Florida Special Election points out something the Press seems to be missing.

As I thought about Florida Rep. <a href="http://underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/a-quote-for-the-day-2/">Ted Deutch's quote</a> in my previous post this morning, I also recalled a discussion I head either on Olbermann or Rachel Maddow last night ( I really wasn't looking at who was talking, but was lying flat on my back after taking a pain killer for my cracked ribs) in which a Republican said he was really in agreement on the nuclear decisions that the President had come to, but in terms of voting for the  treaty with the Russians he would probably have to vote NO. The reason? Because the Party Leaders are insistent on not supporting anything the President does prior to the November elections.

The goal is, still, to make the current Administration a failure.

There's more...

Florida Special Election points out something the Press seems to be missing.

As I thought about Florida Rep. <a href="http://underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/a-quote-for-the-day-2/">Ted Deutch's quote</a> in my previous post this morning, I also recalled a discussion I head either on Olbermann or Rachel Maddow last night ( I really wasn't looking at who was talking, but was lying flat on my back after taking a pain killer for my cracked ribs) in which a Republican said he was really in agreement on the nuclear decisions that the President had come to, but in terms of voting for the  treaty with the Russians he would probably have to vote NO. The reason? Because the Party Leaders are insistent on not supporting anything the President does prior to the November elections.

The goal is, still, to make the current Administration a failure.

There's more...

How Political Scandals Can Distort Reality

In a heated campaign, political scandals can make or break a candidacy. They often cast a shade of suspicion upon a candidate’s activities, with the connotation of wrongdoing or the unethical. Often implicit is the assumption that if only said candidate had done things slightly differently, all this need not happened.

Take Kirsten Gillibrand, the current hard-working Senator from New York. Before entering politics, Ms. Gillibrand used to work as a hard-charging lawyer. Upon being appointed senator, she was criticized for representing tobacco firms during her job as a lawyer.  A New York Times editorial, for instance, skillfully argued that:

She tries to play down her role and suggests that she had no choice. In truth, she had plenty of choice.

Her law firm allowed lawyers to decline work on tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection. It wasn’t simply a matter of working “for the clients that were assigned to her,” as an aide explained. Tobacco duty was optional. She opted in. Others did not.

The editorial goes on to detail the numerous ways in which Ms. Gillibrand “worked closely with company executives.” It is a persuasive argument, a classical political scandal. Why didn’t Ms. Gillibrand just refuse to take the case?

Such was the recent topic at the political website swingstateproject, with several users discussing Ms. Gillibrand’s tobacco connections. One individual posed the same concern as the Times: Ms. Gillibrand should have just refused the case. Then an actual Washington lawyer stepped in:

Well, what the firm “clearly states” might be bullshit……

I’m a lawyer in D.C., and while I’ve never worked in a firm I know a lot of people, including my wife, who do or have worked as attorneys in firms.  A lot of written policy is just bullshit.  Money talks, and money rules.A large law firm often gives its attorneys 4 weeks of paid vacation per year.  Do you know what you call a lawyer who actually uses it?  FIRED.

If you’re a woman, forget about ever suing for sexual harassment, you’ll just be blackballed.

So regarding a policy allowing the right to refuse a particular case, in real life turning a case down can be a career-ender.

This post provides an outline of the context that too often is missing from a political scandal. At first glance, it was entirely possible for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to voluntarily avoid representing tobacco companies. But “in truth,” as the New York Times might say, the unwritten rules that defined her workplace prohibited it. Reality is often quite different from the world inhabited by the Washington Beltway.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

 

Why the race is close: Hillary Clinton

There are several reasons why the race is still close between Barack Obama and John McCain:

1. John McCain is slightly better than a generic Republican. He can credibly claim to have broken with his party a couple of times.

2. John McCain has a better bio than most generic Republicans.

3. Power-crazy Hillary Clinton smeared Barack Obama for months on end during the Democratic primary. She and her husband racebaited him and convinced many voters that he was a corrupt lying scumbag.

There's more...

Dear

Dear Jerome,

I understand, Hillary has lost and it is hard to deal with. I remember in 2004 how distraught I was when John Edwards wasn't going to be the nominee but after a  couple of weeks I moved on and made sure that the nominee, John Kerry had my full support. With that said, what is your problem? No seriously what is going on with you?

Let me bring you up to speed with reality.

You claim that Hillary will win the popular vote at the end of the season. I'm sorry Jerome that is just not correct. Maybe you forgot about all those caucus states that don't keep a record of the popular vote.  If those were primaries, Obama would be ahead by over a million votes as Hillary had no plans after Super Tuesday.  Currently, he is ahead by 800K votes and when states finish counting provisional ballots like Ohio did in which he closed the gap by 2%, he will increase his popular vote lead.  There is still a chance that he might actually win Indiana as Hillary currently leads by less than 1%. I would also invite you to start reading El Nuevo Dia which is the prominent Puerto Rican newspaper and things aren't looking so good for Hillary in Puerto Rico.  Puerto Ricans don't like losers and won't vote for them no matter what you tell them.  

As for your dubious popular vote argument.  Wait, don't the Democrats select nominees based on delegates? Of course they do and they always have.  No, the popular vote will not be a valid metric because you will end up disenfranchising those in caucus states.  I know that disenfranchising voters is alright in caucus states but not MI and FL. You are entitled to your opinion but it is not based on any facts.

Finally, I think your main argument that Hillary would be more electable is because of the states that she would carry.  Did you not notice that her map to victory is the exact same map that Democrats have used in the last two cycles?  Please keep in mind that she would have to hold onto all of the Kerry states and win Ohio and/or Florida. The problem with that is she is polling weak  in WA, OR, MI,MN  which are states that we also need. Furthermore, should she become the nominee, she won't win because you need African-Americans to come out in droves which they won't. If you don't believe me take a look at recent polling form Rasmussen and Bloomberg.  On the other hand,  Obama is very strong in those states as well as other western states and Virginia is very much in play. I know you are going to say that it's the south and the south isn't ready for a black president even though they had a black governor but that's not the point. The point is that you are doing a severe disservice to your readers when you let your own blind hatred for Obama cloud your reasonable judgment.  

It's time Jerome to come back down to earth. It's okay to mourn Hillary's loss but there is no reason for you to spew hatred towards the democratic nominee. If you need a shoulder to cry on, just ask.

Signed,

Sweet Potato Pie

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads