The Case For Hillary
Posted April 7th, 2008 by Da King
Hey ! Da King had that same haircut and beard in 1973 ! (as Bill, not Hillary). Ah, the sixties and seventies, who can remember forget 'em.
—
The endless media prattle about whether Hillary Clinton should drop out of the presidential race has become a steady irritant to me (the media spends so much time talking about so very little), so I apologize now, because I'm about to jump in that same pool.
What spurred me was an article from salon.com called 'If The System Made Sense, Clinton Would Be Far Ahead.' I nearly avoided reading the article, since I didn't believe it could possibly be persuasive, and like I said, I'm tiring of the endless repetitive drone emanating from the talking heads on this subject. Upon reading the piece, however, I changed my mind. It was persuasive, actually compelling.
On all fronts, the Democratic primary has been about the most undemocratic exercise in cynicism and stupidity I've ever had the displeasure to witness. I have already discussed some of that previously here, but there is much more I left out.
First of all, if the Democrats ran their primary they way the country runs the general election, Hillary WOULD be far ahead:
"If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention."
Obama supporters may cry, 'yes, but Obama has the lead in the popular vote as well !'. True, but if Michigan and Florida were added to the mix instead of being disenfranchised, the popular vote AND the delegate count would be up for grabs, even under the current distorted funhouse mirror of Democrat primary rules:
"Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far — a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point — and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee."
Worse yet, Obama, who attempts to pass himself off as a new kind of politican - post-partisan, hope inspiring, and a unifying influence, has steadfastly resisted enfranchising those disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan. This makes Obama less a new kind of politican, and more the old kind, as in Chicago mob boss politics. His attitude is strictly self-serving, the voters and democracy be damned:
"The Obama camp's reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama's supporters conducted a stealth "uncommitted" campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. This leaves open the option of holding new primaries in both states. National and state party officials have announced that such revotes could be conducted."
"…the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)"
There's your Obama hope and change, folks. What Obama has exhibited is the same thing so many politicians exhibit, the lust for power above all else, and that sure ain't new or different.
The Democratic primaries are SO screwed up that Obama has actually received more delegates in some states he LOST to Hillary Clinton:
"In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada — presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state's delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn't Obama cede the majority of the state's delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he's entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important — because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him."
Most of the states Obama has won in the Democratic primaries are red states, meaning they are states Republicans won in 2004. Republicans are likely to carry most of them again in 2008. Hillary has won the big key swing states in the primaries. The only big swing state Obama won was his home state of Illinois. This does give Hillary a legitimate reason to claim she is the more electable candidate in the general election:
"Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — and McCain would beat Obama."
Here's salon.com's final thought:
"In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is — not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics."
Hard to disagree with that when all the evidence is weighed.
Hillary may not become the nominee, but what ultimately stops her might not be Barack Obama so much as the bizarre nature of the game the Democrats have rigged up.
They say this is the Dems year. If so, I hope they govern better than they select a nominee, but it sure doesn't look good so far.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Yes, there are enthusiastic supporters of both Hillary and Obama who are saying a lot of things.
Rules are rules.
IF every one of my greying hairs were each worth a thousand dollars I could retire to the Caribbean….but sadly, they're not.
Nothing in any of your linked author's screed has anything to do with empirical reality. The facts are that Michigan and Florida both violated prior agreed-upon primary rules. Hillary said herself, "I know these primaries don't count". Hillary signed off on these rules.
The Democratic primary rules ARE NOT winner take all rules. All Democratic candidates were well aware of all this from before the beginning of the process.
The primary caucuses were not some new-fangled last minute scheme conjured up…..they've been part of the democratic process for a long time.
The red state, blue state fantasy falsely assumes that blue states like California, because Hillary won there, will somehow vote for McCain if Obama is the candidate.
Poppycock.
Obama is playing by the rules. Rules that he had nothing to do with making. Somehow, in your mind, and in the mind of your Salon writer, that is all unfair. Somehow, playing by the rules makes Obama into just another corrupt politician.
