It looks like Senator Obama may have gotten under Senator McCain's skin on the issue of the GI Bill revision that just sailed through Congress, despite the aged Senator's objections. When Obama questioned McCain's motives for voting down the measure, which would drastically expand college benefits for those soldiers who serve at least one term in Iraq, McCain shot back, "Perhaps, if Sen. Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election."
In case you're wondering, Senator McCain's reason for voting against the measure is clear: he is upset that the Senate defeated his much more conservative version of the bill last week. He is explains it this way: "The most important difference between our two approaches is that Sen. Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service."
It sounds reasonable, but think about it in a slightly different way: "I want to get our soldiers to voluntarily accept more tours before they get out, get educated, and we have to replace them." Now it sounds more selfish. Want an even more cynical interpretation? "The more time a soldier spends in a war, the greater the chance he will be killed, and then we don't have to pay the GI Bill benefits at all." Now it's downright cruel.
But the bigger point is this: notice how, when Obama differs from McCain, McCain says Obama's criticisms are "cheap shots" but when McCain continually references Rev. Wright, even while denouncing his own pastoral endorsements, it's fair game?
It sounds to me like we're one, maybe two, weeks away from another of those famous full-blown John McCain meltdowns. And this time, it won't happen early enough to save his party.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Are we afraid of diplomacy?
All this chatter about Senator Obama displaying "weakness" for advocating a policy of diplomacy over military strikes has me questioning our nation's apparent aversion to talking through our differences with other leaders. It seems as though a large chunk of the electorate favors the "shoot first, talk never" approach offered by Senators McCain and Clinton (and President Bush), but where does this mindset come from?
It can't be an historical lesson, since, if anything, history has proven that diplomacy is almost always more effective than warfare in settling differences. After all, it was diplomacy that ended the Cold War, brought down the Berlin Wall, freed the Iranian hostages (okay, one could argue that money freed the hostages), established the nation of Israel, dismantled the Soviet Union, and on and on (and on).
On the other hand, warfare has proven to be virtually universally disastrous as a means to achieving a meaningful resolution of conflict. One cannot ignore when President Kennedy (presumably in an effort to shake the "weak liberal" label he had been saddled with) committed the monumentally stupid blunder known to us as the "Bay of Pigs" assault, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and then the Cold War. For more current proof of the "war will solve our problems" fallacy, we need only to examine the situation in the Middle East. Our war with Iraq has freed Iran from attention, allowing it to amass an arsenal of weapons far greater than we ever (erroneously) thought Iraq possessed. North Korea has been a constant nuclear threat, proving that the Korean conflict did little to dissuade them from taking on the world.
I remember a number of years ago reading on a feminist website that an excess of testosterone was to blame for our overly-aggressive tendencies, and I agreed with the logic of the assertion. But why, then, does Senator Clinton propose that we wait until Iran attacks Israel and then "obliterate" them? Feminists have long made it their goal to elect a female president to prove that cooler heads could prevail, yet the first woman to have a legitimate chance of winning the presidency has abandoned her femininity and adopted all the worst behaviors of men.
Is it purely biological conditioning, then, that leads us to war over discussion? After all, the survival instinct, from a biological perspective, is purely physical? (Adrenaline gives us the "fight or flight" rush, not the "fight, flight, or share a cup of tea" rush.)
Or is the motivation for war something more sinister, at least on the part of our leaders? After all, they know that nothing gets the flags waving, the banners hanging, the ribbons displayed like a good, old-fashioned butt kicking. This is why, even when we're not at war, we're declaring war on issues at home. Notice how we have wars on drugs, poverty, cancer, crime, guns, etc? As George Carlin once pointed out, war is the "only metaphor in our public discourse for things we don't like". Everything we want to change, we declare war on. "We don't do anything about it; we just declare war on it." It just doesn't whip people into a frenzy when we declare a "round table discussion" against something, so from a public relations perspective, this whole war fervor makes sense.
But why do we confuse war with problem solving when, as we've already seen, the two are seldom related? And worse, why do leaders like Sens. McCain and Clinton seem to argue that talking through our differences with foreign leaders somehow empties the options box? Do they really believe that, if diplomacy fails, Senator Obama wouldn't go to war to defend us or an ally? We all understand that sometimes there is a peace that is to be found only on the other side of war, but some of our leaders argue that war necessarily leads to peace, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
This evident cluelessness leads me to ask: Just who is the more naive? The man who believes diplomacy can prevent war, or the one who believes war should prevent diplomacy?
No real answers here, just things to ponder.
