Nancy Pelosi is a threat to the Republic and should be impeached.
Even before she took the helm of the House of Representatives, Pelosi made clear her position about impeachment of the President.
Whether or not you agree about impeachment of George W. Bush, it is a basic and fundamental DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to consider impeachment.
Several variations of articles of impeachment against W. have been drafted, citing real High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes that - if proven true - represent a real clear and present danger to the United States of America.
Representative John Conyers (D-MI, Chair House Judiciary Committee), whose job it is to initiate the consideration, had made clear his intention to begin investigations that could - if evidentiary hearings proved substantively in favor of impeachment - lead to it. His approach (HR 635-2005) was reasoned and not a knee-jerk to gaining power - as he himself said that that type of approach would lead to a political backlash just as it did for the Republicans when they made it their primary mission to impeach President Clinton in 1995 when they gained power. Conyers is following the investigation that a half of Americans want. (Which was far more than the 36% that favored hearings to impeach Bill Clinton.)
Pelosi made it clear that his approach was doomed to failure before it ever got started - before finding out whether there was sufficient grounds for impeachment, she killed the possibility of it. By refusing to consider the possibility of impeachment - by "removing it from the table" (paraphrased), she has made it clear that she has ABROGATED HER DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).
This is in fact old news. Her continuing transgressions include the poo-pooing of the Democratic reconcilation through the "Dream Team" and telling the super-delegates (from a position of authority as House Speaker) how they should be voting - essentially increasing the polarity of the party. Pelosi is as far to the left of the Democratic Party as you can be without being a Communist eco-terrorist. Clinton is as far as you can be to the right of the party without being a Republican. [I also am in the latter category.]
Pelosi is attempting to influence the remaining nomination race by repeatedly killing the only real chance the party has of guaranteeing victory in the general election, despite the fact that it is what most Democrats want. Most polls put either Obama or Clinton ahead of McCain in the general election by only 1.5-3%. The same lead Kerry had in 2004 against W - and far more than the lead Al Gore won the 2000 election with. That should be disturbingly close for anyone. We can't afford another election that is anything but a decisive slam dunk. A dream ticket is exactly that: Clinton-Obama polls a win at 53%-40% over McCain, and an Obama-Clinton win at 49%-45%.
Similarly, she's made statements on how they should vote - following the delegate count and ignoring their own individual criteria. If they follow that directive then even if Hillary closes the gap to 2 pledged delegates then all the super delegates should vote for Obama. There becomes no point in running the remaining primaries - and their votes, like Michigan and Florida, count for nothing.
As a key super-delegate - one in an authoritative position over many other super-delegates making statements like that is basically telling them how to vote.
Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, she is essentially working to split the party and destroy our chances of victory in the general election.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Does Hillary's Big-State Argument hold water?
Even as a Hillary supporter, I found the big-state argument to be a bit of a stretch. Would the big states that voted for Hillary NOT vote for Barack if (when) he ran in the general election?
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
There is no question that the Democratic party's system for counting delegates is broken. The Republican party makes more sense in that it's based on the electoral college system that will be used in the general election. If that system was used, there would be no question about Hillary being the candidate now. (I personally think the electoral college is very broken - designed for a time when horse-and-buggy was the fastest means of communication from far off states - but that *IS* the system laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, et al).) The key piece of the Democratic primary version is more fair and democratic (although I believe both caucuses and super-delegates are even more anti-democratic than the electoral system.)
If Hillary has a chance of pushing her nomination, it will be based on the obvious broken-ness of the system (the counter-argument is that those are the rules we've based the primaries and caucuses on that everyone's been tacitly following). It will be based on the popular vote argument, which requires Michigan and Florida to be counted somehow. It will also require some serious mis-steps by Barack.
I've addressed the Michigan/Florida thing before. The Big-State argument has already been used indirectly by the party in disproportionate delegate awards to traditionally Democratic counties (most recently in Texas and Pennsylvania). Barack is doing his missteps himself, and will likely continue doing so now that he's under the normal (rose-colored-glasses removed) media attention.
But even if that card gets played, do the numbers make sense? I've pulled some of this data from Professor Tannenbaum's Electoral Vote site (one of my indirect professor's web sites - Andy taught an online OS Design class of 50,000 of us at a time - in 1990/1991. Amongst his other students was Linus Torvalds (the originator of Linux). Andy was and still is way ahead of his time...), and CNN Politics.