Up is down.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
King writes, " … Obama, who attempts to pass himself off as a new kind of politican - post-partisan,"
Yes, B. Hussein Obama, the one with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate in the last year or so, the man who has NEVER been involved in an significant non-partisian effort in his life, is trying to pass himself off as "post-partisan." Only a fool could believe that.
BHO is the same hypocrite who claims also to be "post-racial" yet he is a 20-year member in good standing in the Rev. Wright church of hate and anti-white bigotry.
[And you thought the Bill & Hillary Clinton were the ultimate huckesters. Ha!]
But here is what B. Hussein Obama really is. He's post-American [Insight from John O'Sullivan, writing in the NR a month ago.]
Just look at BO's record and listen carefully to him. He owes his alligence more to Third World solidarity and sordid organizations like the United Nations than he does to this great, God-blessed Republic of the united States of America.
This man will never be elected president of the U.S. The country is not that screwed up yet.
But give the devil his due; BO is doing the nation one great service. It looks like he's ending the presidential ambition of that loathsome Hillary Clinton — at least for this election cycle — and for that we can all be thankful.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Many good points here, King. It's kind of funny how these liberals always want to change the rules, in order to alter their game.
We've heard the same arguement 100 times about doing away with the electoral college and going to a popular vote system. Consistent with the super-delegate theory, the electoral college acts as a safeguard in the event that the ill-informed come out in masses. Instead of altering the rules, we need to impose a minimum level of proficiency for every voter. It's a complete embarassment when we have voters participating that can't even name their state's capital or the three branches of government. Maybe then, sound judgement would overcome a system that is compensated, for lack of. Although it would be a refreshing site, the liberal would never allow this to be imposed. They would lose 3/4 of their voting constituency.
As the Dooms continue to try and brush Hillary under the rug, they might be prudent to consider one thing……………the GE isn't based on a caucus. Better to have a longshot than a boat that's dead in water.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Obama taking his name off the ballot in Michigan may have been his smartest and most disingenuous move. It gives what little credibility that can be found in not counting the votes there and in Florida.
What a joke. I'd vote for my hamster before I'd vote for anyone from a political party that thinks so little of the vote.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
So, it turns out that just because this whole adventure is really annoying to a conservative blogger doesn't mean it's actually frickin' Armageddon (side note, I believe my vote in this year's primary was just a hair more important than in 2004 when it was over after NH).
Two things: 1) If this happened every Dem primary then maybe we could change the rules to make said conservative blogger not annoyed, but this is actually an anomay, 2) Holding our Electoral College as the standard of democratic awesomeness just doesn't strike me as very persuasive. And besides, we've still come a long way from the days of 'important' men hashing it out behind closed doors. If it's so vital to have ultra-democratic primaries, it seems odd to me that nothing primary-related made it into the Constitution.
All that aside, the logic here is still a bit off. Changing rules X, Y, and Z and then extrapolating perceived primary results just doesn't work too well because it presupposes that everything would've happened exactly the same way. In other words, if it were winner-take-all, I highly doubt Obama would've put much effort into all those small caucus states where his huge margins of victory were very beneficial. And then saying something like, 'well if you count Florida and Michigan then…" Okay, except if Michigan hadn't been disqualified then Obama presumably would've done better than 0.0%.
Look, the rules are what they are and until things seriously get all Chicago 1968 on us then I think it's a bit premature to blow up the system because it's 'cynical.'
April 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
"So, it turns out that just because this whole adventure [Dim primary] is really annoying to a conservative blogger doesn't mean it's actually frickin' Armageddon."
King, say it ain't so! You're not upset over the current state of the Dim primary, are you???
The Dim primary is Operation Chaos in action.
It's a thing of beauty; a thing of justice; or to use the words of America's favorite racist Rev. Wright — "a case of the chickens coming home to roost.'
April 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
brent,
How interesting that you think this is about a conservative blogger, as opposed to being about free and open elections in a democratic country and the will of the people. I think you just said a boatload more about your own cynicism than you did about me. Removing the will of millions of voters (Florida and Michigan) hardly strikes me as being LESS about deciding elections behind closed doors. I'm pretty sure it's about MORE of that. The Democrat's process is horribly flawed.
April 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
King—I, too, just read that Salon article—which is right–the Dem Party, in their impossible efforts to be everything to everybody screwed things up royally.
Obama is taking advantage of this stupid, ackward system. Caucus voters tend to be younger and unobligated to be at work at certain times, hence, caucussing serves the over-rated Gen Xer's, whose Boomer parents are still obligated to pay down those enormous school loans they took out on their Gen x, y childrens' behalf—the thankless little prickles. Now they (Gen X'ers, and their proud of Gen. Xer parents (in some cases) are feeling superior to us Boomers who still call themselves "liberals", not "progressives"—who are still behind the "norm" economically, having never caught up, lucky to scratch two dimes together—sorry for me who never had enough to buy any stock to profit from—
As for liars; I bet you Bush's, McCains, yours, mine and Obamas list of lies would be just as long, if not longer. Mine have been mostly little lies—no biggies there.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Looks like Comrade Hillary is showing the world what an amature she truly is.
This 'little genius' just fired her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. Seems that Penn was trying to do something useful, namely meeting with representatives of Colombia [for his own firm] on the matter of closer trade relationship between the U.S. and Colombia.
Colombia is not only a friend of the United States but it's also engaged in a battle with commie, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Maybe that's what put comrade Hillary in a snit.
Or, it's because Hillary is engaged in a gross act of deception toward Democratic primary voters on the matter of free trade —which she has decided to oppose solely for short-term campaign reasons even as she would surely support it for every good reason once in the White House, — Penn got the boot.
The poor little dingbat can't get things straight even at this late date. But the Comrade better watch out; Penn might demand all the money the Clinton campaign owes him.
But not to worry. The Clintons became ultra wealth since Slick became president. They can afford the tab although they'd rather get sucker donators to pick it up.
And they call politics 'public service.'
April 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Vince,
I was surprised Hillary's chief campaign strategist had another job. Seems like trying to get Hillary the presidency would be a full time position. Maybe he's one of those who was moonlighting because he wasn't getting paid.
Hillary sure keeps shooting herself in the foot. It was her sniper fire in Bosnia concoction that took the attention away from Obama's racist pastor. The media covers up for Obama big time, though. I read an excellent article about Obama's phony Ohio NAFTA ad in the latest National Review, but the media isn't interested, since they are in the tank for Obama. I might have to come up with a post about that once I can find a link to the article online. People should know about it.
"Public service" describes Bill Clinton pretty well. Or maybe that was "publicly serviced", like Monica did.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Alex,
Speaking of uninformed voters (and I hope I haven't already told you this story, because I've told it before online), when I voted in the primary this year, there was a young girl who looked to be about 18 or 19 standing in front of me, and the poll worker asked her if she wanted to vote Democrat or Republican. The young girl just stared back blankly at the poll worker, saying nothing, so the poll worker asked the same question again. The young girl hesitated for a couple seconds and then blurted out "Obama." All the girl knew was that she wanted to vote for Obama, but she didn't even know what party he was in. Amazing. I'm 99% sure that girl would have flunked the voter test you described.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Rebecca,
What, Da King tell a lie ? Never.
That was my invisible friend who broke my parents picture window with the baseball when I was ten years old.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Re: NAFTA & Ohio
King, I think you're looking for "The Buckeye Stops Here" by Stephen Spruiell in the April 7 print edition of NR.
Try:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzFjMTQxNzNlYTk4Y2Y2MDRlOTIwM2QwMzdkNjIwZjY=
April 8th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Ghost et al:
It turns out Clinton's "dead mother: dead baby" story is true after all and, another think, Ghost—hiring and firing of political operatives is the path de rigor in political campaigns—it goes with the territory—oh, and political operatives, such as campaign managers are not typically loyal to their candidates because they are loyal to their candidates cause or beliefs or persona—they are loyal only as far as they get their paychecks, because, like law, it is a profession, and they go on to the next campaign cycle being picked by the candidate–not usually vica versa–political operatives, such as campaign managers, find their usual niche, but some can swing from democrat to republican with the ease of drinking a glass of water when thirsty. Why do I know this?
