politics like the parties might use against each other.
I could survive either option (HRC or BHO) and so could my family. I feel so bad for the enthusiastic supporters of either. My mom is for HRC and my son for BHO. I have waffled around. I like the small donor, youth vote, minority turnout, change thing but I don't like the process of vetting, which is probably necessary but still ..
We could end up like France. The female Socialist candidate was exciting but said to lack experience and to have too new of ideas. The middle of the road guy won, and at least not the extreme right winger.
So we could end up with either of the Democrats and probably come out all right, but I feel sad for all the new voters and people drawn into the process, and also those who want someone they are familiar with.
I jsut hope we don't end up with the "Le Pen" - the creepy old man with the values from not only the last century but the war which has been over for more than 30 years - the one who has to read his menu with a flashlight.
I am so afraid we could repeat 1968 and our McCarthy or RFK be knocked out and our Humphrey defeated by our Nixon .. or something.
By the way, glad to see my friend Chuck on the blog for some honest dialogue and the explanations and context by Dick, who has been around for some perspective. (I remember asking him in Boston how many conventions he'd been to & I think he said 4, but that this 2004 was the only one where he remembered hearing people worried about whether the Constitution was in danger)
Need to put music, friendship etc. above politics. That's part of why I HATE THE PRIMARIES.
We have cable and high-speed internet here in Mexico so I am watching some of it which I never do at home. I absolutely hate CNN (would not look at FOX - mercifully, looks like it's not one of the offerings). It is IMPOSSIBLE to turn on the "news" channel and actually get news from the United States.
Someone like Anderson Cooper is completely irrelevant to my life, I think.
Well, I am trying to disengage myself, but I can't help but post this article I saw today as it resonates with the boxing theme of this thread:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/roland.martin/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
I thought it was a good article too.
Matthew -- thanks for that reply on Senator Clinton's record with respect to developments in the February/March lead-up to the invasion. That is new information for me. I will think on that.
nmp,
I hate the primaries too. I wasn't really online during the 04 primaries to know just how awful it is.
I'm not sure that this atmosphere helps or hinders the long term objectives we all have. In one sense, the ideas and facts get out there. On the other hand the screaming and hyperbola are out there too.
At this point, I just want the primaries to end all ready!
Also, another thought I had on this: Karen's body-language and dance sensibilities and Richard's boxing analogies open up a lot of ground. I hope someone can throw basketball into the mix! All of these discussions also open up interesting avenues for exploring gender issues, since it is hard to imagine a girl boxing or playing basketball (dancing? No problem).
(Before you all beat me up about this, I did play a lot of street and park ball in my time, not very well mind you, and the one or two times, out of thousands, where a girl was involved it definitely threw all the guys off. I could explaiun further but I probably shouldn't. So I can visualize myself going 1-on-1 with Obama in a half-court but not Hillary. For one thing, I could block every shot she tried to make. Oddly enough, on the body-language thing, Hillary's stance, and I mean just the way she distributes her weight on her feet, and this may go somewhat to Karen's query about strength, says to me "I can throw a punch anytime," and remember a lot of the power of a punch comes from the legs, but, being the retrograde male I am, I can't visualize a women in a boxing ring. Weird? Just me I guess.)
Correction:
When I said it was hard to imagine a girl playing basketball, I meant with men. Obviously, women's baskteball is an entirely different matter.
My Bad! Sorry!
AFTER HILLARY'S NEAR ENDORSEMENT OF JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT; comments on You Tube:
moejardines (7 hours ago) Show Hide
This snarky BS rhetoric shows desperation. Everyone, even an infant, would bring a "lifetime of experience", and Hillary's jab at Obama is kinda slimy. She risks alienating the huge coalition of Barack supporters if she manages to snatch this one back. A huge proportion of Obama-philes detest her, along with many independents, and everyone GOP. Will Barack take it if the Clintons try to steal this? I hope not, for the good of the party, cuz Hillary will fail in the general.
theDHC (7 hours ago) Show Hide
i find it disturbing that Hillary says "national security will be front and center in this election" when in fact according to every poll it's the economy which is the number 1 concern with americans in this election.
this is insulting to everyone, who is she trying to fool
fishhead06 (7 hours ago) Show Hide
In fact he has more, moron. He has eight years in the Illinois state senate, in addition to his three in the US Senate.
Whoo69 (8 hours ago) Show Hide
Don't buy into Hilary's "experience" bs. She really doesn't have all that much experience in the long run, esp. when it comes to real results, like health care reform. She headed a task force on HC that failed horribly and never got anywhere, and she continues to spout the myth that she has tons of foreign policy experience, despite never having met with one foreign leader or going on diplomatic missions or trips. Giuliani has more foreign policy experience, for christ sake!
ImaScotsman (8 hours ago) Show Hide
I'd really like to know what her ''exact'' foreign policy or commander in chief experience is. She servers on the senate arms services commitee and barack serves on the senta commitee incharge of nato so basically 1 and the same.
