The case against Obama-Mccain town hall debates

While, as all of you know, I was a fervent Hillary Clinton supporter during this campaign. However, if Obama's gonna be the nominee, he's gonna be the nominee. I believe John Mccain is trying to get free media time by throwing out the idea of these debates. It sounds really nice, like a true "new style of politics." However, it is a trap. It is an attempt to get free media and air time. It is a substitute for campaigning, which the soon to be 72 year old is not terrible good at or up to. Obama should not take the debates. We should make McCain attempt to move his old self around the country, because it will be harder for him to do so. He would get more publicity than all commercials and ads combined. Also, Obama needs to perfect his debate skills. We all saw in the Obama-Clinton debates, she commanded the issues, Obama stuttered. taking McCain's offer would be a fatal mistake. He already made a good decision by going back on his initial offer, now not accepting public funds leaving McCain in the money dust. He MUST keep McCain in the debate dust. I strongly urge him against doing these debates. Goldwater wanted to do this with Kennedy for the same reason: because it would have enhanced his chances of winning. Kennedy agreed because re-election would have been tough for him in 1964 because of the Civil Rights issue. LBJ didn't have the problem because of the mourning of JFK.

There's more...

Obama's Debt to Harold Ickes

On the Huffington Post, an interesting article was posted about Harold Ickes role is getting blacks seated at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. he then helped organize the Harold Hughes Commission which gave way to seating delegates in a way which opened up the process by mandating proportional inclusion of previously excluded constituencies African Americans, voters under 30, and women.

Barack Obama stands on the brink of capturing the presidential nomination in large part because of Democratic Party reforms initiated by the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s -- movements in which Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Harold Ickes, was a key player.

When Obama was barely three, Ickes took part in Mississippi Freedom Summer, helping the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party send a primarily black delegation to the 1964 national convention in Atlantic City.

After the Freedom Democratic delegation was denied seating by the virtually all white male Democratic Party establishment, Ickes -- then 24 -- went on to help organize the party's reformist Harold Hughes Commission, the precursor to the McGovern Commission.

The anger against entrenched power of the old-line Democratic Party intensified, and by 1968, young civil rights, women's rights, and anti-war activists were beaten in the streets of Chicago outside the convention hall, and the protests of dissidents were gaveled down by party bosses on the convention floor. The outrage gave birth to the Democratic Party's Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, aka the McGovern Commission.

Writing in the January 1970 issue of Harper's about the '68 convention, McGovern described the "tumultuous floor debate, bloodshed and tear gas in the streets...it also evokes the image of rigged procedures, a political party assembled to reach predetermined decisions. The convention became the shame of the Democratic Party."

Coming out of the turmoil of the sixties, the 1972 McGovern rules, as they came to be known, radically altered the way Democrats pick their presidential nominees, opening up the political process by mandating proportional inclusion of previously excluded constituencies -- African Americans, voters under 30, and women.

All of the reforms adopted then, and modified over the years, have been in play this year, including the expanded role in party proceedings of blacks, women, and the young; the required use of proportional representation; and superdelegates.

I wish Obama's people could be grateful, and not have demanded to get delegates which were not theirs.

There's more...

Bill Clinton fights back against Vanity Fair Smear Piece

So in the latest issue of Vanity Fair, Todd Purdum wrote an article smearing Bill with Burkle innuendo, accusing Bill of being like Lee Atwater racist, and worst of all, peddling fresh new allegations of philandering. The picture used is absolutely disrespectful to have such an unflattering picture. Bill's office has responded but this is still pretty wrong. Vanity Fair back in November had another hit piece by Sally Bedell Smith, author of a bs hitbook on the Clintons and is now attempting to smear Senator Clinton's husband, who along with Senator Clinton, fought hard to make millions of Democrats voices heard, and there is still an off chance of her being the nominee, tho not to big. Either way, this is wrong and unacceptable. whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee, smearing our 42nd President is wrong. We should write letters to their editors at least. They need to stop smearing the Clintons all the time. Half of the party voted for Hillary.

There's more...