Because I attended The Bliss Institute for a Masters in Applied Politics where Dr. John Green (Rep) teaches and heads up the department. While there, I worked for democratic professors and republican professors all at the same time—that is how we are trained—however, motherhood, divorce and lack of money cut short my attaining that degree—too bad—now I am relegated to this pithy little blog with you and your homies.
The truth on the "dead mother; dead baby" story follows:
Washington Post: Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin
By Anne E. Kornblut
Full Blog Post:
The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail — following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.
For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.
But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.
That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton 's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.
Casto added some details that were not part — or differed from — the Clinton anecdote: She said her niece had previously been in debt to a local hospital that later sent her a letter informing her that she could only be treated there in the future if she gave them a $100 deposit. At the time she went into debt to that hospital, Casto said, Bechtel was uninsured, though she later obtained health insurance and was insured at the time of her death.
Casto said she did not want to give the name of the offending hospital because the flood of calls over the incident has overwhelmed her and Meigs County deputy sheriff Bryan Holman, a friend of hers who retold the story to Clinton when she campaigned in southern Ohio .
But court records show that Bechtel had a civil judgment against her by the Holzer Hospital Foundation for the amount of $4,426, entered in 2002, which was repaid in 2005. A call to an official at Holzer Medical Center , which is run by the foundation, in Ohio was not immediately returned.
Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35.
Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."
April 8th, 2008 at 7:29 am
King: The young girl hesitated for a couple seconds and then blurted out "Obama." All the girl knew was that she wanted to vote for Obama, but she didn't even know what party he was in. Amazing. I'm 99% sure that girl would have flunked the voter test you described.
Sad and also not surprising. I caught a lot of flak for crossing over to vote for Hillary, but that stems from strategy and not idiocy. Before one can cast a strategic vote, an understanding of the process is necessary.
I can already imagine the busloads of voters, getting carted in for this election. While most of these people cast embarassment upon themselves, what does this say about the candidate who receives the bulk of these voters? I'm not sure much "substance" is required to lure in these votes.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:33 am
"Because I attended The Bliss Institute for a Masters in Applied Politics where Dr. John Green (Rep) teaches and heads up the department."
Good Lord Almighty! We got a political genius in the house — but one who is so darn 'smart' she can't even recognize Comrade Hillary Clinton as the pathological liar she is.
Oh well, as the saying goes, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." .
April 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
King,
You aren't really concerned about Democrats disenfranchised by the voting process. I don't buy that. If that were the case, you wouldn't focus your attention on just the Democratic primary process, since both of them disenfranchise voters who don't happen to live in Iowa or New Hampshire just about every primary EXCEPT the Democratic one this year. In fact, your argument begs the abolition of the staggered primary process altogether (um, in both parties) and just hold one national primary.
And I really can't cry a tear for Florida and Michigan's voters when, like I've stated several times, they've been disenfranchised in just about every other primary like the rest of us who don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire. Furthermore, if it's so important that we're pretending to be naive about all of this, then the Florida/Michigan problem could easily be solved by seating their congregations in a 50/50 split. Hey, it's not like the delegate formulas make much sense anyway.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Ghost—I doubt she is a pathological liar. I am not a political genius, either, it's just that politics is a passion of mine—Again, Ghost—that story about the Dead mother/baby apparently is true—haven't caught any news today, seeing as how this college-educated woman makes do with three part-time jobs, and I have my own business plus three children—one in college, who I might add is a born republican–how he came out of me that way—who knows?
However, he is for Hillary, but not Obama—he can't stand him–if not Hillary, then McCain for him—I respect his views, he respects mine. We still love each other.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Brent: Republicans could care less how Democrats pick their candidates. The only reason this stuff is even being discussed, albeit in some strange ways, is to construct some kind of phony narrative that Democrats are not democratic.