It can't be an historical lesson, since, if anything, history has proven that diplomacy is almost always more effective than warfare in settling differences. After all, it was diplomacy that ended the Cold War, brought down the Berlin Wall, freed the Iranian hostages (okay, one could argue that money freed the hostages), established the nation of Israel, dismantled the Soviet Union, and on and on (and on).
On the other hand, warfare has proven to be virtually universally disastrous as a means to achieving a meaningful resolution of conflict. One cannot ignore when President Kennedy (presumably in an effort to shake the "weak liberal" label he had been saddled with) committed the monumentally stupid blunder known to us as the "Bay of Pigs" assault, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and then the Cold War. For more current proof of the "war will solve our problems" fallacy, we need only to examine the situation in the Middle East. Our war with Iraq has freed Iran from attention, allowing it to amass an arsenal of weapons far greater than we ever (erroneously) thought Iraq possessed. North Korea has been a constant nuclear threat, proving that the Korean conflict did little to dissuade them from taking on the world.
I remember a number of years ago reading on a feminist website that an excess of testosterone was to blame for our overly-aggressive tendencies, and I agreed with the logic of the assertion. But why, then, does Senator Clinton propose that we wait until Iran attacks Israel and then "obliterate" them? Feminists have long made it their goal to elect a female president to prove that cooler heads could prevail, yet the first woman to have a legitimate chance of winning the presidency has abandoned her femininity and adopted all the worst behaviors of men.
Is it purely biological conditioning, then, that leads us to war over discussion? After all, the survival instinct, from a biological perspective, is purely physical? (Adrenaline gives us the "fight or flight" rush, not the "fight, flight, or share a cup of tea" rush.)
Or is the motivation for war something more sinister, at least on the part of our leaders? After all, they know that nothing gets the flags waving, the banners hanging, the ribbons displayed like a good, old-fashioned butt kicking. This is why, even when we're not at war, we're declaring war on issues at home. Notice how we have wars on drugs, poverty, cancer, crime, guns, etc? As George Carlin once pointed out, war is the "only metaphor in our public discourse for things we don't like". Everything we want to change, we declare war on. "We don't do anything about it; we just declare war on it." It just doesn't whip people into a frenzy when we declare a "round table discussion" against something, so from a public relations perspective, this whole war fervor makes sense.
But why do we confuse war with problem solving when, as we've already seen, the two are seldom related? And worse, why do leaders like Sens. McCain and Clinton seem to argue that talking through our differences with foreign leaders somehow empties the options box? Do they really believe that, if diplomacy fails, Senator Obama wouldn't go to war to defend us or an ally? We all understand that sometimes there is a peace that is to be found only on the other side of war, but some of our leaders argue that war necessarily leads to peace, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
This evident cluelessness leads me to ask: Just who is the more naive? The man who believes diplomacy can prevent war, or the one who believes war should prevent diplomacy?
No real answers here, just things to ponder.
All this spinning makes my head hurt.
So Senator Clinton, fresh from letting us all know she's pinned her nomination hopes on someone assassinating her rival, now tells us she thinks we ought to change the rules by which we nominate candidates. It makes one wonder if she thought these rules were so undemocratic before her she agreed to them (and before she lost).
It's hard to keep track of all her position changes regarding the rules, but let's see if we can try:
It's hard to keep track of all her position changes regarding the rules, but let's see if we can try:
- Florida / Michigan: When the DNC voted to strip the states' delegates for violating party rules, she said nothing. In fact, she dispatched senior advisor (and DNC Rules and Bylaws committee member) Harold Ickes to vote in favor of stripping said candidates. Why? Because her coronation was scheduled to take place the night of Super Tuesday, regardless of how these two states voted. As we all know, however, Super Tuesday didn't go as planned, and ever since, she has been singing a different tune. Also, let us not forget that her campaign general chairman, Terry McAuliffe, faced a similar problem with Michigan in 2004 when he was DNC chairman. And according to his memoire, he threatened the same punishment! But now, he has experienced an awakening and no longer thinks the party should have any control over when the states schedule their primaries. (I keep expecting her to add that only one candidate should even be on the ballot, given how hard she's fighting to keep the DNC from awarding any delegates / votes to Senator Obama from Michigan.)
- Super Delegates: Boy, did she love those Super Ds! It was just a few short months ago when she was praising the DNC for adding Superdelegates to the mix, and now she thinks they should be removed from the equation. Does this change of heart have something to do with the fact that, back in March, she was leading in the Super race and now she's losing?
- Separate Primaries: In December, her campaign told us this thing would be over on Super Tueday, so confident were they that Senator Clinton would reach the magic number of delegates when fewer than half the states had voted. Since then, she's harped constantly about how "every voter should have a chance to vote." Now, she's taking her argument one step further. She now believes the national primaries should be bundled into a single day, so that no state is left trailing. Might her newfound respect for the "50 state" primary be somehow related to her big losses on Super Tuesday, and her campaign's inability to move beyond that disaster?
