The "Rules"

Many of us out here talk about the Democratic Party Delegate Selection "Rules." But, how many of us who talk about them have actually read them, especially those who condemn Hillary Clinton for making her stand in state after state. You can find them here: DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Despite many loud claims to the contrary in the media and from Clinton opponents:

1. There is no Rule "agreed to" by the candidates, but there is a Rule imposed by the party which prohibits a candidate from campaigning in a state that violates the early primary rule: Rule 20.C.1.b. Candidates did sign a pledge not to campaign in FLA and MI, including television ads.

2. There is also evidence that Obama may have violated that pledge or Rule: Obama's national television ad plays in Florida.

3. The DNC Rules do not call for or mandate a complete loss of delegates for holding an early primary; they call for a 50% reduction in delegates and alternates: Rule 20.C.1.a and 20.C.4. (Yes, I realize the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may choose to impose greater sanctions: Rule 20.C.5.)

4. Even if a state changes the democratic primary date to an impermissible early date, according to the "Rules" that state should not suffer any penalty at all if it is shown that the change was a result of a "state law" and that the Democratic leaders took all positive steps and acted in good faith to oppose that change in state law moving the primary date: Rule 20.C.7.

Of course we all know that the Florida State Legislature is 2-1 Republican and that it has a Republican Governor (Jeb Bush). Let me know how the Dems were supposed to stop the maneuver by the Republican majority to move the date to an impermissible date.

5. You will also find among the party "Rules" many are fond of talking about that any ruling or decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (the committee which chose to impose the death penalty on Michigan and Florida voters) may be appealed to the National Convention in Denver. In other words it is provided for in the "Rules" to challenge any ruling by the committee, including its decision to disenfranchise the FLA and MI voters. It is the Convention that is the final rule maker. Rule 23.D.

6. You will see nothing in the "Rules" which calls for ignoring the popular vote as an indicator of a candidates support.

7. You should also know that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot; and, he did so in a blatant (albeit successful) attempt to pander to the voters in Iowa (and notice the dates on these articles):
Michigan, Iowa and the Games the Politicos Play
Off the ballot in Michigan

There simply is no DNC rule that a candidate must remove their name from the ballot in a state with an impermissible early primary or caucus. So of those so inclined, yell all you want that Obama wasn't on the ballot so we can't count the votes in Michigan. The "rules" do not support your, pardon me, Obama's, position. In an act of political pandering Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. It is fair to say then that he must live with his decisions, good or bad in the end, after all he is running for the presidency. Because he voluntarily chose to remove his name from the ballot due to political pandering that fact certainly should not be used to support an argument that Michigan voters should be disenfranchised. Obama did it to himself.

8. People can accuse Clinton all thay want about the rules, but I believe it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone to run a self-styled campaign of "inclusion" and then turn around and say "don't count the votes."

Hillary Clinton will follow the Rules as they were written and adopted. And, just like Obama, she will use the ones that help her case. She won't ignore the Rules or break them; she will use them, just like Obama. Now that the Rules are known, Obama's arguments seem to be less genuine and much more political.

Obama Goes Negative and Lies

After months of preaching against negative campaigning, Senator Obama has decided to go negative, running an attack ad misrepresenting Senator Clinton's health care plan. The negative spot is currently airing throughout Pennsylvania. From the Clinton Campaign:


1. The Obama ad claims that Hillary’s “plan forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can’t afford it.” Health policy expert Ken Thorpe reviewed this claim and found it to be false. Under Hillary's plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage.


"Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all." [Wall Street Journal, 12/5/07]


2. The advertisement also claims that that Hillary's plan would make people who fail to enroll "pay a penalty." Sen. Obama's own plan would fine parents who fail to enroll their children and he has said he will consider imposing penalties on people who don't enroll.



Hillary would consider a range of ideas, including automatic enrollment, to ensure everyone is covered. Sen. Obama's plan, would, experts agree, leave 15 million people out.