The Voter ID laws, the felony conviction of a Republican in the vote suppressing New Hampshire case, Katherine Harris' suppression of votes in Florida, Blackwell's attempt in Ohio…..all speak the same language….Republicans do not want votes counted or more Americans voting. It's not in their interest. What IS in their own interest is suppressing votes.
That's why all the "concern" by Republicans about Fla. and Mich. Democratic primary voters is nothing but a laughable side show.
Consider Alex's "test" to be able to vote. Ridiculous.
King's condescension towards the young female voter is part and parcel of this disdain for Americans who aren't "in the know".
If I used a similar "test" of pre-voting knowledge on my conservative counterparts….none of them would be able to vote….that's how uninformed I think most of them are….but I don't simply make fun of them…well I do….but I would never disqualify them from voting just because they are misinformed.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
To pretend that excluding the voters of two large states is a matter of little importance should be considered treason.
This baloney about a 50/50 split is ridiculous too. It fits Obama's pet phrase though–a 'zero sum gain.'
April 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
larry, you're missing the point. Florida and Michigan were pretty sure they would get de facto excluded, like just about EVERY state does EVERY primary season, so that's why they made a risk and broke party rules in the first place. But more fundamentally, and calling your guys' bluff here, I'm sure in the future you will be similarly indignant about how Iowa and New Hampshire have a disproportionate (or undemocratic?) influence and how people in caucus states that, you know, have stuff to do are excluded.
In other words, ignoring the idiosyncrasies of the Democratic process, primaries in general are fairly undemocratic and have been for years.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
True that.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Rev: The Voter ID laws, the felony conviction of a Republican in the vote suppressing New Hampshire case, Katherine Harris' suppression of votes in Florida, Blackwell's attempt in Ohio…..all speak the same language….Republicans do not want votes counted or more Americans voting. It's not in their interest. What IS in their own interest is suppressing votes.
I'll have to stand by my suggestion, Rev. There are certain levels of proficiency required, in everything that surrounds us. I'm not about disenfranchising voters, I'm all about making our voting process stand for something. Right now, the emphasis is on how many people can get rounded up and shuffled to the polling precinct. You and I both know, as witnessed in the 2000 Florida debacle, an abundance of dopey voters leads to trouble. If this were my constituency, I would simply be ashamed.
Also, you can say what you like about Blackwell's and Harris' intentions, but remember which party is pandering to the illegal aliens, in the hopes of securing millions of their illegal votes. Don't worry, there are a few misguided repubs in that mix. The drivers license for identification purposes was never the intention; it's all about finding a way for these criminals to weasle into the polling booths. Before anyone spouts off on McCain's shamnesty push, this is one of his points that I LOATHE!
God has a plan for all. Some were never designed to drive, some never to play sports, and some never to succeed. How am I to be convinced that everyone is capable of participating in this democratic process……………with an idea of what the hell they're doing? As King mentioned, the young woman didn't even know the difference between political parties. Now that is Kool-Aid in action.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Many political thinkers say democracy carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. That is, once enough people realize they can vote to take other people’s money, it’s all over.
Have we reached the tipping point yet? I don't think so …. but the Dim Party is trying like hell to get there.
The agenda of the Left [Dim's] is to seizing what belongs to others under almost any pretext and redistribute it to the so-called needy. Of course, in any wealth redistribution, a big cut off the top goes to those in government; the pigs always take care of themselves first.
This ethos of the libs is a far greater long-term threat to the survival of our Republic than those screwball Islamofascists in the Middle East. Think about it.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Ghost–I don't see that Dems are for redistributing wealth from those who have to those who don't have.
Could you explain to me what you mean?
April 9th, 2008 at 5:51 am
There are few things in realm of politics that are more basic then the tight relationship between the Dim Party and its agenda of wealth redistribution.
To paraphrase the song "Love & Marriage," the Dims and wealth redistribution "go together like a horse and carriage."
If this is news to you, REbecca, then you got an excellent case against that 'The Bliss Institute' for malpractice in political education.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Ghost—Bliss did not indoctrinate me—I could not finish my Master's for lack of funds—I blew through my small inheritance.