From http://www.electoral-vote.com/
What is the smallest number of states you have to win to be president? By sorting the spreadsheet on EVs, you get the answer easily: 11. A candidate who wins the following 11 states gets 271 electoral votes and thus wins:
[The first 11 states in the first paragraph answer Andy's question above. I've sorted the states by EV size and added in the CNN recorded margins of victory, winner first, then my notes. The second and third paragraphs I've added to include all states with 10 or more EVs. Note Michigan and Florida are in the FIRST paragraph.]
(55) California (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%)
(34) Texas, (Clinton 51%, Obama 47%) - expected Republican in GE
(31) New York, (Clinton 57%, Obama 40%)
(27) Florida, (Clinton 55%, Obama 33% (Edwards 14%)) - Swing State
(21) Illinois, (Obama 65%, Clinton 33%)
(21) Pennsylvania, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45%)
(20) Ohio, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%) - Swing State
(17) Michigan, (Clinton 55%, Obama 45% est)
(15) New Jersey, (Clinton 54%, Obama 44%)
(15) North Carolina, (TBD, expected Obama - expected Republican in GE
(15) Georgia, (Obama 55%, Clinton 27% (Edwards 18%) - expected Republican in GE
(13) Virginia (Obama 64%, Clinton 35%) - possibly Republican in GE (becoming Swing State)
(12) Massachusetts (Clinton 56%, Obama 41%)
(11) Tennessee (Clinton 54%, Obama 41%) - Swing State
(11) Missouri (Obama 49%, Clinton 48%) - Swing State
(11) Washington (Obama 68%, Clinton 31%) (Caucus)
(10) Arizona (Clinton 51%, Obama 42%) - expected Republican in GE
(10) Wisconsin (Obama 58%, Clinton 41%)
(10) Minnesota (Obama 66%, Clinton 32%) (Caucus)
(10) Maryland (Obama 60%, Clinton 37%)
Looking at those largest 11, we're probably going to lose Texas and North Carolina in the GE (general election). It's not a foregone in today's wacky upside-down political world where everyone gets that Republicans aren't Republican any more and the Democratic party is confused and disoriented about what it wants to be when it grows up (what else is new? :-). We will probably loose Florida if its primary isn't counted and Barack is on the ticket alone - it's already a swing state as it is - that will push it in favor of the Republicans. Ohio is similar - I think if Hillary wins the nomination (or is somehow on the ticket), we'll take Ohio. I don't think we will if Barack is on it by himself. I think Michigan will Go Blue regardless, but not having Hillary on that ticket puts what should be a "slam dunk" into the category of "probably". Georgia is usually Republican - but if Barack is on the ticket I think we'll take it. Those are obviously my guesses.
If all or most or half of those guesses end up being correct, that leaves the rest of the race in far too close of a contention. The scenario without Barack is equally if not more gloomy - and disenfranchisement may be the least of our problems by that point. Psychohistorically, I can't eliminate the possibly of riots - and if they occured I'm not sure it would be unjustified.
The entire race should have been "slam dunk". Now it's "possibly". "Maybe".
The both need to suck it up and accept each other on the ticket. Mario Cuomo is right.
Friday, April 25, 2008
A Recipe for destroying the Democratic Party
Ingredients:
2 popular Democratic Presidential candidates
Both candidates should be history-making quality. Don't scrimp on quality on this part.
2 Botched Primaries in large states
1 Republican Presidential candidate with an otherwise little chance of winning.
First, excite the Democratic base by offering both history-making potential Democratic candidates at the same time. Make sure they have different history-making qualities (for example, make one an African American male and the other a white female. Don't mix the qualities - an African American female would have twice the history-making potential and might ruin the recipe). If you can get dual poles (for example, experience vs. exuberance, heart vs. mind, etc.) the result will be much more powerful.
Give both democratic candidates a nearly identical platform. Make sure there's just barely enough difference to have the focus on splitting hairs with though.
Add in a long history of voter disenfranchisement. The result will be much better if both democratic candidates represent constituencies with such a history.
Add in 1 or 2 completely botched primaries. Make sure voters actually had some hope of seeing their votes count, then remove the hope and any chance of it. Not only will this disenfranchise the 1 or 2 states involved, but other aware Democratic state parties will realize that it could just as easily happen to them.
