Sen. McCain said last night that he too will bring change to Washington DC. Yet the same McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time AND laid out an economic plan last night that is almost exactly the same as the economic policy of George W. Bush. Perhaps someone should define change to Sen. McCain. Simply entering office with a female version of Dick Cheney does not mean that your ticket represents change. It means that it’s Bush style politics dressed in heels and a military cloak. Guess what….George W. Bush also was a governor of a state outside of Washington DC. Sen. McCain has been in the senate for 26 years! After election day, with the amount of Rove and Bush cronies that are running McCain’s campaign, the Arizona senator will owe a slew of favors to lobbyists, special interests (oil companies), etc.. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, is already involved in her second “abuse of power” investigation in only a very short political career. If this is not a red flag indicating a Bush-Cheney style of leadership, I don’t know what is.
In addition, Palin was an unnecessary, reckless, and impulsive political risk by McCain in a blatant political pander to his far right conservative base. The choice of Palin was also an arrogant, dirisive, and gratuitous risk. There are so many female GOP candidates that would have shook up the race in terms of making history, but McCain, without conducting a proper vet, chose someone that neither he nor his campaign knew much about. By the way, for those who say that McCain is the safer choice, McCain’s history of taking many of these types of unnecessary risks speaks against that conclusion. As a pilot, McCain was involved in at least three crashes that may have been avoided had he bothered to read his flight manuals. This seems like a person that not only takes unnecessary risks with his own life but risks the lives of others in the process. How does anyone get into an airplane and wing it knowing the devastation that crashing could bring to others on the ground and in the air? Perhaps when I was a teenager such a candidate would have been appealing….you know……..when most of us had no sense of our own mortality. However, as an adult member of the electorate, I am not looking for a rebel rouser making decisions regarding peace and war in the White House. Especially a rebel rouser who has a reputation for being a war monger. We had that with the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney. It really takes balls to go into the White House and take a country to war based on your own personal agenda. After the last eight years, we need a safe and steady hand on the tiller.
So, regardless of how “maverick” McCain claims that he will shake up or bring change to Washington, it may be more of a credible argument if his party were not the party currently in power and he had not voted with Bush 90% of the time during Bush’s tenure in office and 95% of the time in this last year. It is McCain’s policies that will be implemented in his administration, and McCain’s policy proposals are very, very, similar to the policies of the Bush-Cheney administration, especially when it comes to the economy and foreign policy. Unfortunately for McCain, CHANGE is much more than a banner.
Our own former governor Mark Warner will be the keynote speaker for the Democratic National Convention. Gov. Warner is also the democratic senate candidate in Virginia. Because this speaking slot is usually the springboard to the national stage for most local politicians (Obama 2004), this is a huge honor and tribute to Gov. Warner and the state of Virginia. The following statement was released by David Plouffe:
“Like Barack Obama, Mark Warner is not afraid to challenge the status quo to bring people together and get things moving,” campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement. “Its that kind of spirit and innovation that resulted in his selection as keynote speaker on a night when we will be discussing how to renew Americas promise.”
Tuesday night, August 26th, has been deemed Hillary night at the Democratic National Convention. Sen. Clinton will give her speech on what will be the 88th anniversary of women’s right to vote. The Senator will be joined on stage by several other female democratic senators. Sources close to Clinton also say that there is little chance that she will be chosen as Sen. Obama’s running mate. Many also speculate that because the vice presidential pick usually speaks on the Wednesday of Convention week, the fact that Clinton is speaking on Tuesday confirms that she is out of the running. However, the New York senator is in serious talks with the Obama campaign about hitting the campaign trail in the next couple of weeks.