Ralph:
You wrote: "She risks alienating the huge coalition of Barack supporters...."
May I suggest that the converse is also true? I have never, personally, heard a Clinton supporter say anything personally derogatory about Senator Obama. I can say the same for Obama supporters in my own circle of acquaintances (but I know many Clinton supporters and only three Obama supporters so that is not much of a sample -- most people at work are Republicans). But on the blogs and in the media, it is very common for Obama supporters (or trolls) to say very vile things about Senator Clinton, while I don't see the obverse very often (I mean, Clinton supporters being derogatory about Obama).
Peace.
And by derogatory I mean ascribing negative personal characteristics to someone -- evil, liar, corrupt, ambitious (that one always cracks me up), as opposed to attacking their credentials or positions in some area or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWqVpzXgZgY&feature=related
I love family stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrcm39i42-0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epHPXZBsp8M&feature=related
Oh my that little country boy could play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEq62iQo0eU&feature=related
This one is pretty good and original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YUA3yTUss&feature=related
I never did get the bit about "at her feet was a Fort Lewis man," but thee you have it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzz1VEN1SEk&feature=related
Let's give it up to Texas and the country boy that sure could play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8siLZ4zNbY
God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe said God, you must be putting me on. God said "Lo," Abe said "What?" God said "You can do what you want to but...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P5k3wKjfwE&feature=related
Chuck,
If you haven't seen Clinton supporters making personal attacks against Obama, then you haven't seen the 'big blogs' like Daily Kos, D.U., FDL, and Huffington Post.
Those places can get a person pretty 'bloodied up.'
Hi folks,
Stopping by to say hello, and read over the battles going on here and everywhere else on the blogs. Apparently, people are staking their ground!!!
I'd like to put in a word for the middle ground, and for the fact that whoever you personally support, either democrat is better than McCain. Right now, all the infighting is feeding right into the Republican's hands, and I, for one, am concerned.
What was once obviously the dems year is now not so clear to me. Ralph and Chuck should think very closely and clearly about that, because however each of them feel about the other's candidate, beating each other up does nobody any good.
People - you need to chill it down. The differences between the two candidates are not nearly as vast as you are making them out to be. Being on the right team is not nearly as important as being in the right league at this point.
Also - is anyone else disgusted by the emails from the candidates touting how much money they've raised, and then asking for more?
The latest one from Obama - we've raised record millions (55?) in February - please give us more?
Similar ones from Clinton last month.
Come on people. There is something seriously bad about this, and I for one won't be donating any more money to either of them. They are using all that money to beat each other up, and no one is using it to beat McCain. Then they'll be asking for hundreds of millions more in the general election.
Sorry - but I've had it with that. It is such a huge waste. Think of the people who could be helped by that kind of money. Think of the good that could be done.
Carol
Thank you for your eloquent points.
NMP
Following your blog closely. The Reagan-Bush-Cheney presidencies have been a wet dream for the richest of the rich, at everyone else's expense.
Sparrow
Point well taken about the military electioneering - something I know very well from personal exposure too. That's why I am very disgusted with the military as an institution, as well as its oil and construction buddies.
Speaking of electioneering, my neighbor had a huge BUSH-CHENEY '04 sign hanging on her fence, facing the neighboring elementary school. Guess what? The elementary school was the local polling place. Illegal electioneering, and nobody cared to stop it. The same elementary school also hosts an "orthodox" Korean conservative church congregation every Sunday.
Obama to win Wyoming...
BREAKING | Obama Will Win Wyoming
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030808X.shtml
With 78 percent of the vote counted, Sen. Barack Obama holds a 59
percent to 40 percent lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton. Truthout is prepared
to call the state for Barack Obama.
Ally,
As long as her back yard was away from the school, her sign was legal. I use to live near a school (polling place) and signs were everywhere. Same as the road that leads to our current polling place. Fortunately, in 04, most were Kerry signs. But the parking lot across the street has all the signs. And they're legal because they're x feet away from the door. (I don't know what the x value is.)
Carol,
I agree with you 100% on all your points. Also, I think the donation thing is repulsive too. So is the beating up of other dems instead of McCain.
I'm not donating anything either. Maybe in the general. But right now, I'm thinking it will be awfully hard to change our gov't in 09 if we keep eating our own in 08.
I was curious as to what was happening here at DCP. As usual an excellent thread head which turns the conventional wisdom in knots. Thanks Richard.
In the area that I live in, people never would have said anything negative about the Republicans, but now, people in my community are not afraid to say that Bush and the Republican administration have been a disaster for America. With that admission comes the hope that the next administration won't be as incompetent as our current one. Yet, all the negative tactics and calculating gamesmanship demonstrated by the Clinton Campaign reminds them of what the Republicans did to gain power. It is revolting to many of them. They are prepared for a fresh start, but won't vote for Hillary. She reminds them of everything they don't like about the Republicans. If she is the nominee, many Americans won't vote, or those who call themselves independent will vote (because it is their patriotic duty) for McCain.