For the Republican candidate, make sure the candidate isn't so overwhelmingly popular that it would shadow the infighting of the Democratic party. Or if he is (we'll assume it's a white male - he's Republican), have him sit off on the sidelines and just poke in every once in a while. Staying out of the spotlight and quietly building up his party's support and fundraising will force the media to put the magnifying glass on the Democratic self-destruction.
No other Republican intervention is necessary. The recipe should self-bake itself better without it.
Bake and simmer for 3-4 months. If possible, allow the recipe to heat up steadily to a boil until the convention. Make sure riot gear and extra police are available in the likely event of an explosive boil-over (see previous experiments with this recipe such as Chicago 1968).
2 popular Democratic Presidential candidates
Both candidates should be history-making quality. Don't scrimp on quality on this part.
2 Botched Primaries in large states
1 Republican Presidential candidate with an otherwise little chance of winning.
First, excite the Democratic base by offering both history-making potential Democratic candidates at the same time. Make sure they have different history-making qualities (for example, make one an African American male and the other a white female. Don't mix the qualities - an African American female would have twice the history-making potential and might ruin the recipe). If you can get dual poles (for example, experience vs. exuberance, heart vs. mind, etc.) the result will be much more powerful.
Give both democratic candidates a nearly identical platform. Make sure there's just barely enough difference to have the focus on splitting hairs with though.
Add in a long history of voter disenfranchisement. The result will be much better if both democratic candidates represent constituencies with such a history.
Add in 1 or 2 completely botched primaries. Make sure voters actually had some hope of seeing their votes count, then remove the hope and any chance of it. Not only will this disenfranchise the 1 or 2 states involved, but other aware Democratic state parties will realize that it could just as easily happen to them.
For the Republican candidate, make sure the candidate isn't so overwhelmingly popular that it would shadow the infighting of the Democratic party. Or if he is (we'll assume it's a white male - he's Republican), have him sit off on the sidelines and just poke in every once in a while. Staying out of the spotlight and quietly building up his party's support and fundraising will force the media to put the magnifying glass on the Democratic self-destruction.
No other Republican intervention is necessary. The recipe should self-bake itself better without it.
Bake and simmer for 3-4 months. If possible, allow the recipe to heat up steadily to a boil until the convention. Make sure riot gear and extra police are available in the likely event of an explosive boil-over (see previous experiments with this recipe such as Chicago 1968).
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Universal Health Care
The liberal in me says it's our moral imperative to take care of our own people. We have the ability and the resources - it's something we should do for ourselves and our posterity - promoting the general welfare.
The realist will quickly discard almost any of that fanciful crap that comes out of that part of my brain, though. Human nature is going to muck that one up - sometimes taking care of people is actually doing them more harm than good. Part of me really hears the Republican argument that says letting people struggle a bit can be the best thing for them - like the butterfly trying to escape the cocoon. That's open to debate - even internally for me.
But as a fiscally conservative Democrat - Universal Health Care just makes sense. If you look at the absurd amounts of money that are being paid by our corporations just for health care - there's no way we can compete globally. Regardless of where you stand on Free Trade (I'm pro-free trade - as long as it's managed to be fair, which it hasn't been under W.), we are competing in a global economy. Other countries are paying for the health care, still others just don't care and do nothing (but neither does the company). If we want to compete globally and still maintain our way of life, UHC is the only practical way to go. We can create a system that still maintains our high quality of care and still maintains free-market competitiveness. The current system as it is "designed" avoids free-market competitiveness.
Barack's approach makes it optional. He argues that if it's affordable every one will get it anyways. He avoids the reality that the uninsured are sticking the rest of us with their bills - even if it is not what they intend to do.
In Michigan, like many states, we have a mandate for auto insurance. If you want to have a car drivable on public roads, you must have insurance. It can be basic - limited to "PL/PD" (IIRC, personal liability/personal damage) or you can go full comprehensive, but you at least need to take care of the basics. If you don't pay for it and drive, you will get ticketed and possibly arrested (if you do it repeatedly). The insured drivers actually end up paying for the uninsured idiots who damage their vehicles, property, or persons.
The same would be true in an Universal Health Care system. If there is no mandate, the uninsured will still end up in the emergency room and the "system" will get stuck with the bill.