- One voter / one vote: This relates to the Superdelegate issue, as well as the bundled primaries idea, with another caveat. She wants to do away with the caucuses, as they are "undemocratic". I wonder if we should retroactively subtract Bill Clinton's overwhelming caucus wins from his tally? Also, her "one voter / one vote" theme doesn't seem to extend to the states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, since she routinely "forgets" to count their votes in her "I'm winning the popular vote" claims. Which brings me, of course, to ...
- Popular vote: Suddenly, she thinks the popular vote is the metric we should use to determine the winner of this election. This is the strangest and most sudden departure for her. Just a few months ago, her supporters sent a scathing and threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi because she made the very same argument! She said she thought the Super Ds should respect the will of the voters in casting their votes, and Senator Clinton went off the deep end! Now, though, since her crazy new form of math shows her winning the popular vote, she's singing Nancy's tune! I certainly hope she apologizes for having been so horribly wrong all this time ...
Are there any other rules changes you can think of that I've missed?
Just to be fair, I actually agree with Senator Clinton on some of these proposed changes to the DNC nominee-selection process. But a candidate complaining about the rules she agreed to follow now that they don't favor her is just pathetic. Especially when she loved them so much just a year ago, when she thought they would help assure her an early, easy victory.
How low can someone (kitchen) sink?
I think we're about to find out. Look, this is politics, and, as Hillary famously informed us a few months back, it's a blood sport. But when a candidate unabashedly hopes for a literal blood letting, she's going too far, in my never-humble opinion.
So as not to be accused of misquoting and somehow drastically altering the context, I shall paste her exact comments here:
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
It sounds to me as if she's saying, "I should stay in the race because someone might kill the other guy." Wow. We've all been wondering the past couple months what kind of end-game Senator Clinton had in mind, what path to the nomination she could possibly feel is still open to her, and I think she just told us.
Sort of makes her campaign's comments about Obama not appearing in West Virginia and Kentucky take on a whole new meaning, eh?
(As a side note, aren't we all just a little sick of hearing her tired "My husband didn't win until June" lines? It's true but misleading, which is typical of her campaign. The primary season was much later in 1992, with the bulk of delegates awarded in June. Also, though he didn't officially wrap up the nomination until June, it was effectively over months earlier, when Tsongas dropped out.)
So as not to be accused of misquoting and somehow drastically altering the context, I shall paste her exact comments here:
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
It sounds to me as if she's saying, "I should stay in the race because someone might kill the other guy." Wow. We've all been wondering the past couple months what kind of end-game Senator Clinton had in mind, what path to the nomination she could possibly feel is still open to her, and I think she just told us.
Sort of makes her campaign's comments about Obama not appearing in West Virginia and Kentucky take on a whole new meaning, eh?
(As a side note, aren't we all just a little sick of hearing her tired "My husband didn't win until June" lines? It's true but misleading, which is typical of her campaign. The primary season was much later in 1992, with the bulk of delegates awarded in June. Also, though he didn't officially wrap up the nomination until June, it was effectively over months earlier, when Tsongas dropped out.)
Friday, May 23, 2008
A delusional candidate?
Okay, I don't really know what to say to this ... Senator Clinton *actually* said last night that she "doesn't believe racism has played a part in this presidential election" ... She said this while whining to anyone who would listen that sexism has run rampant throughout the campaign season.
So, to be clear, she thinks she has fallen victim to sexism, but no that no one has voted against Senator Obama on the basis of race. As one Senator famously once told a colleague, "You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts."
If Senator Clinton had said "I think there's been some racism and some sexism, and I'm ashamed of the media for ignoring the latter" I would have agreed. But when 20% of those polled in Kentucky said race was a factor in their decision, and more than 90% of those voted for Clinton, how can she pretend racism hasn't played a part?
Or when Obama's offices in Indiana and West Virginia were vandalized, painted with clearly racist sentiments, how can a candidate for President turn a blind eye?
The odd question I have is this: why has Senator Obama continually told his staff not to report incidents of racial hatred to the media, leaving his volunteers (one of whom was told "I ain't voting for no black guy. I hope they hang that guy from a tree.") at a loss for what to do? And why, when the vandalism at his Indiana office was discovered, did he tell staff there not to release to the media photographs of the hate-filled garbage? Could it be because he wants to avoid the appearance of whining? Could it be because he doesn't want people to say "Oh, look, another black guy crying about racism?"