Call on RealClearPolitics to Get the Popular Vote right: MICHIGAN COUNTS!

Right now, we all know, that when you count every state that voted, and thus EVERY VOTE, Hillary Clinton has the highest number of popular vote. Barack Obama CHOSE to remove his name from Michigan's ballot, and has now been given delegates that are not his. But right now, a talking point on the Daily Kos and HuffPo, even some here, is that RealClearPolitics has Barack Obama leading in the popular vote. People are able to debunk that myth only if they click on the link and THEN it shows them that with every state that voted, which includes Michigan and Florida, Clinton leads. But RealClearPolitics is misleading by not using that count on the front page. Email feedback@realclearpolitics.com to tell them to stop smearing and lying about the Clintons. She has the most popular votes, not Barack Obama. We MUST not let the talking point that he has more because RCP has it on the front get around, because their count disenfranchises voters. COUNT EVERY VOTE, INCLUDING MICHIGANS! Hillary leads the popular vote.

remember email feedback@realclearpolitics.com to get them to tell the TRUTH.

There's more...

DNC Votes to Disenfranchise Half of Florida and Michigan voters

The Democrat (no longer worthy of Democratic) Committee just voted to count votes as half votes. What will Hillary do? I'm thinking we take it alll the way to the Convention!

There's more...

Jesse Ventura may enter Minnesota Senate Race

I was just watching Larry King, and he said that he may just get his name on the ballot for the Franken v. Coleman race. Seeing Franken's current problems and lag in the polls, Ventura may be a good candidate. he'll decide in July he says. Whats your thoughts? he'd also be independent minded, in that he won't owe the two parties, and the new rush of Senate independents may be good.

There's more...

Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable

So we know the nominating process is almost over, and Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee. There is a 90% chance it will be Barack Obama as the nominee this year. He may win this election, because not only do the current issues favor him, the issues which were once used to demean black people like him, and galvanize white support for the Republican party, like crime, welfare, and the death penalty have been neutralized and taken off the discourse table on the national political scale. The Democratic Party is now trusted on economics, after having its economic legacy near destroyed by Jimmy Carter, and while even tho the Bush economics are really bad, the American people are more likely to trust us not just because we can complain about Bush, but OUR party has had a President to show what good economics, like balancing the budget and keeping the dollar strong look like.

Peter Beinart wrote a great piece in Time which says what needs to be said:

...As it shows Clintonism the door, however, Obama Nation should remember something: without that pair from Arkansas, it wouldn't be here. The 1990s weren't always pretty, but for Democrats, they were deeply necessary. Because Bill Clinton threw his body into the line, wrecking the Republican Party's intricate defenses, Obama today has the political room to run.

For starters, Clinton deracialized American politics. He didn't deracialize it completely, of course. But knitting together a coalition of blacks and whites is easier today because Clinton restored the Democrats' credibility on economic issues and took three of the most racially toxic issues in U.S. politics--crime, welfare and affirmative action--off the table.

When Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988, crime was perhaps the biggest issue in the campaign. It splintered his coalition, pitting blacks who saw the death penalty as racially unfair against blue-collar whites who demanded a hard line against crime and too often associated that crime with blacks. Today, by contrast, roughly 1% of Americans say crime is their top issue, and no one even knows what Obama's position on the death penalty is. For Obama, that's an enormous boon, and Bill Clinton deserves a lot of the credit. His policies--especially his bold proposal for 100,000 new cops--helped bring down the crime rate. And by embracing the death penalty, he eliminated one of the GOP's best wedge issues. That embrace was ugly at times, as when Clinton flew back to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded man. But it was politically shrewd. And because Clinton did it then, Obama doesn't have to now.

Clinton also removed the word welfare from America's political lexicon. In the mid-1980s, when pollsters conducted focus groups with Reagan Democrats, they found that when they talked about government help for the needy, voters saw it as welfare: taking money from whites to give to undeserving blacks. That attitude was hugely unfair, but it was a political reality. Clinton changed that when he reformed welfare in 1996. By making it brutally clear that people who didn't work wouldn't get much help from Washington, he made it harder for Republicans to tag Democratic antipoverty programs as handouts to "welfare queens."