The difference here is that it's not the "privilege" of driving on the roads (in Michigan it's not a privilege - it's a God-Given Right) - it's the privilege of living. The enforceable mandate basically amounts to "if you want to live in this country, you have to pay the health care tax". Part of me is repulsed by that, but in the end - it's for the greater good. Including yours.
In the end, the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes...
The realist will quickly discard almost any of that fanciful crap that comes out of that part of my brain, though. Human nature is going to muck that one up - sometimes taking care of people is actually doing them more harm than good. Part of me really hears the Republican argument that says letting people struggle a bit can be the best thing for them - like the butterfly trying to escape the cocoon. That's open to debate - even internally for me.
But as a fiscally conservative Democrat - Universal Health Care just makes sense. If you look at the absurd amounts of money that are being paid by our corporations just for health care - there's no way we can compete globally. Regardless of where you stand on Free Trade (I'm pro-free trade - as long as it's managed to be fair, which it hasn't been under W.), we are competing in a global economy. Other countries are paying for the health care, still others just don't care and do nothing (but neither does the company). If we want to compete globally and still maintain our way of life, UHC is the only practical way to go. We can create a system that still maintains our high quality of care and still maintains free-market competitiveness. The current system as it is "designed" avoids free-market competitiveness.
Barack's approach makes it optional. He argues that if it's affordable every one will get it anyways. He avoids the reality that the uninsured are sticking the rest of us with their bills - even if it is not what they intend to do.
In Michigan, like many states, we have a mandate for auto insurance. If you want to have a car drivable on public roads, you must have insurance. It can be basic - limited to "PL/PD" (IIRC, personal liability/personal damage) or you can go full comprehensive, but you at least need to take care of the basics. If you don't pay for it and drive, you will get ticketed and possibly arrested (if you do it repeatedly). The insured drivers actually end up paying for the uninsured idiots who damage their vehicles, property, or persons.
The same would be true in an Universal Health Care system. If there is no mandate, the uninsured will still end up in the emergency room and the "system" will get stuck with the bill.
The difference here is that it's not the "privilege" of driving on the roads (in Michigan it's not a privilege - it's a God-Given Right) - it's the privilege of living. The enforceable mandate basically amounts to "if you want to live in this country, you have to pay the health care tax". Part of me is repulsed by that, but in the end - it's for the greater good. Including yours.
In the end, the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes...
The Necessity of the "Dream Team"
There's a reason this idea refuses to die. At this point, it might have more to do with necessity than hope.
First, let me start off by stating that I am a Hillary supporter. Yes, I am a white man, but that is not the reason why. I simply value experience and I know she has it. I also know that it's a 2-for-1 deal with the Clintons, and I know that despite having 6 out of 8 years with a combative Congress almost literally out to lynch him, Bill Clinton provided me the best political and economic situation I could have hoped for. I want that back, and I know they will bring it back. With Barack it's a wildcard.
Hillary also just makes sense - she's been pushing the health care issues since the early 90's. She's tried and failed before - but usually failure is the best teacher. This time she'll get it done. I have more confidence in the Clintons bringing in a new technology into the economic fold than I have with Barack (Bill and Al brought/guided the Internet from research tool to profit-making machine during their presidency. As an Internet Engineer, even I didn't think the average person was going to get the Internet into their homes until 2010 when they took office.) I know Hillary can guide environmental technologies into a profitable economy as well.
I really like Barack Obama though. He brings with him a hint of heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. Not just the personal charisma - which he excudes to an almost unnatural degree, but in the stances he's taking.
He brings a racial neutrality that neither Dr. King nor Jesse Jackson could ever have had - their policies were entirely rooted in civil rights issues - Barack's policies are convincingly widespread in economics, foreign policy, the environment, Iraq, and many other domestic issues. He has intelligently - shrewdly - left out race until now.
This one's going to be close. It looks very likely to my count that Hillary will win the popular vote (by taking fewer but bigger states) and Barack will take the normal delegate count (by taking more but smaller states). This one's definitely going down to the wire with 2 seconds left on the clock. Even if I'm wrong about Hillary taking the popular vote, it will have to be super delegates at this point who decide who takes the crown. And that will piss everyone off.