Why, then, does Senator Clinton have no such problem being "another woman crying about sexism?" And what does it say about her that she wants to play what has traditionally been a "man's game" but she lacks the ability to lose gracefully, as Senator Obama has done with those racist voters? Does it mean that, for all her vaunted experience, she lacks the maturity to deal with loss? After all, remember when she told Senator Obama "Politics is a contact sport. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?" Well, to paraphrase another cliche, what's good for the gander is good for the goose, Senator. Quit crying. And quit pretending that you and only you have fallen victim to the age-old prejudices that still plague the country. It's unbecoming.
So, to be clear, she thinks she has fallen victim to sexism, but no that no one has voted against Senator Obama on the basis of race. As one Senator famously once told a colleague, "You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts."
If Senator Clinton had said "I think there's been some racism and some sexism, and I'm ashamed of the media for ignoring the latter" I would have agreed. But when 20% of those polled in Kentucky said race was a factor in their decision, and more than 90% of those voted for Clinton, how can she pretend racism hasn't played a part?
Or when Obama's offices in Indiana and West Virginia were vandalized, painted with clearly racist sentiments, how can a candidate for President turn a blind eye?
The odd question I have is this: why has Senator Obama continually told his staff not to report incidents of racial hatred to the media, leaving his volunteers (one of whom was told "I ain't voting for no black guy. I hope they hang that guy from a tree.") at a loss for what to do? And why, when the vandalism at his Indiana office was discovered, did he tell staff there not to release to the media photographs of the hate-filled garbage? Could it be because he wants to avoid the appearance of whining? Could it be because he doesn't want people to say "Oh, look, another black guy crying about racism?"
Why, then, does Senator Clinton have no such problem being "another woman crying about sexism?" And what does it say about her that she wants to play what has traditionally been a "man's game" but she lacks the ability to lose gracefully, as Senator Obama has done with those racist voters? Does it mean that, for all her vaunted experience, she lacks the maturity to deal with loss? After all, remember when she told Senator Obama "Politics is a contact sport. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?" Well, to paraphrase another cliche, what's good for the gander is good for the goose, Senator. Quit crying. And quit pretending that you and only you have fallen victim to the age-old prejudices that still plague the country. It's unbecoming.
Coming a little late to the party
Okay, anyone who follows politics already knows what this year's general election narrative will be: Republicans will try to paint Obama as hopelessly liberal and completely out of touch with core Americans' values, while the Democrats will simply strive to paint McCain and Bush with the same brush. There's no question, really, that this scenario favors the Dems, since the social issues on which many might disagree with Obama are far from the voters' conscience this year. What I find interesting is the dance McCain supporters are doing trying to distance themselves from Bush. They say McCain has regularly disagreed with Bush, most notably on climate change.
Here's the problem: a Republican finally acknowledging the facts of global warming reminds me of those Big Tobacco folks who, a few years ago, finally realized what the rest of the world has known for more than 40 years: that nicotine is addictive and cigarettes cause cancer. Did anyone change their minds about Big Tobacco on that day? Did anyone, anywhere, say "Well, I was really against them, but now that they know the truth, I think they're A-OK?"
And another thing: if McCain is so opposed to Bush, why have the two scheduled a series of joint fundraiser appearances in the coming weeks? Doesn't McCain know that every time a journalist snaps a photo of Bush and McCain shaking hands, another direct-mail piece is gonna be sent out by the DNC and a few million bucks will pour into the Dems' campaign war chest?
And finally, has Senator McCain pinned his hopes on all of us having one, huge, collective senior moment during which we forget that he has already promised to continue three of Bush's most divisive and disastrous policies? Namely, the Iraq war, his failed trickle-down economic policies, and his practice of appointing painfully conservative judges and justices who are barely out of diapers.Can we afford four more years of giving money to the sickeningly wealthy in the blind hope that some of the crumbs that fall will sustain the rest of us? Do we want to see thousands more American soldiers die in a war that three-quarters of us oppose? Do we want to see ultra-conservative judges roll back the last 50 years of social advancement? (With at least two Supreme Court justices retiring in the next four years, President McCain would finally be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he has committed to doing.)
I don't envy Senator McCain his task. No matter how hard he tries, we won't forget that he's already promised to screw us. He can only hope he fares better at changing voters' minds than those guys at Marlboro did. Anyone want to place bets?
Here's the problem: a Republican finally acknowledging the facts of global warming reminds me of those Big Tobacco folks who, a few years ago, finally realized what the rest of the world has known for more than 40 years: that nicotine is addictive and cigarettes cause cancer. Did anyone change their minds about Big Tobacco on that day? Did anyone, anywhere, say "Well, I was really against them, but now that they know the truth, I think they're A-OK?"