...The Clinton presidency restored the Democratic Party's reputation for economic management, which Jimmy Carter had nearly destroyed. By almost 20 points, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans today trust Democrats over Republicans to guide the economy--a huge boon to Obama in what looks like a recession election. Obama owes much of that advantage to George W. Bush, of course. But he owes some of it to Clintonism too.

If Clinton had been more principled, if he had been less of a panderer, if he had tried to be purer than his political opponents--if, in other words, he had been more like Obama--he might have opposed the death penalty, vetoed welfare reform and unambiguously defended affirmative action. He might also have gone with his liberal base, not Wall Street, and chosen economic stimulus over deficit reduction in 1993. And had he done those things, Barack Obama would probably not be in a commanding position to become the next President of the U.S. So as they bid Clintonism goodbye, Obama fans should show a little gratitude. If Bill weren't the person they revile, Barack couldn't be the person they love.

I hope you Obama supporters remember that. For all of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's faults, they restored our party's credibility that Carter destroyed, and neutralized the racebaiting issues like crime, welfare, and death penalty the GOP once was able to use. Those issues are no longer used against Democrats, which is why they fight now for elections, and had to steal an election in 2000 even after a bogus scandal, losing the popular vote. They only barely beat us in 2004 because Kerry didn't do what Clinton told him to do on gay marriage: triangulate, and he also ran a horrendous campaign. Yes, the third way was very necessary to getting elected in 1992 so we could take the GOP issues away and end the era of Republican landslide elections, because this is politics, and sometimes, one cannot stick to principle and win. We didn't need a repeat of 1988, with Willie Horton and being soft on crime. People voted for Bill because they didn't want Bush back, but didn't want another Jimmy Carter either. Triangulation was VERY necessary as it helped to ensure for future elections, and give Bill Clinton a commanding victory against Bob Dope. This is why no matter who you supported in this primary, we MUST honor the Clinton's political greatness.

PS: don't use the Perot myth, exit polls show the pro-abortion pro-gays anti-Nafta candidate took equally in both '92 and '96. And being moderate is not why we lost in 1994, those were congressional scandals, and the GOP only kept Congress past 2002 because of 9/11. Dems got back seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000, a record.

There's more...

Hillary should challenge President Obama in 2012 for the Nomination!

So Barack Obama is probably going to be the Democratic Nominee, and he's got a decent shot of winning this election, if he gets past just his McGovern coalition and actually can get the Latinos and enough whites to come on board, but the fact is, he still will have only 4 years of real experience going into the Oval Office, as did Jimmy Carter as 4 years as Gov. in Georgia, and Bush with his 6 years of experience going into the White House. Both Carter and Bush failed as Presidents, in part because they did not have enough government experience, elected or unelected, to navigate world and domestic issues, economic or defensewise. He is also facing though world crises and a rough economic situation, and there is a chance he could succeed and be great, or a chance he could squander the opportunity and flop on his face as did Jimmy Carter.

As has happened in the past with disasterous Presidents, primary challenges occur when unpopular Presidents run for re-election. This happened with Gerald Ford, when Ronald Reagan almost snatched the nomination away on the 1976 Convention floor, Jimmy Carter found himself challenged by Ted Kennedy all the way up to the Convention in 1980, and George Bush I found himself nudged all the way to the far right in 1992 by Pat Buchanan's primary challenge. If Barack Obama's presidency ends up like Jimmy Carter's, a primary challenge could happen. If Obama is in that kind of harsh political environment which brings on an challenge, it will mean that his aura of honesty no longer means anything, he will no longer be an outsider, and his presidency will be his baggage. These are all opposite what got him the nomination this year. If such a situation occurs, someone can mount a primary challenge on legitimate grounds.