Hillary Clinton wins Puerto Rico! Sen. Obama called Sen. Clinton to congratulate her on her win. Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, the turnout on the island was not enough to give her what she was hoping for in terms of a lead in the popular vote count. The turnout was a disappointing 50% below what it has been in previous elections reaching a mere 384,000 of the 3 million registered voters. The 55 delegates at stake will be divided proportionally. Puerto Rico cannot vote in the general election therefore the primary does not speak to either candidates electability in November. The Clinton family made a total of four visits to Puerto Rico in their vigorous effort to boost her popular vote count. Sen. Clinton is expected to use the popular vote count to argue to superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate. Also, Clinton’s claim of a higher popular vote count does not include caucus states, Guam, or the Virgin Islands. States and territories won by Sen. Obama. Clinton math….you gotta love it. To clinch the nomination, the victorious candidate must win 2118 delegates by the end of the primary contest. The previous 2025 number was increased yesterday to 2118 after the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to include half of the Florida and Michigan delegations at the conclusion of their meeting on Saturday. Thereby increasing the number of delegates to the 2118 number required to reach a majority because of the newly seated Michigan and Florida delegations. The previous 2025 number did not include the Michigan and Florida delegations because both states delegates were stripped when both states moved up their primaries in violation of DNC rules. The DNC RBC sat Florida as the voters voted in the Sunshine state giving Clinton 56 delegates to Obama’s 36. From Michigan, Clinton received 38 delegates and Obama received 31 with Obama receiving the uncommitted votes in Michigan plus an additional four delegates to reach a total of 31 overall. Including today’s results out of Puerto Rico as they stand now with 29% of the vote in, Obama has 2071.5 needing only 46.5 more delegates to clinch the required 2118 victory number. Clinton has 1911, needing 207 more delegates to clinch the nomination. There are a total of 204 undeclared superdelegates remaining. After the results from South Dakota and Montana, Obama will need a mere 20-25, contingent upon the Montana and South Dakota margins of victory, of the undeclared superdelegates to win the nomination. Clinton needs 195 of the remaining undeclared superdelegates to win the nomination. On Tuesday, South Dakota and Montana go to the polls. It is expected that the Obama campaign, in the next 48 hours, will roll out the additional 30 superdelegates it needs to clinch the nomination. The Obama campaign is encouraging superdelegates to publicly declare before the Montana and South Dakota primaries so that it can declare an official victory soon after the polls close in these last two states.
The Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet Saturday, May 31st in Washington DC in an effort to decide what to do about Michigan and Florida. The entire meeting will be broadcast on CSPAN. Most believe that the DNC will seat half the delegates of each state. If the DNC decides to seat all of Florida and Michigan’s delegates as is, Sen. Clinton would make a dent in Obama’s lead. This result is unlikely however given the following statement by Nancy Pelosi after speaking at meeting in front of the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board in California. In expressing the neccesity for exacting some sort of penalty to Florida and Michigan, Pelosi said “[i]f you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election,” she said. “So there has to be some penalty.”
In addition, Pelosi and Harry Reid released a statement Thursday night to the New York times pressing superdelegates to make their decision known by next week. Reid and Pelosi made clear that they do not want this RBC meeting on Saturday to extend this protracted primary race any further by way of appeals, etc. The two top congressional democrats plan to urge uncommitted superdelegates to make their decision known by the middle of next week to be exact. Reid went further by saying that the nominee will be known by Wednesday of next week. Because superdelegates are members or aspiring members of Congress, word from Reid and Pelosi add a new kind of pressure to the superdelegates. This is bad news for the Clinton Campaign who have been making utterances about taking this to the Credentials Committee at the August convention.
As for the RBC meeting this Saturday, Clinton supporters are expected to protest. The Obama campaign however has opted to go a different route. Campaign Obama has asked its supporters not to protest but to take this opportunity to register voters within their community. The campaign has organized a mass voter registration drive and request that Obama supporters go to www.barackobama.com to find their local registration drive location. The following statement was released by the Obama campaign.
On Saturday, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee will meet in Washington D.C. to determine whether Florida and Michigan delegates should be allowed to participate at the Democratic convention in August. We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly—and we’re asking that our supporters not demonstrate or disrupt the proceedings in any way.
The following is a list of members, who are also superdelegates, of the Rules and Bylaws Committee and which candidate each member supports.
Co-Chairs – no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. )
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts )
Members – Clinton supporters (13) Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC) Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC) Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX) Alice Huffman (CA) Ben Johnson (DC) Elaine Kamarck (MA) Eric Kleinfeld (DC) Mona Pasquil (CA) Mame Reiley (VA) Gary Shay (CA) Elizabeth Smith (DC) Michael Steed (MD) Members – Obama supporters (8) Martha Fuller Clark (NH) Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD) Thomas Hynes (IL) Allan Katz (FL) Sharon Stroschein (SD) Sarah Swisher (IA) Everett Ward (NC) Members – no known endorsement (7)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY) Yvonne Gates ( NV) Alice Germond (DC) – DNC Secretary David McDonald (WA) Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)
ABC News’ Karen Travers Reports: For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton’s support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate.
Sen. Obama, D-Ill., picked up two superdelegates this morning giving him a new metric to tout in addition to his current commanding leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and money raised.
Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., endorsed Obama. DeFazio was previously uncommitted.
UPDATE: The American Federation of Government Employees endorsed Barack Obama today. AFGE President and superdelegate John Gage said “[o]ur people, I think, recognize the enthusiasm and vitality behind Senator Obama’s campaign.” Gage was uncommitted, but to day also personally endorsed Barack Obama for President adding one more to Obama’s increasing superdelegate total.
California DNC member Ed Espinoza endorses Barack Obama for President.
Joe Andrew, who Bill Clinton appointed Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1999, has just switched his support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Andrew has been a supporter of Sen. Clinton since she first announced her bid for the presidency. Andrew made is announcement at a press conference in his hometown of Indianapolis, Indiana Thursday morning. During the press conference Andrew encouraged his fellow Democrats and Hoosiers to end this madness and unite behind Barack Obama for Tuesdays primary. In his telephone interview with the Associated Press Andrew said “I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it’s now bad for the Democratic Party.” Andrew also cited additional reasons for his switch in a letter to superdelegates. In the letter the former DNC Chairman says ”a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain.” Andrew went on to say “[w]hile I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us,” Andrew continued. “John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.” Andrew said that teh Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support but he did so after witnessing the principled way that Obama has handled two recent issues that have challenged his campaign. The Wright controversy and the gas tax holiday qestion. Andrew praised the fact that Obama stuck to his guns with respect to the gas tax holiday even though the politically expedient thing to do would have been to go along with Clinton and McCain on this issue. And, he also praised Obama’s handling of the Jeremiah Wright controversy saying that Obama “has shown such mettle under fire.” Andrew’s decision also increases Obama’s superdelegate count thereby clossing in on Clinton’s current lead. The current count for superdelegates 247-263 Clinton. However, Obama leads in the delegate count overall 1735.5 to 1597.5 for Clinton. Last count, 230 superdelegates remain undecided, and about 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings throughout the spring
As much as the media continue to act as if Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama are the same person, they are not. In the last 24 hours, the main stream media has given Rev. Wright a total of 15 hours of uninterrupted air time. Newsflash: Rev. Wright is not running for president! Sen. Barack Obama is running for president! Does anything that Rev. Wright has to say affect how we can solve the mortgage crisis? Does anything that Rev. Wright has to say solve my problem with $4 a gallon gas? Can anything that Rev. Wright says bring our soldiers home from Iraq sooner? Can Rev. Wright do anything about our sinking economy? I’ll answer those questions for you…..No. So why is the main stream media giving him a national platform to indulge in his self serving, egocentric agenda? Why? I’ll tell you why. It is the the mains stream media’s and the pundit class’ full frontal attack in trying to shape public opinion. Rev. Wright is on a publicity tour promoting his own agenda and his book that apparently will be coming out at the end of the year. The traditional media continues to focus on Wright’s words as if they were the words of Barack Obama himself to the glee of Hillary Clinton. Why you ask….ratings, lack of material directly from Obama himself, the illigitimate guilt by association argument, creating the illusion of a horse race. Jeremiah Wright made these inflammatory comments, not Barack Obama. But with the amount of media attention that Wright has received you would swear that he is the presidential candidate. Alas, to the mainstream media’s disappointment, Wright is not the candidate, Obama is the candidate. Last I checked, guilt by association is not a valid argument when attempting to impune a presidential candidate’s character. Ask John McCain?
Side question: Why has the the media refuse to focus on religious extremist John Hagee whose endorsement was heavily sought and enthusiastically accepted by John McCain? Before announcing yesterday that Wright is fair game, and after emphatically promising not to use the Wright issue in his bid for the presidency, McCain had already broken his word when he used the Wright controversy to deflect attention from his Pastor Hagee problem. Sen. McCain then used an explanation made by Obama to justify future use of the Wright issue in his bid for the presidency after-the-fact. But Obama has rejected and denounced Rev. Wrights comments. Unlike McCain who actively sought and continues to “appreciate” and be “very grateful” for Hagee’s support and endorsement with full knowledge of Hagee’s bigoted and divisive comments and viewpoints. How then does McCain have the unmitigated gall to come out and criticize Obama for his association with Rev. Wright? Why….because the traditional media allows McCain to get away with it. The same way that the media allows Hillary Clinton to get away with criticizing Obama for actions that she herself has engaged in to a much more substantial degree. The same way the media accepts and gives maximum traction to a characterization made by two candidates, each of whose household income last year was over 100 million dollars, that an African-American male reared by a single mother that collected welfare is an elitist. And, one of those 100 million dollar candidates attended the elite institutions Wellesley College and Yale law school. The media accomplishes this jedi mind-trick through the continuous looping of the same story ad nauseam. Every single time that the media asks McCain about Rev. Wright, the very next question should be….what about your sought after endorsement and knowing voluntary political affiliation with Pastor Hagee. That is called “fair and balanced” investigative reporting.
A message to Rev. Wright:
Why? Rev. Wright sir, you accuse the media of reducing your 30 years in the ministry to three or four 30 second soundbites. Now sir, after viewing your performance at the National Press Club yesterday, you are reducing all the good accomplished during your 30 year ministry to a 60 minute self-made mockery. You claim to be a preacher not a politician but you give your latest performance in front of the National Press Club in the political capital of America, Washington, DC. Is this a pathetic attempt to battle Obama for the spotlight? Even your ” longtime friend” Roland Martin of CNN, whom you referred to in your speech to the NAACP, has criticized your National Press Club performance. And lets be clear, that is exactly what it was….a performance. The national stage can be an enticing seductress, its up to you to remember that your role is to minister, not to entertain. It is being reported that many people close to you begged you not to go on this media tour now. Your answer was to do it anyway. Result, Obama is a a week away from two pivotal primaries and what is the media talking about….you. They are talking about the self absorbed preacher who seems to want to sabotage Barack Obama. But then that is exactly the way you wanted it. Using this media blitz as a pretense to allegedly redeem the “black church” when such blitz possess all the trappings of a selfish, ego-driven, egomaniacal, narcissitic, tirade to fan publicity for a book to be released year-end is just disappointing and insulting. This writer takes extreme pause as to your true motivation and your character. It seems that your repayment to a friend, who stood by you during a time when most would have walked away, is to throw that friend under the bus in pursuit of your own personal gain. Fame is fleeting….and your 15 seconds will be up soon. You could have taken the high road and continued to advocate for your real and legitimate causes but you chose to yuck it up in front of a national audience. Fame can also be a fleeting seductress. The only ones remaining when all the cameras are gone…..loyal friends. It seems that you are still heavily mired in and exploiting the battles of the 60′s and 70′s. Some of your talking points are dated and from a different time. Perhaps now is a time to pause and reflect. Now would also be a good time to heed your mother’s advice, you know…”better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Well here we are……Michigan and Florida as states of confusion within the Democratic Party. The Clinton campaign, Michigan governor and Clinton supporter Jennifer Granholm, republican governor of Florida who is a staunch supporter of John McCain and serious contender for the VP spot on the McCain ticket, Bill Crist, and Clinton supporter Bill Nelson, are all pushing for Florida and Michigan to be seated at the convention in Denver. As mentioned in earlier writing, a decision as to how to deal with this issue should have been released long ago. Further, there is no way that Michigan and Florida can be seated without it being patently unfair not only to the Obama campaign but to all the voters of other states that worked within the rules of the DNC. Regarding Michigan, Clinton’s name was the only one on the ballot and there is no way that anyone can legitimately argue that it was a fair race, end of story. As for Florida, millions of voters did not vote and thereby will be disenfranchised because they were informed by the DNC, and the state government, that their vote will not count. Therefore, the Florida result does not represent the will of all the citizens of Florida. To seat Florida according to the primary that was held in January would be patently unfair to citizens who did not vote based on incorrect information. How can anyone argue that it would be fair? How is that the democratic process? This is not a situation were voters made an informed decision and decided not to vote. If Florida is seated, the voters of Florida were essentially lied to, the voters relied on that lie when they did not show up at the polls and will be severely damaged as a result. Last I heard we are suppose to trust that our government will not punish us for listening to the rules and making decisions based on such rules. Howard Dean said yesterday that the rules will not be changed in the middle of the game. The DNC Chairman went on to say that to change the rules in the middle of the game would not be fair to either candidate. Further, Dean said that the candidates agreed to or were aware of the rules with respect to Michigan and Florida before each of them began their run for the presidency. Dean concluded by saying that if Michigan and Florida wants to be seated at the convention in Denver, both states will have to work within the rules that were in place at the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. What that means is that the states will either have to host another primary or appeal to the credentials committee at the Denver Convention. Dean also said that there is no way that Florida and Michigan can break the rules and then be rewarded by being given the power to decide this election. I agree. All the other states were aware of the rules and worked within them. The official statement from DNC Chairman Howard Dean went as follows:
The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention [another primary or caucus]; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game. “Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the twelve states and territories who have yet to have their say.
Most are estimating that the cost of hosting another primary will be $25 million dollars for each state. The Florida and Michigan governors are pushing for the DNC to pay for new primaries. So the republican governor, and John McCain supporter, Bill Crist would like the DNC to go into it’s war chest for the general election and fix a problem that such governor and the republican controlled legislature created. I am quite sure that the Republican Party of Florida is an a back room chuckling hysterically at the pickle that they have put the democratic party in. Whatever money the democratic party throws at the Florida and Michigan situation is money that cannot be used in the general election race against John McCain. Because Florida and Michigan violated the rules, each state should be financially responsible for for hosting a re-do in its respective states. I am sure that all the voters who have donated funds to the DNC from all over the “United States” are not interested in encouraging the temper-tantrum bad behavior of Michigan and Florida by financing a do-over.
Howard Dean, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is very upset with John McCain. Apparently, when the McCain campaign was not doing very well back in December, McCain was strapped for cash and applied for federal matching funds using the promise of Public Financing as collateral for the loan. Public financing is funded by taxpayers checking the box on their tax returns indicating that they would like to donate to the Federal Election Commission. Candidates opting into the public finance system are also subject to public finance regulations. Public finance regulations set spending limits for candidates in primaries and the general election. In primaries, the cap is set at $54 million. McCain has already spent $49 million on his campaign. Therefore, if he were to abide by the election laws, that McCain is responsible for reforming, the Arizona Senator will only have $5 million left to spend in this primary season ending in September. Because McCain does not want to be limited by the spending cap, he has formally requested a withdrawal from the program. McCain’s lawyer argues that McCain is allowed to opt out of the program because it is voluntary. FEC lawyers announced on Thursday that it may not be possible for McCain to withdraw at this point because he used the promise of federal matching funds to secure the bank loan. Okay, didn’t McCain attempt to slam Obama for not responding, and according to McCain breaking his word, regarding a pledge Obama signed last year regarding public campaign financing. Even though the actual wording of the pledge is to “aggressively pursue an agreement” with the GOP to preserve a publicly financed election. Last I checked, an agreement to “agressively pursue” agreement, does not mean actual agreement. Participating in the public finance system caps each candidates spend in the general election to $85 million and neither candidate cannot accept additional funds. But I digress. Looks like Mr. McCain should be in fact, Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle. Currently four of the six member seats of the Federal Election Commission are vacant so no decision can be made on this issue until the FEC has quorum. Gridlock between the Bush administration and the Senate is stalling the nominations for these posts. The reason this is such an issue is because McCain has built his reputation, after the Keating Five scandal (five Senators, including McCain, accused of Savings and Loan corruption in 1989), on being a reformer and the champion of campaign finance reform.
By any means necessary is how Hillary Clinton plans to win the democratic nomination. So let me get this right…even though the voters have gone out to the polls and made their choices as to who they want as President, Hillary Clinton plans to override their will through backroom dealing at the Democratic Convention. It appears as if Clinton believes that she is entitled to the presidency regardless of what the American voters have to say about it. What is going on? First, she tries to seat the phantom delegates of Michigan and Florida in an attempt to override the will of the voters. Now she attempts another, deemed by some as “subversive,” tactic to secure the nomination. Does Clinton actually have a campaign strategy to thwart the will of the american people and disenfranchise millions of voters? Below is an article from Politico where the Clinton campaign confirms its strategy.