If the super-delegates pick Barack, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. If they pick Hillary, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. The numbers are probably more in favor of Barack than Hillary in this case - but that points as much to the continuing racial and youth divide. Policy-wise there's very little daylight between them, so we should all be able to unite behind whoever gets the nomination. The problem will be way too many hurt prides running around to do it. This is one area where the Republicans have us consistently beat - as Bill Clinton has said, "Republicans want to fall in line. Democrats want to fall in love." Will we have enough unity to overcome the Republicans? It will be very questionable at that point. In a year we should win by a landslide, it might come as close as the 2000 election.
Another Sword of Damacles hanging over the head of the party is the completely botched handling of Michigan and Florida. James Carville (who I really don't like all that much personally but often find myself agreeing with) has said if the party doesn't find a way to include Michigan and Florida, we will pay for it in the polls. He's right. Both states went for Hillary. Yes - I know Barack wasn't on the ticket in Michigan, but the numbers would have been the same if he had. Michigan is in the same mess - maybe worse - than Ohio. Almost all of our leadership - including the current and former Democratic governor, senators, and party leaders are behind Hillary. Run the election again - she'll still take 55% or more. Florida was a bit more fair in that everyone was at least on the ballot. Here again she took 50% to his 33%. I believe those numbers will hold true in a re-run. If neither state is seated in the convention, you can count us out in the General Election.
The numbers at the polls are overwhelming. More Democrats voted in the Texas primary than voted in the General Election in 2004 or 2000. For a PRIMARY! That tells you about the INCREDIBLE amount of PASSION behind these two candidates. And for all intents and purposes, Texas was split (Hillary taking the popular vote through primaries, Barack taking the delegate count through caucuses).
It's a tough call for most Democrats - which is very exciting. As exciting as Bill Clinton was - this is like "doubling your pleasure" with Hillary and Barack. The problem is (and will continue to be until the convention) choosing. I like chocolate and vanilla - why can't I have both?
[No, I will not apologize for that statement. Grow up if you're offended by it.]
The combined "Dream Team" ticket would not only eliminate the issues, but would direct all of the passion that we're seeing in the primaries into the General Election and well into the presidency. It would be a guaranteed landslide. We would get both Clintons and Barack and would truly unite the Democratic Party and ultimately, the American people. If Barack is truly committed to politics of inclusion, politics of unity, and politics of hope - he will accept a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.
A party divided against itself cannot stand. If we remain divided, which I believe will happen without a "Dream Team" ticket, we will yet again snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
(NB - Mario Cuomo has since come out with a similar position.)
First, let me start off by stating that I am a Hillary supporter. Yes, I am a white man, but that is not the reason why. I simply value experience and I know she has it. I also know that it's a 2-for-1 deal with the Clintons, and I know that despite having 6 out of 8 years with a combative Congress almost literally out to lynch him, Bill Clinton provided me the best political and economic situation I could have hoped for. I want that back, and I know they will bring it back. With Barack it's a wildcard.
Hillary also just makes sense - she's been pushing the health care issues since the early 90's. She's tried and failed before - but usually failure is the best teacher. This time she'll get it done. I have more confidence in the Clintons bringing in a new technology into the economic fold than I have with Barack (Bill and Al brought/guided the Internet from research tool to profit-making machine during their presidency. As an Internet Engineer, even I didn't think the average person was going to get the Internet into their homes until 2010 when they took office.) I know Hillary can guide environmental technologies into a profitable economy as well.
I really like Barack Obama though. He brings with him a hint of heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. Not just the personal charisma - which he excudes to an almost unnatural degree, but in the stances he's taking.
He brings a racial neutrality that neither Dr. King nor Jesse Jackson could ever have had - their policies were entirely rooted in civil rights issues - Barack's policies are convincingly widespread in economics, foreign policy, the environment, Iraq, and many other domestic issues. He has intelligently - shrewdly - left out race until now.
This one's going to be close. It looks very likely to my count that Hillary will win the popular vote (by taking fewer but bigger states) and Barack will take the normal delegate count (by taking more but smaller states). This one's definitely going down to the wire with 2 seconds left on the clock. Even if I'm wrong about Hillary taking the popular vote, it will have to be super delegates at this point who decide who takes the crown. And that will piss everyone off.