I believe that person can be Hillary Rodham Clinton. She can further tout her experience of which she will have more in 2012, and voters will like her tough talk, and she and Bill will still have a base of working class voters in 2012. These will help to make her case in 2012 of contrast, and "I told you so, and he's dead in November anyway." Obama's halo of honesty, and outsiderness will be gone in 2012 by definition if he is President, and such a presidential disaster will hurt his base, who can go to Hillary. The reason I believe she can actually pull this off in the way Ted Kennedy and Reagan cannot, is that unlike Ted Kennedy, she hasn't driven anyone off a bridge, and the head of her machine is still alive. Unlike Reagan, she will be more established as a party leader in 2012 as Reagan was in 1976. Reagan did make a great run, and came very close. Kennedy may have won if not for Chappaquiddick. Both came close in the popular vote for a primary challenge to an incumbent, and Reagan came 117 delegates away. A Chappaquiddick-less Kennedy may have beaten Reagan in 1980, by contrasting the malaise of the '70s with the Camelot Kennedy years of the early '60s, and a Reagan may have been a better, more articulate and Nixon-free match for Carter in 1976, given how close Ford came to winning, 36000 votes in OH and WI, and 2% popular vote nationally. So if Obama is looking weak for re-election, I believe there is one candidate who should run then, and it should be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama will no longer be the new outsider with no baggage that beat Clinton in 2008. Hillary will still have Clintonista machine around the country to help, and she will be able to contrast a the "Bush-Obama years of malaise" to the Clinton years, if the situation is that bad. She and Bill have the political skill to perhaps pull of a nomination upset for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and she could perhaps win such a general election. So THAT is why if Obama's Jimmy Carter-like experience should fail him his first time, I will support HILLARY CLINTON in 2012!

There's more...

How the Media Gave Barack Obama the Nomination

So now, we've come through 5 months of primary season, and it looks like Barack Obama may be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Well, while this his been a dirty campaign, there has been nothing as disgusting as the coverage the media has given Hillary, and the free pass Barack Obama got on everything. Hillary, a knowledgeable first lady who has been in politics for over 30 years lost to a Senator who has a mere 3 years in the senate, and a few more as another brick-in-the-wall state senator. We didn't come to this be sheer luck.

We came to this, starting in the early '90's, when anything Clinton or anyone related to them was witch hunted, second guessed, and trashed by the media. They covered a land deal of no consequence, Whitewater, they stewed up bullshit, like Hillary killing Ron Brown and Vince Foster, they covered a personal affair which Bill had every right to have in private, and they tore apart his vice President in the 2000 campaign, doing to him during the recount exactly what they are doing to Hillary: even tho the count is not over yet, they are calling for her to "get out for the good of the party" as they did with Gore and "the country" even tho there is no nominee yet who has gotten the magic number. We could go on an on about the '90's, but lets fast forward.

So comes campaign 2008. The media already has an obvious opinion on Hillary, and many know her as such. We have a media in which commentators get air time to express opinion, often devoid of other perspective and full of bias. For example, we can start with how everything Hillary does is "calculating" and "dishonest," about how anything she does is always second guessed. They call her "polarizing," and thus she becomes it, as many bloggers parrot the line as an excuse not to vote for her. They allow Obama a free pass on having no experience, and let him play the race card, and then blame Hillary and always say "is Hillary injecting race?" but don't question Jesse Jackson Jr's "Hillary didn't cry for black people in Katrina" or Michelle's "blacks will come to their senses" and claim Bill is hurting Hillary, even tho he draws huge crowds everywhere he goes, and gets the small town and rural voters, the swing voters in the elections out. They pump up every endorsement he gets, and barely mention the ones Hillary has.