3. The ad also claims that Sen. Obama's plan reduces costs more than Hillary's plan. There is no citation for this claim because it is false. Hillary's plan has more aggressive cost cutting measures and has more generous subsides. Because Sen. Obama's plan leaves 15 million people out, it would drive costs up, because everyone would have to subsidize emergency care for the uninsured.

The Philly Debate: Disturbing on Several Fronts

The Philly debate ranked as a low point in the Democratic campaign. The moderators were absolutely disgusting. Georgie Boy should have been required to disclose, prior to the questioning, that he served as communications director for Bill Clinton. Then, to spend the first 45 minutes on BS that already had been hashed and reheashed ad nauseum -- an extreme disservice to voters and the public. The questions? Do you think Rev. Wright loves American as much as you do? How come you don't wear a flag pin on your lapel? Are you kidding me? How come Clinton, Georgie Boy and Gibbons Monkey weren't wearing flag lapel pins? What possible difference does it make in the qualifications to be President whether Obama's pastor is as "patriotic" as Obama?

Obama's responses to the gotcha questions disappointed. He allowed himself to get dragged down into the mud again. He should have refused to answer the BS by dimissing the inquisitors as distraction mongers and than talking about health care, the economy and other issues that matter in folks' lives. He didn't. And while he handled it largely with grace, he would have been better served to marginalize the idiots who asked the questions and focus on real issues.

Both candidates showed a disturbing expertise in distortion-by-wordplay. Clinton said of her Bosnia tale that she said things she knew were not consistent with reality. In other words, she lied. Both candidates' answers on the gun control issue were examples of politicians contorting words beyond any meaning. Both candidates unwisely pandered in their "pledges" not to raise taxes on the middle class, though Obama seemed to leave himself some weasel room on Social Security.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was on foreign policy. Disappointed might be the wrong word, since both candidates have made their positions pretty clear. But the debate drove home this point: Either Clinton or Obama may get us out of Iraq. But neither will end the underlying policies that place our country under the constant threat of war, war and more war.

Although "Clumsy," Obama's Remarks Are a Critical Democratic Issue

Obama's word choice was clumsy, as he stated himself, there is no doubt about that. And while I do not believe that an apology is required, his remarks indicate political pandering to an audience very much unlike the subjects of his words. Pandering is politics, you can't please everyone all the time, and often words are used to get votes, this is Washington politics and Obama is not above it and employs it on a regular basis.

But the conversation about his remarks needs to be steered away from the controversy, and towards Obama's underlying intentions with the statement. He clumsily brought up a critical voting bloc issue that has plagued the Democrats for the past few election cycles: the so-called "values voters" voting Republican. These are the working-class, predominantly white voters that have given their allegiance to the Republican party of late. As Dan Schur astutely points out in a New York Times op-ed , these blue-collar Americans routinely "cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions." Democratic presidential candidates have been vexed as to why this is, and I think Obama was addressing this phenomenon because it is something that needs to be tackled if the Dems are to win the White House. They have to convert these former Reagan Democrats. It is a must for them to convince these voters to not vote solely on gun rights, immigration, and religion, and to win them back Obama and Clinton must appeal to their economic needs.

As the aforementioned NY Times Op-ed suggests, the manner in which Obama discussed the matter was ill-conceived, however. The words "cling" and "bitter" connote an air of elitist thought over these voters. Whereas the environmentally sensitive, pro-choice, pro-stem cell, pro-tax upper class San Franciscan Democrat is lauded for his open-mindedness and financial selflessness, a rural Pennsylvanian who "clings" to guns and xenophobic grudges, his vote must be justified for some reason, to be written off as simply "bitterness" over economic hardships. As Schur points out, it is a double standard to "diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort." Their vote is as thought out as their San Franciscan counterpart, and to insinuate that their vote requires some justification is ill-advised if you are seeking to win their vote.

To finish, I don't believe Obama was intentionally being insensitive, but I do understand those that were upset with the comments. He was addressing an important Democratic issue for the fall, one that both candidates must win in order to reclaim the White House.

Obama's "Bitter" Remarks

So by now you've probably all seen the quote that Obama made in reference to small town people at a fund-raiser in San Francisco:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," the senator had said.

The fact that these comments were made in San Francisco frustrate me as much as the comments themselves. It just goes to show that he is willing to pander to an audience.

Can we at least get an apology Senator Obama?

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama was quoted as saying in an interview with the Winston-Salem (North Carolina) Journal.

It's not so much the way he "worded things" as the entire content of his quote. For a campaign that preaches unity, I would expect at least a simple apology for such divisive remarks.

Thoughts?

Martin Luther King, Jr.: American Icon

May we honor one of the greatest Americans in our nation's history, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by remembering his profound "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington in 1963. Aside from perhaps the Gettysburg Address, I don't know of a more inspiring speech in American history. Enough to give any American goosebumps...

The Iraq Stategy

What we learned today from the New York Sun:

A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

According to the Sun, Colin Kahl, the author of the confidential paper, is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq.

Keeping between 60,000 and 80,000 American troops means that we will be keeping half of our current troop levels in Iraq under Kahl's plan.

To be fair, Mr. Kahl stated that the paper did not express the campaign's position. But, what is the Obama campaign's actual position on Iraq. If his main adviser on Iraq advocates keeping up to 80,000 American troops in Iraq until the end 2010, then what will Obama do if he is elected? Throw out his adviser, change stated policies, or more likely, keep his current policy which does seem to allow for what Kahl advocates. The Sun article also reminds us that during the Iowa campaign. Obama stated that he was not opposed to having American troops remain in Iraq to train Iraqi military forces, and that he would remove combat troops but would keep a residual force of American troops in Iraq.

His campaign web site under "Bringing our Troops Home" indicates that he does intend on keeping what might be called residual troops in Iraq.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

But, it doesn't say how many or for how long. Does Kahl's confidential paper reveal some unstated specifics of the Obama strategy for Iraq? If it does, is it a good plan? If residual American troops remain in Iraq, what will happen if the insurgency attempts to draw them into the Iraqi civil war? How will we keep them from remaining targets for insurgent attacks?

Dean Offers Hope To Enfranchise Floridians

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has not figure out a resolution to the electoral debacle that once again is Florida. But he has offered hope.

"It is our intention to do everything we can and we believe we will absolutely seat the delegation from Florida at the convention," Dean said. But, he added, it's "critical'' that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ‘‘comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out."

So, basically the situation has not changed, but there is at least movement on the ground to seat the Florida people's voices at the convention in some fashion, and this is a positive step in the nomination process. It would be an egregious injustice if these delegates are not seated. Dean has pointed out that is now up to the candidates to compromise on a resolution to this debacle, and it is going to be interesting to see how both approach the situation as we get closer to June, if the race is still as close or even closer than it is now. From Dean's comments, it seems that Florida will be seated, but the effect that this will have is still unclear, and the manner in which the delegation is seated rests in the candidates' hands.

Is The Tide Turning In The Media?

Lou Dobbs, with whom I rarely agree, seems to have gotten it right. In strongly worded comments he recognizes and acknowledges the inherent unfairness in the national mass media treatment of Clinton when it comes to the delegate count and each respective candidate's ability to win the nomination.

He recognizes the media's overt fondness for saying that Hillary cannot win, while ignoring that Obama also cannot win enough delegates. He points out the media's "compulsion, this insistence" that Clinton cannot win when "neither can Senator Obama."

The media has allowed the Obama campaign to frame the issue, to write the script, and to prematurely write-off Clinton. But, maybe, just maybe, the media is finally realizing that it has been taken for a ride, and that it has been ridden by Obama like a wet horse. That the media has become Obama's mouthpiece on this issue of carrying the nomination. Well, maybe it's about to end and people will realize that the numbers are the numbers, and the rules are the rules.

Hillary is a liar? The little Bosnian girl is the liar!

I think this video clears Hillary's name. How can you argue with video?

http://www.truveo.com/HILLARY-IN-BOSNIA-THE-TRUE-STORY/id/3773491796