And another thing: if McCain is so opposed to Bush, why have the two scheduled a series of joint fundraiser appearances in the coming weeks? Doesn't McCain know that every time a journalist snaps a photo of Bush and McCain shaking hands, another direct-mail piece is gonna be sent out by the DNC and a few million bucks will pour into the Dems' campaign war chest?
And finally, has Senator McCain pinned his hopes on all of us having one, huge, collective senior moment during which we forget that he has already promised to continue three of Bush's most divisive and disastrous policies? Namely, the Iraq war, his failed trickle-down economic policies, and his practice of appointing painfully conservative judges and justices who are barely out of diapers.Can we afford four more years of giving money to the sickeningly wealthy in the blind hope that some of the crumbs that fall will sustain the rest of us? Do we want to see thousands more American soldiers die in a war that three-quarters of us oppose? Do we want to see ultra-conservative judges roll back the last 50 years of social advancement? (With at least two Supreme Court justices retiring in the next four years, President McCain would finally be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he has committed to doing.)
I don't envy Senator McCain his task. No matter how hard he tries, we won't forget that he's already promised to screw us. He can only hope he fares better at changing voters' minds than those guys at Marlboro did. Anyone want to place bets?
Clarifying some math
Yes, I'm a political news junkie. You could probably tell that by the fact that almost all my blogs are political in nature. But there are some things I'm just sick of reading on the blogs, so I'm taking a moment to clear them up.First, to the Clinton supporters who like to say Obama is an idiot for saying there are 57 states ... pay attention, now ... he didn't say there were 57 states, he said there were 57 contests in the Democratic Primary campaign, and, wait for it ... there are! 50 states, +1 for DC (I bet most of you didn't know DC isn't a state), and +1 each for Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. That's 56. Now +1 because Texas, oddly, holds two binding contests instead of one, and you reach, guess what? 57. So get your facts straight. (It's easier to get the facts if you research them yourself than if you try to get them from HillaryClinton.com. Just some friendly advice.)
The next myth to quell .. that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. This one is actually almost true. If you count Florida and Michigan (and only a Communist would suggest Michigan should count as-is, so some of you need to break out your "Marx for President" tee shirts and bumper stickers), then Clinton leads Obama by a little more than 63,000 votes. But Clinton wants you to think she leads by over 173,000 votes!
How does she get there? By discounting the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, since those states don't report popular vote totals (but the folks at RealClear Politics came up with the numbers). So the lunacy of her argument is this: "We can't pretend Florida and Michigan didn't vote, but we can pretend Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine didn't vote." She wants us to forget that Michigan and Florida voted in violation of DNC rules. She wants us to forget that in Michigan, her opponent wasn't on the ballot, but 40% of Michigan voters voted "uncommitted" rather than support her. Somehow, the Clinton campaign actually believes those 237,762 voters should be tossed aside (much like the voters in the caucus states I mentioned) and ignored, while in the very same breath they claim to be champions of the disenfranchised voter! If we take those 237,000 votes away from Clinton (since they were voting "against" Clinton, not "for" any candidate), Obama is once again in the lead by more than 70,000 votes. (By the way, if you count only the votes in states that followed the rules that all candidates agreed to uphold, Obama is ahead by nearly 560,000 votes.)
But, of course, Clinton's people say that's not fair. This is the kind of double-talk they like: It's not fair to discount Florida and Michigan, every vote must count ...except the people who voted against me in Michigan! Every vote must count ... unless you live in a caucus state! Every vote must count ... except the small states ... except when the small states voted for me! (Like West Virginia and Kentucky).
How anyone as brilliant as Clinton supposedly is can make such ridiculous arguments with a straight face is absolutely beyond me. And I'm usually a sucker for inane arguments.
The next myth to quell .. that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. This one is actually almost true. If you count Florida and Michigan (and only a Communist would suggest Michigan should count as-is, so some of you need to break out your "Marx for President" tee shirts and bumper stickers), then Clinton leads Obama by a little more than 63,000 votes. But Clinton wants you to think she leads by over 173,000 votes!
How does she get there? By discounting the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, since those states don't report popular vote totals (but the folks at RealClear Politics came up with the numbers). So the lunacy of her argument is this: "We can't pretend Florida and Michigan didn't vote, but we can pretend Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine didn't vote." She wants us to forget that Michigan and Florida voted in violation of DNC rules. She wants us to forget that in Michigan, her opponent wasn't on the ballot, but 40% of Michigan voters voted "uncommitted" rather than support her. Somehow, the Clinton campaign actually believes those 237,762 voters should be tossed aside (much like the voters in the caucus states I mentioned) and ignored, while in the very same breath they claim to be champions of the disenfranchised voter! If we take those 237,000 votes away from Clinton (since they were voting "against" Clinton, not "for" any candidate), Obama is once again in the lead by more than 70,000 votes. (By the way, if you count only the votes in states that followed the rules that all candidates agreed to uphold, Obama is ahead by nearly 560,000 votes.)
But, of course, Clinton's people say that's not fair. This is the kind of double-talk they like: It's not fair to discount Florida and Michigan, every vote must count ...except the people who voted against me in Michigan! Every vote must count ... unless you live in a caucus state! Every vote must count ... except the small states ... except when the small states voted for me! (Like West Virginia and Kentucky).
How anyone as brilliant as Clinton supposedly is can make such ridiculous arguments with a straight face is absolutely beyond me. And I'm usually a sucker for inane arguments.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A champion of Democracy?
What is it with Senator Clinton, anyway? In previous blog posts, I’ve discussed her unreliable memory (or her casual relationship with the truth, depending on your interpretation). Does she not realize that the rest of us have no such memory problems?
We remember her statements that the caucuses (as opposed to primaries) are undemocratic. We remember her complaining (loudly) about the DNC’s decision to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan due to their violation of DNC rules. (Never mind that her own campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, voted to strip the delegates, in compliance with party rules.) She, evidently, has been trying to set herself up as the only true champion of the voters, claiming to care so much about them that she is willing to throw the entire primary season into chaos in an effort to restore "the will of millions of voters" to the forefront. In my opinion, a laudable goal.
But now she points out that in most primaries, the "pledged" delegates won by a candidate are not actually pledged to support the candidate that "won" their votes at the National Convention. She clearly intends to attempt to poach Obama delegates under party rules which allow those delegates to ignore the "will of the voters" that she pretends to support.
Even more strange, she has spent months telling us the difference between so-called pledged delegates and the powerful "superdelegates" is that the latter are expected to exercise judgment independent of the voters. Yet, now, she tells us that, in fact, ALL delegates should exercise their own judgment and ignore what the voters in their respective states demand. I agree with her interpretation of the role of superdelegates. After all, if the party had intended those leaders to be bound to the vote in their states, there would have been no need to create a separate name for them; the party would simply have added their numbers to the ranks of pledged delegates. But for this very reason, one cannot reasonably argue that "pledged" delegates have the same power of independent judgment as superdelegates ... Again, if each group were expected to behave in the same manner, there would be no need to separate them.
One further piece of evidence that Senator Clinton is not nearly has concerned about "democracy" as she says ... She wants the delegates in Michigan to be seated as-is, even though she ran uncontested there, since her opponent removed his name from the ballot when the delegates were stripped. Does this sound familiar? It should. That’s how Saddam Hussein always managed to win 100% of the vote in Iraq .. he was the only one running! And we all remember when she told Senator Obama that he had no right to run in this election because it was "hers". Is this really democracy, when you only want to run in a race by yourself?
What these things show is that Senator Clinton doesn’t care about the voters or the voting process ... She cares only about winning, fairly or not. This is the sense of entitlement she entered the race with, but unfortunately for her, the rest of us aren’t buying what she’s selling.
(I thought about adding some comments about her mega-wealthy donors who sent a threatening letter to Speaker Pelosi because of her comments about the role of superdelegates, but I chose not to hold the Senator responsible for that particular lamentable tactic.)
We remember her statements that the caucuses (as opposed to primaries) are undemocratic. We remember her complaining (loudly) about the DNC’s decision to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan due to their violation of DNC rules. (Never mind that her own campaign adviser, Harold Ickes, voted to strip the delegates, in compliance with party rules.) She, evidently, has been trying to set herself up as the only true champion of the voters, claiming to care so much about them that she is willing to throw the entire primary season into chaos in an effort to restore "the will of millions of voters" to the forefront. In my opinion, a laudable goal.
But now she points out that in most primaries, the "pledged" delegates won by a candidate are not actually pledged to support the candidate that "won" their votes at the National Convention. She clearly intends to attempt to poach Obama delegates under party rules which allow those delegates to ignore the "will of the voters" that she pretends to support.
Even more strange, she has spent months telling us the difference between so-called pledged delegates and the powerful "superdelegates" is that the latter are expected to exercise judgment independent of the voters. Yet, now, she tells us that, in fact, ALL delegates should exercise their own judgment and ignore what the voters in their respective states demand. I agree with her interpretation of the role of superdelegates. After all, if the party had intended those leaders to be bound to the vote in their states, there would have been no need to create a separate name for them; the party would simply have added their numbers to the ranks of pledged delegates. But for this very reason, one cannot reasonably argue that "pledged" delegates have the same power of independent judgment as superdelegates ... Again, if each group were expected to behave in the same manner, there would be no need to separate them.