Then, we have the stooges themselves. On CNN, Candy Crowley and Jack Cafferty shit all over Hillary in every Cafferty File question, and pump up Barack Hussein Obama, showing the only pro-Obama letters on the show. Then comes the commentators always on the show, the same old Jammal Simmons and Roland Martin, people who are obviously biased for Obama. Then, we have MSNBC. Chris Matthews has hated the Clintons for years irrationally, and gets "a chill up his leg" when in the room with him. Obama is a politician. Why is he so great, but he never shows the honour he should to President Bill and Hillary Clinton? You also had Tucker Carlson for a while, and he showed no mercy to Hillary too. It was always about how much "integrity" he thought Obama had, and how inspirational he was. Couple that with Keith Olbermann, who I used to like, now an Obama shill, always calling Hillary racist or using the term race card, (which means people who complain about oppression because they are a minority, AKA OJ Simpson saying he was framed because he was a rich black celebrity)and talking about how honest and imspirational Barack Obama is. Lest us forget David Schuster's "pimp out" comment, which clearly was meant as a sexist epithet. I am a white male, and I found that comment wrong. Of course, there is Fox News, and I won't go there, because trashing Democrats is their job. The whole media just took Hillary's comments out of complete context to cast it as racist, even tho Dems lose because they get blown out with whites, a path Obama looks to be on for November, as he loses whites in the primary states we can actually get in November. I am sorry, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming don't mean shit.

With Obama, its always about how he wins these states, that Dems will never win, but how "the world will look at us better" if he gets elected, as if anyone else cares about what race our President is. They talk of him as the new John Kennedy, even tho John Kennedy had experience. With the Wright controversy, which I'm surprised they even mentioned, they then trump out the picture with Bill, and allow the Obamalites to trump it, even tho it means nothing. They talked about Obama's so awesome speech on race, in which he throws his grandmother under the bus, calling her a "typical white person," but they don't cover that as much as they cover Hillary wanting to actually show well among "white Americans" even tho that comment demeans no one. The media has made Obama a saint, as continued its pile on of the Clintons they have been doing for the last 20 years, calling them racists because they dare to run in a race with a black man as an opponent. They blew her sniper comments out of such proportion, even tho she mispoke. They act like she's not as honest as Obama, but don't question if Obama really never heard Wright's racist rants, exposing his kids to such. They called for Hillary to drop out after Iowa. Then they're saying she should leave after New Hampshire, which she won. Then, after Rush announced Chaos, whose real effects were only to drive to liberal wing to do the opposite of Rush and vote Obama, now, they are crediting her win, her WIN in Indiana to Rush Limbaugh. Now, its "is Hillary ruining the party?"

Why did the media have to pick our nominee for us? Why do they have to continue to hate the Clintons, even tho they never did anything to them? Why did they cheerlead one candidate, and continually heckle the other one? They handed Obama this nomination, and we should never forget it.

There's more...

Rush Limbaugh Endorses Barack Obama

For so long, we've been hearing about "Operation Chaos" where Limbaugh told listeners to vote Hillary to create "chaos." Well, some believed he genuinely thought Hillary would be easier to beat, but others thought he was trying to trick many in the party into going for Obama, thinking them defying Limbaugh would give us the better candidate, as it would put him over the top, making the weaker candidate the nominee. This now comes true. Rush Limbaugh, today, came out and endorsed Barack Obama http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/05/07/limbaugh-comes-out-for-obama/

"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat supereldegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win - blue-collar, working class people," Limbaugh also said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

For months, Limbaugh has urged his listeners in states with open primaries to cross party lines and support Clinton in an effort he has dubbed "Operation Chaos." The conservative talk show host has said the Republican Party will benefit from a protracted Democratic race that grows more bruising by the week.

It remains unclear how much influence Limbaugh has actually wielded. The Obama campaign estimates 7 percent of Clinton's vote in Indiana could be attributed to cross-over Republicans. According to Indiana exit polls, Clinton did win the Republican vote by 8 percentage points, but those voters only made up 10 percent of the electorate.

Obama supporter John Kerry credited Clinton's win entirely to Limbaugh.

"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary," he said on an conference call with reporters. "If it was not for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, [Obama] would have won."

But CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider disagrees.

"There is a slightly measurable Rush Limbaugh effect but it is not the reason she won Indiana," he said. "She dominated the Democratic vote, and two-thirds of the voters were Democratic."

Self-identified Republicans voting in previous Democratic primaries have been more evenly split between Clinton and Obama. In Ohio, they broke 49 percent to 49 percent, and in Texas Obama won the Republican vote by 7 points.

I KNEW IT!! We've been hoodwinked, and that Limbaugh got much of the party in the ass. Not to mention, John Kerry once again proves his idiocy.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads