I believe that the Democratic Party rested on the laurels of 8 years of the Clinton Administration, and didn't do enough to fight for its principles and maintain power despite the previous 12 years of Republican disaster and the concurrent 8 years of Republican mongering during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.
In effect, the Democratic Party took a blue-skies attitude and would not see the Republican Party for the insidious machine that it is. The fact that much of the American voting public was dragged along with it was only more telling of how skillful the Republican Party is at deceiving everyone for its own ends.
Even though the Democratic Party won the popular presidential vote in 2000, they nevertheless managed to lose the election in the Electoral College because, I believe, of their own shortsightedness. The did not plan to fail, they failed to plan.
The following 6 years of the Bush II Administration showed how weak and ineffective and irrelevant the Democratic Party had become. Even though they did not have control of either house of Congress, nor the executive branch, I believe they could have done much more to at least slow destructive forces in our country.
In fact, the Democratic Party is so weak, they could not stop, nor slow, the continued destruction of our country at the hands of the Republican Party, who became the minority party in 2006 in both houses of Congress.
If the Republicans can do whatever they want in Congress as a minority party after 2006, why couldn't the Democrats have at least stopped them in 2000-2006 when they were the minority party? It's because, I believe, the Democratic Party may be nearing the end of its power, the end of its relevancy, and the end of its life.
In the 2008 election, the Republicans went through the charade of having primaries even though the party itself had probably already decided on who they wanted to be their nominee. The years 1980-2006 are a classic example of how a political machine like the Republican Party can orchestrate the national landscape to suit the personal needs of the orchestra leaders. Puppets may look alive, singing and dancing on a stage, but they're nothing by objects manipulated by a puppet master. And so the Republican Party, with all its presidents, congressmen, governors, legislators, and registered voters are to the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove (and whoever else there that we don't know about, like perhaps the owners of oil companies and pharmaceutical companies).
The Democrats however, refused to get organized and step behind the best candidate, and instead said "we'll let the voters decide." How much worse did this make the situation when one of the main candidates seemed to come from out of nowhere, with almost no national political experience. The fact that many of the party leaders are openly supporting a green, has-done-nothing-so-far, has-no-experience-or-plan candidate suggests they don't know what kind of forces they're up against. This has created a clear, near-equal division of the Democratic Party, one that they cannot possibly hope to be heal before the November election.
A terrible symptom of this problem is the Michigan and Florida primaries. The leadership of the Democratic Party has so far refused to acknowledge that, fundamentally, the date of the Florida primary was changed by the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor, that the minority Democrats in Tallahassee tried to have the date changed back, but were outvoted 2-to-1 by the Republicans. The fact that the date of the Florida primary broke Democratic Party rules is not the fault of the Democratic Party nor of the registered Democrat voters in Florida. Additionally, there was nothing illegitimate about the Florida primary: all the candidates were on the ballot there, and all candidates had the opportunity to campaign there (whether they chose to, or not). The reasons why Michigan changed their date is unclear, but it was Barack Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot. He did not have to do that, and it was at great expense. Michigan and Florida's votes should count, 100%, hands down. The rule that these states couldn't have their primaries when they did is unfair since it gives unfounded influence to Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of all other states.
The fact of the matter is, Florida and Michigan account for 9.3% of the total national population. If the Democratic Party thinks they can disenfranchise more than 1 out of every 11 people, all the while divided as it is among two nearly-equal candidates, and still win the election in November, they are very mistaken. George Bush I won the popular vote in 1988 by 7.8%. Bill Clinton won the popular vote in 1992 by 5.6% and again in 1996 by 8.5%. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by only 0.5%. George Bush II won the popular vote in 2004 by only 2.4%. No president has been elected by more than a 9% margin since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984. I don't think the Democrats can afford to make the voters of Florida and Michigan unhappy, especially since those states carry 44 votes in the electoral college!
I believe, the Democratic Party has made so many poor decisions when it comes to national strategy, that they could be considered to have a death wish. Their bias toward one candidate over another who is clearly more qualified, electable, and resistant to the Republican Party political machine is misguided. There's no new dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Republicans could possibly dish up that we haven't already heard about. But, I don't believe for one minute that Barack Obama can withstand a campaign assault by the Republican Party who will stop at nothing to get their way (remember, they started looking for ways to impeach Bill Clinton before he was even elected!), and still be able to carry out an effective presidency.
The fact of the matter is that today we have (1) a foreign policy that is a shambles and has alienated every international ally we had and has created new foreign enemies, (2) a military that is so overextended and worn out that it is no longer effective overseas and is not available to help in natural disasters at home, (2) a Constitution that has been weakened far beyond any other time in American history (the Civil War included) including a loss of civil liberties that puts us back to the early 19th Century, (3) a domestic policy that has degraded our health and education systems and our national infrastructure and the environment to the point that we're now on par with many third-world nations with dictatorial governments, (4) no energy policy at all that has created an unprecedented instability and potential collapse of our energy supplies, which is leading to (5) the slow collapse of the world economy not seen since 1929.
I honestly believe that we're in for some serious hard times globally, where there will be a financial crisis that will cause energy and food crises that will take many years to stabilize (like they did in the 1970s). I believe that conditions will only grow worse if a Republican is elected to the presidency in November. I believe that a Democrat cannot win the presidency in November if the Democratic Party doesn't select (1) the candidate most able to defeat the Republican Party and (2) allow full delegate counts to Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party must earn as many electoral votes as possible in November, or else we will have no hope of slowing down the collapse of the United States. Our way of life is already unsustainable and has been for decades and has toppled over the tipping point, but we need political leadership who will reduce the effects of the crash by steering us in a new direction. Republican leadership will only lead to a last-minute cash grab before impact. I do not believe, however, that the Democratic Party has the will to do what it takes to survive. Unfortunately, all of us will go with it.
[Update] The DNC Rules Committee just voted to disenfranchise 100's of thousands of voters who voted in good faith, regardless of what their party leaders might have or have not done. Hillary Clinton reserved the right to take this matter to the Credentials Committee. If the DNC does not reinstate ALL of the delegate votes, the Democratic party will lose the general election.Yet another Pastor, one who until recently, was also on the Obama campaign's pastoral advisory committee, has revealed himself as a "problem" child for Obama.
"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us," he said. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."
Well, all I can say is at least Obama didn't take as long as he did with Wright to "repudiate" Father Pfleger's hatred. What kind of church is this? Hillary Clinton was right when she said she would have found another church.
Pfleger issued a separate apology Thursday, saying his remarks were "inconsistent with Sen. Barack Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."
What a sack of shit! If Obama had any integrity, he would resign from this sorry excuse for a church. Here are some of the comments for which Pfleger issued his disingenious apology:
“When Hillary was crying … I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine’,” he said, shouting at times. “Then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey I’m Barack Obama’. And she said, ‘Oh damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show’!”
"And then out of nowhere came him, Barack Obama. And she said: `Damn! Where did you come from?! I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'"She wasn't the only one crying!" he said. "There was a whole a lot of white people crying!"
“America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price for the rape. “
Pfleger’s support of Obama is well known in Chicago. He contributed to Obama’s state Senate campaign during his years in the Illinois legislature. While Obama was a state Senator in 2000, he secured a $100,000 earmark for the ARK Community Center, a center attached to Pfleger’s St. Sabina church.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. Hillary Clinton will beat McCain in November. I'm losing my optimism for Obama's chances. Let's hope another scandal doesn't pop up for him.
In a letter and memo sent to superdelegates today, Hillary lays out the case for why she is the strongest candidate to put together a winning coalition and beat John McCain in the Fall.
THE LETTER TO DELEGATES:The stakes in this election are so high: with two wars abroad, our economy in crisis here at home, and so many families struggling across America, the need for new leadership has never been greater.
At this point, we do not yet have a nominee - and when the last votes are cast on June 3, neither Senator Obama nor I will have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates like you to help choose our party's nominee, and I would like to tell you why I believe I am the stronger candidate against Senator McCain and would be the best President and Commander in Chief.
Voters in every state have made it clear that they want to be heard and counted as part of this historic race. And as we reach the end of the primary season, more than 17 million people have supported me in my effort to become the Democratic nominee - more people than have ever voted for a potential nominee in the history of our party. In the past two weeks alone, record numbers of voters participated in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. And with 40 and 35 point margins of victory, it is clear that even when voters are repeatedly told this race is over, they're not giving up on me - and I am not giving up on them either.
After seven years of feeling invisible to the Bush administration, Americans are seeking a President who is strong, experienced, and ready to take on our toughest challenges, from serving as Commander in Chief and ending the war in Iraq to turning our economy around. They want a President who shares their core beliefs about our country and its future and "gets" what they go through every day to care for their families, pay the bills and try to put something away for the future.