If the super-delegates pick Barack, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. If they pick Hillary, a very good chunk of democrats won't vote. The numbers are probably more in favor of Barack than Hillary in this case - but that points as much to the continuing racial and youth divide. Policy-wise there's very little daylight between them, so we should all be able to unite behind whoever gets the nomination. The problem will be way too many hurt prides running around to do it. This is one area where the Republicans have us consistently beat - as Bill Clinton has said, "Republicans want to fall in line. Democrats want to fall in love." Will we have enough unity to overcome the Republicans? It will be very questionable at that point. In a year we should win by a landslide, it might come as close as the 2000 election.
Another Sword of Damacles hanging over the head of the party is the completely botched handling of Michigan and Florida. James Carville (who I really don't like all that much personally but often find myself agreeing with) has said if the party doesn't find a way to include Michigan and Florida, we will pay for it in the polls. He's right. Both states went for Hillary. Yes - I know Barack wasn't on the ticket in Michigan, but the numbers would have been the same if he had. Michigan is in the same mess - maybe worse - than Ohio. Almost all of our leadership - including the current and former Democratic governor, senators, and party leaders are behind Hillary. Run the election again - she'll still take 55% or more. Florida was a bit more fair in that everyone was at least on the ballot. Here again she took 50% to his 33%. I believe those numbers will hold true in a re-run. If neither state is seated in the convention, you can count us out in the General Election.
The numbers at the polls are overwhelming. More Democrats voted in the Texas primary than voted in the General Election in 2004 or 2000. For a PRIMARY! That tells you about the INCREDIBLE amount of PASSION behind these two candidates. And for all intents and purposes, Texas was split (Hillary taking the popular vote through primaries, Barack taking the delegate count through caucuses).
It's a tough call for most Democrats - which is very exciting. As exciting as Bill Clinton was - this is like "doubling your pleasure" with Hillary and Barack. The problem is (and will continue to be until the convention) choosing. I like chocolate and vanilla - why can't I have both?
[No, I will not apologize for that statement. Grow up if you're offended by it.]
The combined "Dream Team" ticket would not only eliminate the issues, but would direct all of the passion that we're seeing in the primaries into the General Election and well into the presidency. It would be a guaranteed landslide. We would get both Clintons and Barack and would truly unite the Democratic Party and ultimately, the American people. If Barack is truly committed to politics of inclusion, politics of unity, and politics of hope - he will accept a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.
A party divided against itself cannot stand. If we remain divided, which I believe will happen without a "Dream Team" ticket, we will yet again snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
(NB - Mario Cuomo has since come out with a similar position.)
Obama and the Racial Pink Elephant
Maybe he was more or less forced to deal with it, but I refuse to believe he didn't know it would be coming.
He handled the issue well - delicately but emphatically. Diplomatically but still acknowledging the continuing gap of misunderstanding and inequities. Realistically but hopefully. One might even say presidentially. He didn't convert me by any means, but he definitely got a hell of a lot more respect in my book (and he had quite a bit to start with).
One of the most important things he did in this speech was to acknowledge both sides of the issue. It's clear that things aren't on a level playing field from an African American perspective, but he also acknowledged the white American perspective - Affirmative Action at this point has become a mechanism of reverse discrimination (go ahead - ask me why I was only "conditionally" accepted at the University of Michigan with good grades and a near perfect SAT score... then duck and cover).
Discrimination is alive and well. Segregation is alive and well. The difference is that now the pendulum has largely swung to the other side. No segregation, no discrimination is ever acceptable. If I'm a better candidate than you, I should get the job. If you're a better candidate than me, you should get the job. WhatTF does the color of either of our skin have to do with it? Should I play the "American Indian" heritage card to get the job? Should I get the job because some of my Ancestors were more disadvantaged than some of yours?
In reality, I grew up in a relatively poor white neighborhood with bad schools. I wish I could say they were better - certainly the teachers tried hard and some were very good and committed to their profession, but a school system has as much to do with the parents of the community as the teachers. My community was mostly blue-collar workers and education was not a high priority to most. My parents cared and did a great job raising me, warts and all. They certainly didn't put a silver spoon in my mouth - there were some really tough times and some really good times. My parents gave me something much more important - the ability to develop enough character to survive and even thrive regardless of the circumstances around me. I grew up relatively successful in spite of my circumstances, not because of them.
That opportunity is available to anyone - in a poor white district or a poor black district or a poor hispanic district or any other district. Poverty is not peculiar to any particular race, nor is opportunity. What defines each and every one of us is what we do with the opportunities we're given. A spoiled rich white kid who exerts his privilege is far more disgusting - a poor kid who made something of himself is something to be honored.
Inequities still exist though. That spoiled rich white kid is still much more likely to end up in college, much more likely to have a higher paying job available for him when he leaves college, much more likely to waltz through college in 4 years because he doesn't have to worry about paying for it himself or the economic situation at home, compared to those of us who had to struggle through what we could because we did.
To the poor white kid or the poor black kid, though, the battle is uphill for both. The battle is in spite of the environment, not because of it. The battle is to earn your place, not have it given to you on a platter. Race is not a factor in that battle - and that is why Affirmative Action as it stands today does not work. That is why it is a mechanism to continue discrimination and racial segregation - because it judges people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.
Barack acknowledged that side as much as the African American stance that focuses on the continuing inequities, and challenged us all to stop avoiding the huge pink elephant in the room and deal with it.
He also villified the words (but not the person) of Reverend Wright as divisive - again implicitly invoking King:
"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."
For that, he earned my respect.
I still continue to hope for a "Dream Team" ticket. He has the words, the eloquence, the heart. She has the brain, the experience, and the action. And neither is lacking in what the other's strengths are.
He handled the issue well - delicately but emphatically. Diplomatically but still acknowledging the continuing gap of misunderstanding and inequities. Realistically but hopefully. One might even say presidentially. He didn't convert me by any means, but he definitely got a hell of a lot more respect in my book (and he had quite a bit to start with).
One of the most important things he did in this speech was to acknowledge both sides of the issue. It's clear that things aren't on a level playing field from an African American perspective, but he also acknowledged the white American perspective - Affirmative Action at this point has become a mechanism of reverse discrimination (go ahead - ask me why I was only "conditionally" accepted at the University of Michigan with good grades and a near perfect SAT score... then duck and cover).
Discrimination is alive and well. Segregation is alive and well. The difference is that now the pendulum has largely swung to the other side. No segregation, no discrimination is ever acceptable. If I'm a better candidate than you, I should get the job. If you're a better candidate than me, you should get the job. WhatTF does the color of either of our skin have to do with it? Should I play the "American Indian" heritage card to get the job? Should I get the job because some of my Ancestors were more disadvantaged than some of yours?
In reality, I grew up in a relatively poor white neighborhood with bad schools. I wish I could say they were better - certainly the teachers tried hard and some were very good and committed to their profession, but a school system has as much to do with the parents of the community as the teachers. My community was mostly blue-collar workers and education was not a high priority to most. My parents cared and did a great job raising me, warts and all. They certainly didn't put a silver spoon in my mouth - there were some really tough times and some really good times. My parents gave me something much more important - the ability to develop enough character to survive and even thrive regardless of the circumstances around me. I grew up relatively successful in spite of my circumstances, not because of them.
That opportunity is available to anyone - in a poor white district or a poor black district or a poor hispanic district or any other district. Poverty is not peculiar to any particular race, nor is opportunity. What defines each and every one of us is what we do with the opportunities we're given. A spoiled rich white kid who exerts his privilege is far more disgusting - a poor kid who made something of himself is something to be honored.
Inequities still exist though. That spoiled rich white kid is still much more likely to end up in college, much more likely to have a higher paying job available for him when he leaves college, much more likely to waltz through college in 4 years because he doesn't have to worry about paying for it himself or the economic situation at home, compared to those of us who had to struggle through what we could because we did.
To the poor white kid or the poor black kid, though, the battle is uphill for both. The battle is in spite of the environment, not because of it. The battle is to earn your place, not have it given to you on a platter. Race is not a factor in that battle - and that is why Affirmative Action as it stands today does not work. That is why it is a mechanism to continue discrimination and racial segregation - because it judges people by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.
Barack acknowledged that side as much as the African American stance that focuses on the continuing inequities, and challenged us all to stop avoiding the huge pink elephant in the room and deal with it.
He also villified the words (but not the person) of Reverend Wright as divisive - again implicitly invoking King:
"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."
For that, he earned my respect.
I still continue to hope for a "Dream Team" ticket. He has the words, the eloquence, the heart. She has the brain, the experience, and the action. And neither is lacking in what the other's strengths are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)