I would like for you to try to convince me of your supposition that the Dems want to take from the rich and give to the poor. Please refrain from personal attacks against me. I am asking for you to explain what you mean with examples.
Here is your forum and invitation. Go ahead.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Alex: Well said…and I understand exactly what you're getting at. Yes, voters should be informed. I'm not sure what the best method of accomplishing that would be. The nation has been too prosperous for too many years now for government to mean much to portions of the population.
However, with newbee voters I think we can cut them some slack. At least the young woman King mentioned showed up to vote.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Vince,
YES ! That's just the article I wanted. I couldn't find it on NR's site last week. Thanks. I'll try to work it into a post soon, since one of my missions is to expose Obama the stealth candidate to the light, so the people can see who they are voting for. If the MSM had their way, we wouldn't know a thing about the guy, other than he's the messiah, of course.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Yes, Rev, she showed up to vote without the slightest idea of what she was voting for. You'll have to explain to me exactly how that advances our republic, because I'm not seeing it.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Brent,
Yes, many times states voting later in the staggered primary process don't matter to the outcome, because the nominee is already decided by then.
You are mistaken in referring to that as disenfranchisement, however. Those states still get to hold their primaries, vote, and assign their delegates. Their votes still count.
This year, the Florida and Michigan voters do NOT count as things now stand with the Dems. That is the difference, and it is major, especially this year, when the votes in those states means so much.
I don't except Republicans from the same criticism, but at least the Republicans seated half the Florida/Michigan delegates, which is better, and the Republicans also only hold 200 superdelegates in reserve, which means the will of the people matter more than with the Dems, who hold 796 superdelegates.
The story here is on the Dem side, so that's what I'm talking about. Exposing Dem hypocrisy is just the icing on the cake.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
"…the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton, 2007
April 9th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Subtle differences between what's technically "disenfranchisement" and votes that technically count but don't MEAN anything aside, I think the argument in favor of being overly concerned about this situation is incredibly weak.
And that aside, there really isn't a good solution for the Michigan/Florida problem right NOW. Obama wasn't on the Mich ballot and it still wouldn't be fair since they agreed to not campaign in either state. Revoting is a worse idea because the party (who runs the primaries) exercises its control by having things like rules and doing things like enforcing them. If the idea was to punish Michigan and Florida for trying to make themselves more important by breaking party rules, revoting now only gives them what they sought in the first place.
By the way, where was all this outrage over democracy and disenfranchisement eleventeen months ago when the Democratic party made the Fla/Mich decision?
April 10th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Brent—Obama lead a "stealth" campaign in Michigan—he's a "forked tongue" candidate, willing to do anything to get the nom.
Here guys, watch this—then have your wives and daughters, and grandaughters, grandmothers, if you still have them around watch it–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM
April 10th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Then, when you've finished watching it, before you start your anti-Hillary rants, imagine if these types of things were said aloud by our media about Barack Obama, things along the vain of—being black, not a woman.
Now understand my anger.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Brent,
You asked, "where was all this outrage over democracy and disenfranchisement eleventeen months ago when the Democratic party made the Fla/Mich decision?"
That's a good question, but it's one you should be asking the DNC, Hillary, and Obama, not me. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
I think the only fair thing would be to hold re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That way, the voters are not disenfranchised, neither candidate has an advantage, and the candidates are elected by the entire country. Every other alternative is worse.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Rebecca,
Every candidate get pilloried. Not a day goes by when I don't hear someone making a joke about McCain's age. I just responded to someone saying McCain was mentally unstable because he was a POW. All politicians get mud thrown at them (though Obama gets less because he's black. I'll give you that point).
Hillary can handle the old boys network and it's inherent prejudices. Those doofuses like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, etc. are only making themselves look bad when they make gender jokes.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am
"I think the only fair thing would be to hold re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That way, the voters are not disenfranchised, neither candidate has an advantage, and the candidates are elected by the entire country. Every other alternative is worse."
Except now you reward Florida and Michigan for breaking party rules by giving them even more importance than they would've had originally. Now there's no penalty for any state whatsoever to do as they please without any consent at all from the DNC- you know, the people who are in charge of this whole primary thing.
And perhaps Harold Ickes, a member of the DNC who voted to strip Fl/Mi of their delegates, should've been more concerned about democracy before it became convenient for the campaign he's now working for.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
King—Ageism is as bad as sexism—McCain should be lauded as our ancestors were, hence, the reasons we are told to "respect our elders"—their wisdom is irreplaceable and when these youngins' get to be old, they too will understand why the old adage to "respect your elders" is loaded with sense. Some things on earth never outlive their usefulness, such as the wisdom that comes only with age. God Knows, I wish I had my parents still here on earth and my grandparents to help me to raise my children up with the values and lessons that only come through living a long life.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Why does anyone care about Ickes or DNC rules, etc., etc.? Is that stuff more important than the votes of millions of citizens?
And does anyone really believe other states will go through all the hullaballoo of a re-vote in future elections, to make their state 'more important' in the vote than other states? What does that even mean?
April 11th, 2008 at 5:03 am
I think all votes matter and that is the bottom line. No matter "the rules", because they have become arbitrary in their application. The rules should be "for the people", whether the DNC likes it or not—was this not the main reason that the system changed after 1968 at first, because "the people", whose votes should count and the "smoky back rooms" where party bosses made the decisions was inherently wrong? How is that situation much different than making the people feel like Iowa, New Hampshire have the headstart and set the agenda (which, ultimately they don't anyway—all states in balance make up their own minds and can change the course of any election–ex; the importance of Ohio as a swing state). The states who changed their primary dates were not confidant that their votes meant as much as the earlier voting states. That those states are made to feel that way is wrong—they should be assured that their states do make a difference, because they do when it is all said and done. They get nervous mostly because the main stream media seem to emphasize the whole process—which brings up the real issue here:
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
1) publically funded elections AND election time limited to only a few months BEFORE election day–in this way Jane/Joe Citizen from any economic status can run for public office, which is what America's democracy is supposed to be about.
We might actually find some talented leaders again with real life experience who can relate to US, the people, not the "posers" we have now.
2) take the money out of the equation as a "business" incentive and make the airwaves ours again which translates to going back to the former "EQUAL TIME; EQUAL ACCESS" rule where media outlets had to offer time to all opposing views and candidates regardless. And being time limited election cycles and publically funded, the process would be more about the people voting, not the idiocy of "talking heads" making megabucks off of our elections for their corporate networks with overpaid CEO's(our precious money).
April 11th, 2008 at 5:15 am
And, an addendum to my previous comment:
Lobbyists and their "whorish" profession would become almost obsolete.
Corporations and their unseen "buying" favor would be made almost obsolute (for certainly we would still find weasels who would find a way to undermine "we the people"—they are incessant and conniving by their very nature, apparently).
"We the People" need to stop being "sheeple" and rise up with our authority and take back OUR democratic process! The world is depending on US for this, for God's sake!
April 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I sincerely look forward to a lively discussion next time around about how to change our primary system so that Iowa and New Hampshire don't become disproportionately influential. Since it's all about the people, you know.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Now I'm confused Brent.
Is it, 'rules are rules,' as you implied in a previous post or is it 'the rules are arbitrary and unfair' as you complain about more recently.
Maybe it's 'the rules are arbitrary and unfair and that's precisely why they must be followed.'
April 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
That's an interesting dichotomy. Not sure the two are completely exclusive.
The system sucks (in both parties), and that means most of the rules are arbitrary and unfair. The one rule that does seem fair and not arbitrary is the one that says individual states cannot do whatever they please without the consent of the DNC or RNC. Indeed, both national committees should have the final say as to whether or not any given state can schedule the primary for Februrary, January, December, September, or next Tuesday. If you don't think that should be the case, that's fine. But then you abandon the party system and leave little point in holding primaries in the first place. Indeed, questioning this one rule is more existential than it might appear on the surface.