We simply cannot afford another four - or eight - years in the wilderness. That is why, everywhere I go, people come up to me, grip my hand or arm, and urge me to keep on running. That is why I continue in this race: because I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President - and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November.
Recent polls and election results show a clear trend: I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio. I've enclosed a detailed analysis of recent electoral and polling information, and I hope you will take some time to review it carefully.
In addition, when the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee - the one who would be the best President and Commander in Chief, who has the greatest support from members of our party, and who is most likely to win in November. So I hope you will consider not just the strength of the coalition backing me, but also that more people will have cast their votes for me.
I am in this race for them -- for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.
I am in this race for all the women in their nineties who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first woman ever to be in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to them.
Finally, I am in this race because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Senator Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.
In the end, I am committed to unifying this party. What Senator Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences; and no matter who wins this nomination, I will do everything I can to bring us together and move us forward.
But at this point, neither of us has crossed the finish line. I hope that in the time remaining, you will think hard about which candidate has the best chance to lead our party to victory in November. I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states. I hope you will think about the broad and winning coalition of voters I have built. And most important, I hope you will think about who is ready to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, fight for the deepest principles of our party, and lead our country forward into this new century.
"A clear majority of elected delegates will send an unmistakable message -- the people have spoken, and they are ready for change." --Obama campaign manager David Plouffe
A majority, in and of itself, is meaningless, especially when the contest is so close. The only way it can be said to be "clear" were if the ratio were at least 2:1, or greater. This is not the case: it never has been, nor will it ever be that large. If anything, a race that is, or near to, a dead heat is the most meaningless of all: all powers are balanced, all opposed; Moon is opposite Sun and both are made impotent. How is this unmistakable?
Just look at the last two presidential elections to see how a nation divided against itself cannot stand. Besides, anyone who's been on the short end of the stick can tell you that majority rule is not usually the best way to govern.
The people have not spoken. As in the presidential election, you're not voting for anyone but an elector--an elector (as clearly evidenced in this contest) who is not always bound to vote as you suggest. How much more of a problem is this when, due to winner-take-all rules or simple rounding, many people's votes are changed. For instance, in the 2000 Presidential Election:
How is this fair? It's not.
A friend happened to live in Alaska at the time where all of the three electoral votes were given to Bush, when at most he should have received only two. So, since my friend voted for Gore, his (meaningless) vote was changed by the electors. I point this out because the country has been bitterly divided ever since. This is the effect of the nonsense of "the people have spoken." We'd be better off with the queen. At least we all know where she came from and why she's the queen.
Which brings me to the ultimate point: since the electors haven't yet spoken, nobody has spoken, really. Are the people really ready for change? What change? Apparently, about half the country likes McCain (Bush on steroids). How is that change? Another half of the remainder likes Clinton, who's part of the Old School. How is that change? Seems like a minority of people want change, but they can't say what that change is or how it should be done.
Let's get real. The President really can't do diddly-squat about changing things until all 535 members of Congress have been replaced, and then the entire Supreme Court has been replaced. If you want to know just how difficult it is to get rid of a Supreme Court justice, go read the Constitution . Only one has ever been impeached, and not a single one has been removed from the bench. To achieve real change, the President would have to also replace all the state governors, state legislators, the federal circuit court judges, and local elected officials, all of whom are part of a system that has little (if any) accountability to the electorate.
No, the system is purposely designed to be difficult to change. The Founding Fathers wanted it that way. It has made this country stable.
Don't ever believe anything a politician ever tells you. Make up your own mind based on facts. Finally, don't bother to vote, because it doesn't matter (unless you feel you need justification for griping about our government, which you don't).
I started wondering today, with overwhelming support from the people for Hillary Clinton, would she consider running as an independent? I know a lot of friends and family are extremely unhappy with how things have turned out. They want her as President and many have expressed their intent to vote for an independent, should she not be the Democratic nominee.
Clinton is already an historic figure, being the first viable female candidate to run for the Presidency. But, her sights are on the White House. It's starting to look like Clinton would lose little by becoming an independent. Lets not forget that Joe Lieberman left the Democratic party and won re-election as a Senator. The Democratic party certainly didn't turn it's back on him, giving him a juicy chairmanship and all.
If she was to run as an independent, and should she fail to win the White House, she'd still be a Senator. There is no way that the Democratic party would hold a grudge and not open their arms with full support. They need all the seats they can get.
You either love or hate Hillary Clinton, but she would have the best chance any independent would ever have to win the Presidency. Lets not forget that she won some really big states, and I include Florida and Michigan. Because she is such a strong candidate, we could reasonably expect that she could attract a significant number of Republicans. But, would her Democratic supporters stick with her?
If she goes independent, she might even have an easier time getting donations. As it stands now, she obviously has more of chance of becoming President as an independent than as a Democrat, so, as a Democratic candidate, donors are becoming less eager to give her money. Of course, she could just stay in the party and run in 2012 (if Obama loses) or in 2016.
Will Hillary Clinton leave the Democratic party? Would her supporters stick with her? Who knows? But, it's both an interesting and frightening proposition.
As a Clinton supporter, if she loses the nomination, just the offer from Obama would serve to bring me closer to his side. Of course, Clinton may not want to be on a Obama/Clinton ticket, and I can't say I'd blame her. However, Obama's asking will greatly help to unify the party.
"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes." -Joseph Stalin
"You may already have voted in 2008, they just haven't told you how." - Greg Palast, Armed Madhouse
Since Oregon's primary results are fresh in our minds, it is prudent to take a moment and touch on a few facts regarding Oregon's awe-inspiring mail-in ballot system. Apparently, Oregon accepts every signature that floats in the door. As a matter of fact, out of 1.4 million votes cast in the 2006 general election, only 34 signature mismatches were reported. It calls into question the validity of the voter registration database. In addition, out of 2.5 million ballots mailed out in the 2006 general election, Oregon reported ZERO ballots returned as undeliverable, and only 54 came in after the deadline, 44 of those from Washington county. Finally, most people don't realize that Oregon uses computerized voting machines statewide. Most are ES&S scanners. According to experts, every component of ES&S machines is tamperable.
Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, it's nice to know that all of this primary drama may not mean a damned thing. The general election is still very much out of our hands.
Update [2008-5-21 21:55:46 by zenful6219]: If you want a source, check out Black Box Voting.
"You know in the age of Barack Obama I don't know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we're bitter and economically anxious, we `cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd [at the National Rifle Association, Louisville, Kentucky]to laughter and cheers.Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama at the recent National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Kentucky. He signaled what will likely be a major Republican campaign issue should Obama get the Democratic nomination."You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued. "You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends."
I imagine some people on MyDD will say, sarcastically, we should be trembling in fear because the great Karl has spoken. Still more will say we should just stop talking about it, as if not talking about it will make it all go away. The Republicans won't use it if we don't talk about it! They'd be wrong on both points.
There's no need for fear. However, there is a need for super delegates to take their roles seriously and use independent judgement to decide who is the most electable. To be clear, I have no doubt Obama can win the general election, but Clinton has a better chance.
We should be talking about these matters every single day. Considering our system for choosing a President, Clinton owns the map. In the Fall, Republicans are not going to pass on Obama's "bitter" comments, nor are they going to let Obama off the hook for his association with Reverend Wright.
As far as I'm concerned, this election is not about just Obama or Clinton and their individual aspirations. If our country is to survive, it needs a Democrat in the White House.
I've come to realize that we have far too many Democrats with their heads in the sand. To be sure, there are big negatives for both Clinton and Obama as prospective Democratic nominees. However, there is nothing new on Clinton that we haven't already heard over the past 15 years. It's much different in Obama's case. He is the new guy on the block, and his "known" negatives will significantly reduce his chances in the general election. If any new concerns pop up, it could be devastating for Obama, should he be Democratic nominee.
So, super delegates, pull your heads out of the sand, use independent judgement, and do what you were meant to do. In August, make sure the party nominates the most electable Democratic candidate.
· SD: New Poll Shows Tim Johnson Romping (lowkell)
· Iowa commission takes one small step against CAFOs (desmoinesdem)
· LA-06: Cazayoux's Gittin' It Done! (DailyKingFish)
· Secrets of the American Future Fund (chase martyn)
· Happy Birthday Jerome! (Jonathan Singer)
· Oilmen For Scott Garrett (NJ-5) (Aaron Banks)
· Youth Delegates at DNC Outnumber RNC 15 - 1 (Mike Connery)
· LA-02: James Carter's First Ad (DailyKingFish)
· Clean Coal's Goodie Bag for Dem. Delegates (lowkell)
· Liveblogging Obama Town Hall (fbihop)
· McCain's Goons Throw Birthday Cake In Trash (fbihop)
· IA-04: Would-be independent candidate fails to qualify for ballot (desmoinesdem)