Clinton targets pledged delegates POLITICO
By: Roger Simon
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination. This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides. What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right? Wrong. Read the rest of this entry »
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General, agrees with Obama’s decision to talk to nations that are not our friends. Powell surmised that it is a step towards restoring favorable relations with foreign states. Regarding speaking with Iran, the General affirmed Obama’s position by stating that he would also engage in talks with Iran. He continued to say that we have to speak to foreign nations of which we have significant disagreements in order to move forward and begin to get out of the situation that we have been in since the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. Powell went on to say that this must be done without imposing impossible preconditions on such conversations. Having someone of General Powell’s stature, with the resume and experience to match, corroborating Obama’s judgment on foreign policy, calls into question some of the criticisms that have been waged against the Senator. General Powell also shedded light on how he will vote in November. The former Secretary of State said that he is keeping his options open but did emphasize that he will vote for the candidate who will do the best job for America, whether the candidate be republican or democrat. The General further stated that he will vote for the person who has a vision that reaches out to the rest of the world and begins to restore favorable ratings to America. Concluding his interview, the former Chairman said that the candidate who is most competent and represents the vision and goodness of ALL of America will get his vote.
What an exciting race? I have never experienced such an adrenalin rush from a political campaign. As an outsider looking in, the democratic race is like being at the horse races at the final stretch. Even with all the exciting contests, debates, and back and forth between the two candidates, I find myself wondering…is all this for naught? Are we going to wake up one day before the convention and hear that, despite all our efforts and all the newly generated excitement, the Democratic Party establishment has decided the nominee for us? Are we going to hear that some backroom deal was brokered in the middle of the night by Washington insiders? Please say it isn’t so. Now that you have our keen interest, awakened our spirit, motivated us toward change, inspired us to be more politically involved than any electorate in history, I hope that you do not now steal our spirit by meeting behind closed doors in a smoke filled room to make a decision that will affect the American people for decades, and maybe centuries to come. If such an outcome were to occur, I believe that there would be a backlash toward the election system and the democratic party of epic proportions. The last thing that we need as voters is to feel that going out to polls and casting our vote does not really matter. Many people felt this way after the Bush-Gore election. To have this confirmed inside the Democratic party would be completely demoralizing for the “electorate.” The idea that a few people within the Democratic Party have the power to override the will of the general population seems contrary to what the Democratic Party stands for. Not to mention, pompous and arrogant. The whole Superdelegates system does not necessarily instill in voters the confidence that our will will prevail in the end. The archaic system was developed at a time when the electorate did not have the technology and improved communication available to us today. Because of such improvements, we are much more informed about the issues facing our country and our everyday lives. The Superdelegates idea is based on the erroneous premise that politicians have better judgment than their constituents as to who should be our President. But don’t we elect the politicians? Well, it’s a new day, and voters of the 2008 election are more informed about the issues affecting their political decisions than voters have been in the last thirty years. So I ask…..is such a system needed in this incredibly technologically advanced climate? I think not. I suggest that after the 2008 election the antiquated system be scrapped. As for this election, my suggestion is that you make some process decisions as to how the worst case scenario can be resolved and you make them quick. Read the rest of this entry »
Many of the same arguments being leveled against Obama’s candidacy were made against JFK by the democratic party establisment during Kennedy’s run for president in 1960. The experience argument, the national security argument, all of same arguments were used during the Kennedy-Johnson primaries of 1960. Kennedy was dubbed too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the Presidency. Kennedy was asked by Truman to “be patient” until he had more seasoning. Kennedy responded with winning the nomination and then the Presidency in November of 1960. Just like in 1960, the democratic party is resisting change with tooth and nail. Unfortunately, for those political veterans who have been in Washington for too many years, change is coming. Those who expect the usual rules of old school politics to dictate the outcome of this election will be sorely disappointed. Just as most voters must have felt on November 7, 1960…..it is a new day in Washington.
In the Democratic party you have delegates (the popular vote of the State), and then you have Super Delegates who are allotted a heaping portion of delegates and are Democratic party leaders (members of Congress, democratic governors, and elected members of the Democratic National Committee). Super Delegates can vote for whomever they choose and are not beholding to the popular vote of his or her state. The total number of Super Delegates in the Democratic Party is 796 and make up about 20 percent of the entire convention. On Feb 5th , several states delegates will be up for grabs. For the Republicans, 975 delegates are at stake, and for the Democrats, 1681 delegates are at stake. The Democratic National Committee awards delegates on a proportional basis, which means that all of the candidates will pick up delegates if they clear the 15% viability threshold. The Republicans have a combination of proportional and winner-take-all system. In winner-take-all, if a candidate wins by just one vote he receives all the delegates for that state. There are 22 Super Tuesday states for the Democrats and 21 for the Republicans. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of all its delegates because the Sunshine state moved up its primaries in violation of DNC rules.
