Archive for the ‘Election 2008’ Category

Would Clinton supporters unite behind Obama?

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

I’m sure many people will unite - especially the uncommitted ones who have just been waiting for things to shake out. As for the people who have been really committed though, that’s another problem.

I myself am not sure what I will do. Obama still has to win my vote for November. Personally, I think this is a disaster and the day after Obama is nominated the Democratic Party is going to wake up with a huge hangover. They might as well drive by McCain headquarters on the way home and drop off the keys to the White House.

I’m not saying I definitely won’t vote for him if push comes to shove. But I am not inclined to vote for him right now. He has run a really underhanded campaign in my view, while pretending that all the “politics as usual” have just been coming from HIllary. His empty rhetoric and hypocrisy really turns me off.

I think CNN tonight said that 57% of Obama supporters would not be happy if Hillary was nominated and 43% of Hillary supporters would not be happy if Obama was nominated. So that is slightly a better percentage of support in Obama’s favor, but still split almost 50-50 into dissatisfied supporters. That does not bode well for either candidate.

Even if I were to end up voting for Obama, it would be half-hearted. He certainly isn’t going to get me campaigning for him or contributing money, like I have been trying to do for Hillary.

Should Obama win the nomination (which is looking likely at this point) then he has to find some way of reaching out to Hillary supporters in a way that shows he understands what we are talking about. If it is “my way or the highway”, or we all have to drink the kool-aid and start chanting “yes we can” with glassy eyes, then the election is even more doomed than I think it is right now.

doug

When the magic fades (funny column from the NY Times)

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

February 19, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
When the Magic Fades

By DAVID BROOKS
At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?

Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.

They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?

As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.

What would JFK do?

Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

You really have to wonder about Obama’s set of principles. What exactly does he stand for?

Take a look at this column about the Che Guevara flag hanging on the wall of the Obama volunteer office in Houston:

doug

Obama’s flip-flop on campaign financing

Monday, February 18th, 2008

The Obama campaign is trying to change history, claiming that “in fact” Obama never pledged to forgo private funding in the general election if his opponent did as well.

The fact is he did make such a pledge.

See the Midwest Democratic Network questionnaire at

http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf

Question I-B:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Obama’s answer: “Yes.”

So much for no more “politics as usual”.

doug

Hillary vs Obama on Universal Health Care

Monday, February 18th, 2008

Obama keeps stating that under his health plan people are “free to choose” whether to join or not.

The facts are that under Obama’s plan, the millions of people who freely choose to live without insurance are raising the costs for everybody else. Thus the $4000 per person in his plan vs the $2700 per person in Hillary’s.

Plus the free-riders would end up costing everybody else even MORE money if they end up getting sick or in an accident because they end up going to the emergency room which costs more, and the cost is passed on to everybody else.

In Obama’s plan, he already has mandatory insurance for children. How do you think he is going to enforce that? I know his campaign is based on glossing over the details, but anybody who thinks for a second can see that Obama’s plan requires enforcement as well. He is being totally deceptive about this.

As far as wage garnishings go, that is how social security works now.

This is a question of SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. It is how, in a progressive society, we provide for everybody by having everybody participate.

I detest the way Obama has propagandized against universal health care. His campaign against it shows he is deceiving his supporters and will say anything to try to get elected.

If nothing else, the Democratic party should stand for universal health care. Obama is just plain on the wrong side of this argument.

doug

McCain on Obama

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

I wish Hillary said it like McCain did:

“To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”

doug

On the Obama cult of personality

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

This is an interesting section from an article in today’s New York Times:

What is troubling about the campaign is that its gone beyond hope and change to redemption, said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). Its posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver.

From the day Mr. Obama announced his candidacy, he has billed it as a movement, and himself as the agent of generational change. He has mocked his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for accusing him of raising false hopes. We dont need leaders who are telling us what we cannot do, he said in New Hampshire. We need a president who can tell us what we can do! What we can accomplish! Where we can take this country!

Accounts of the campaigns Camp Obama sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they came to Mr. Obama.

If you dont talk about issues in great detail, if you do it in a way that is not the centerpiece of your campaign, of your rhetoric, then you become a blank screen, Mr. Wilentz said. Everybody thinks you are the vehicle of their hopes.

To confuse this with Teddy Roosevelt or J.F.K. or F.D.R. is to make a fundamental historical error, he said. Its confusing the offer of leadership with the offer of redemption. One offers specific programs, the other is hope and change. Certainly F.D.R. gave hope, but he was going to do it through these various programs.

Hillary and the band

Saturday, February 16th, 2008

Great ad! 

doug

Good electoral reasons to choose Hillary

Friday, February 15th, 2008

In a new Quinnipiac Poll released today, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a substantial lead over Senator Barack Obama in the key primary states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In Ohio, Clinton leads Obama by a margin of 55-34. According to the poll, Clinton holds a 26 point advantage among women and a 10 point advantage among men.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 52-36. She holds a 20 point lead among women and a 10 point lead with women.

Also in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton beats John McCain by six points in a head-to-head matchup. McCain is tied, however, with Barack Obama in the state.

Clinton also attracts more support than Obama against McCain in both Ohio and Florida.

Needless to say we need to win both Ohio and Florida.

doug

p.s. HIllary also won the New Mexico caucuses. Those results finally came in today.

Facing the numbers as we approach the endgame

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

I read this article in the New York Times. Some interesting parts were:

Mr. Obama’s aides said they hoped to end the voting season with a delegate lead of more than 100, which they would seek to portray as a decisive affirmation by Democratic primary voters of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they were looking to bring the margin down significantly below 100 in hope of arguing that the result was too close for delegates to consider in deciding how to vote.

…..

Mr. Obama’s campaign said that he had a lead of 1,139 to 1,003; by the count of the Clinton campaign organization, Mr. Obama was doing even better: 1,141 to 1,004 for Mrs. Clinton.
There are 1,082 delegates left to be selected.

…..

By any measure, Mr. Obama is in a much stronger position on Wednesday than he was just a few days ago and in a significantly stronger position than Mrs. Clinton thought he would be at this point. That is because Mr. Obama not only won a series of states, but also won them by large margins — over 20 percentage points — so that he began picking up extra delegates and opening a lead on Mrs. Clinton.

And that is the problem for Mrs. Clinton going forward. If these were winner-take-all states, Mrs. Clinton could pick up 389 delegates in Texas and Ohio on March 4. Now she would have to beat Mr. Obama by more than 20 percentage points in order to pick up a majority of delegates in both states.

I think, speaking realistically, that this interpretation is probably true. If Obama ends up with a substantial (more than 100) won delegate lead at the end of the primary season it probably is only reasonable that he be made the nominee.

We can quibble about this or that (whether caucus states are less democratic than primaries, whether Florida votes should count, etc.) but the fact of the matter is that those were the rules of the game going in and the only thing less fair than those discrepancies would be changing the rules mid-game.

So while it is still my hope that Hillary can reduce Obama’s pledged delegate lead so that things are close enough that it would be reasonable to let the super-delegates decide based on other factors than just the raw delegate numbers, I accept that if she cannot reduce his pledged delegate lead to less than 100 that Obama should probably be made the nominee.

doug