One further piece of evidence that Senator Clinton is not nearly has concerned about "democracy" as she says ... She wants the delegates in Michigan to be seated as-is, even though she ran uncontested there, since her opponent removed his name from the ballot when the delegates were stripped. Does this sound familiar? It should. That’s how Saddam Hussein always managed to win 100% of the vote in Iraq .. he was the only one running! And we all remember when she told Senator Obama that he had no right to run in this election because it was "hers". Is this really democracy, when you only want to run in a race by yourself?
What these things show is that Senator Clinton doesn’t care about the voters or the voting process ... She cares only about winning, fairly or not. This is the sense of entitlement she entered the race with, but unfortunately for her, the rest of us aren’t buying what she’s selling.
(I thought about adding some comments about her mega-wealthy donors who sent a threatening letter to Speaker Pelosi because of her comments about the role of superdelegates, but I chose not to hold the Senator responsible for that particular lamentable tactic.)
When should Clinton drop out?
Okay, I’m a self-described Obamaniac. Why? Because I’m an oratorical snob. I think we need a President who can and will use the power of persuasion to its fullest potential. That being said, I am absolutely sick of calls for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race.
I’ve been pretty hard on her campaign in my blogs, but seriously, what possible motivation could she have for dropping out? Until one of them reaches the magic number of 2,025 delegates ("pledged" or "super"), there’s no reason either one should quit. And while the path to the nomination is more daunting for Senator Clinton than for Obama, it’s not impossible. (especially if the manages to steal some of Obama’s delegates at the convention, which, admittedly, is a virtual impossibility).
But, look, it’s really this simple: we live in a democracy (sort of) and the race isn’t over until someone wins it. And I know a lot of Obama supporters are claiming it hurts the party for Senator Clinton to remain in the race ... Well, it might, it might not. We won’t know that until November. But what absolutely would kill the Dems’ chances in November would be if one candidate prematurely drops out of the race, only to find the "winner" blindsided by some skeleton from the past, creating a vacuum at the top with no one left to fill the void.
In short, to all my fellow Obamaniacs, quit whining and go vote. That’s your right, as surely as it is Senator Clinton’s right to keep trying to get you to change your mind.
I’ve been pretty hard on her campaign in my blogs, but seriously, what possible motivation could she have for dropping out? Until one of them reaches the magic number of 2,025 delegates ("pledged" or "super"), there’s no reason either one should quit. And while the path to the nomination is more daunting for Senator Clinton than for Obama, it’s not impossible. (especially if the manages to steal some of Obama’s delegates at the convention, which, admittedly, is a virtual impossibility).
But, look, it’s really this simple: we live in a democracy (sort of) and the race isn’t over until someone wins it. And I know a lot of Obama supporters are claiming it hurts the party for Senator Clinton to remain in the race ... Well, it might, it might not. We won’t know that until November. But what absolutely would kill the Dems’ chances in November would be if one candidate prematurely drops out of the race, only to find the "winner" blindsided by some skeleton from the past, creating a vacuum at the top with no one left to fill the void.
In short, to all my fellow Obamaniacs, quit whining and go vote. That’s your right, as surely as it is Senator Clinton’s right to keep trying to get you to change your mind.
Gas-tax holiday? Good politics, bad policy.
Everyone wants to see the price at the pump drop to a buck a gallon, but it's just not gonna happen. Ever. Those happy, halcyon days are long over. But, in the truest example of political we've seen yet in this topsy-turvy campaign season, two of the three remaining candidates are proposing a summer-long break from federal taxes at the pump, with only Senator Obama opposing the plan. There's just one tiny problem ... it won't do a bit of good.
I know hearing "tax cut" (or in this case, tax "holiday") is music to the ears, but haven't you noticed how whenever Clinton or McCain talk about it, they talk about a "total savings" for "all Americans" without once mentioning how much of that "windfall" you or your family can expect to line your pockets? The math is elementary, so why aren't they telling you the numbers? Well, because the numbers reveal what a silly and ineffective plan they've concocted.
Look, the federal gas tax is only 14.3 cents a gallon; it's not like it's a dollar-fifty or something. If you're an average American (with a 13 gallon tank that gets sucked bone dry once a week), this three-month tax break will save you a paltry $22.31, stretched over 12 weeks. Just $1.86 per fill-up.
Now if you driver a bigger car, and you drive a lot more, the math favors you a bit more. Say you have a 20-gallon tank and you fill up twice week. You'd save $2.86 per fill-up, or $5.72 a week, for a three-month total of $68.64. While 69 bucks in three months might feel a little weightier in your wallet than 22 dollars in the same period, two facts remain: most American's are in the 22 dollar group, and those who aren't still aren't going to see a huge savings compared to their overall gas bill. Where I live, gas is around 3.50 a gallon. Dropping that price for three months to 3.36 a gallon just won't make a difference. And don't forget, many states have tried this sort of holiday before, passing the losses on to the oil companies so the states didn't lose any revenue. The result? Gas prices went up to cover the cost. Good plan, guys.
The distressing part of all this is that all three candidates know the gas-tax holiday is just a red herring, meant to distract voters from the fact that, at present, there simply is no solution to the ever-increasing gas prices. After all, the math is simple, as I just showed you, and I'm sure Senators McCain and Clinton could dig up a calculator somewhere (okay, maybe an abacus for McCain), but they don't want to. It's much easier, and often more politically expedient, to pretend they have an answer than to admit there isn't one. By the way, for any political novices who read this, this is what we call "pandering" ... it's when you tell the voters what you know they want to hear even when you understand it's neither a good nor workable idea.
It's like how Senator Clinton tells voters in Iowa she's gonna commit a majority of the government's "alternative fuels" budget to ethanol but then she tells Pennsylvania that she will do the same for clean coal. Just one problem: you can't give 51% (majority) of the money to one cause and another 51% to another cause, unless we're using some new age math that no one has heard of yet. (There are actually bigger problems, too. Like that we consume more oil producing ethanol than we save by using it. Or like how clean coal is a misnomer. There's no such thing as clean coal, it's all a matter of how the waste is disposed of, not whether or not the waste is created. So if we take the harmful emissions from burning coal out of the air, we still have to put them somewhere ... it's basic physics.)
But instead of finding real solutions to these problems, some politicians prefer to lie to you and tell you everything will be rosy, even though they know the math tells us otherwise. Thank goodness the rest of us know how to use a calculator.
I know hearing "tax cut" (or in this case, tax "holiday") is music to the ears, but haven't you noticed how whenever Clinton or McCain talk about it, they talk about a "total savings" for "all Americans" without once mentioning how much of that "windfall" you or your family can expect to line your pockets? The math is elementary, so why aren't they telling you the numbers? Well, because the numbers reveal what a silly and ineffective plan they've concocted.
Look, the federal gas tax is only 14.3 cents a gallon; it's not like it's a dollar-fifty or something. If you're an average American (with a 13 gallon tank that gets sucked bone dry once a week), this three-month tax break will save you a paltry $22.31, stretched over 12 weeks. Just $1.86 per fill-up.
Now if you driver a bigger car, and you drive a lot more, the math favors you a bit more. Say you have a 20-gallon tank and you fill up twice week. You'd save $2.86 per fill-up, or $5.72 a week, for a three-month total of $68.64. While 69 bucks in three months might feel a little weightier in your wallet than 22 dollars in the same period, two facts remain: most American's are in the 22 dollar group, and those who aren't still aren't going to see a huge savings compared to their overall gas bill. Where I live, gas is around 3.50 a gallon. Dropping that price for three months to 3.36 a gallon just won't make a difference. And don't forget, many states have tried this sort of holiday before, passing the losses on to the oil companies so the states didn't lose any revenue. The result? Gas prices went up to cover the cost. Good plan, guys.
The distressing part of all this is that all three candidates know the gas-tax holiday is just a red herring, meant to distract voters from the fact that, at present, there simply is no solution to the ever-increasing gas prices. After all, the math is simple, as I just showed you, and I'm sure Senators McCain and Clinton could dig up a calculator somewhere (okay, maybe an abacus for McCain), but they don't want to. It's much easier, and often more politically expedient, to pretend they have an answer than to admit there isn't one. By the way, for any political novices who read this, this is what we call "pandering" ... it's when you tell the voters what you know they want to hear even when you understand it's neither a good nor workable idea.
It's like how Senator Clinton tells voters in Iowa she's gonna commit a majority of the government's "alternative fuels" budget to ethanol but then she tells Pennsylvania that she will do the same for clean coal. Just one problem: you can't give 51% (majority) of the money to one cause and another 51% to another cause, unless we're using some new age math that no one has heard of yet. (There are actually bigger problems, too. Like that we consume more oil producing ethanol than we save by using it. Or like how clean coal is a misnomer. There's no such thing as clean coal, it's all a matter of how the waste is disposed of, not whether or not the waste is created. So if we take the harmful emissions from burning coal out of the air, we still have to put them somewhere ... it's basic physics.)
But instead of finding real solutions to these problems, some politicians prefer to lie to you and tell you everything will be rosy, even though they know the math tells us otherwise. Thank goodness the rest of us know how to use a calculator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
