March 20, 2008
Florida Michigan delegation issue is resolved.
First I'll say I agree with the general pooh-pooh sentiment regarding Greg Sargent's post on Talking Points Memo about a new plan being floated in Florida.. Why someone would call this a new plan when it is patently unworkable and useless is over my head.
The answer to the Fla and MI issue already exists. Super delegates will each have an opinion at the end of the day what the reasonable probable results of a full out Fla/MI revote would add to Hillary's and Barack's total. For discussion sake say a range of Hillary 4 to 10 delegate uptick and 100,000 to 350,000 vote uptick.
If the high end of these numbers turns out to be crucial to the final national tallies, the super delegates can base their decisions on that perception. Conversely if it's clear that Barack wins the pledged delegate count and the total vote count, the super delegates can base their choices on that perceived data.
The point is, that the candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee will in all cases be selected/elected to compete with McCain by the super delegates. They know today what the probable results of a Fla/Mi redo would be and can cast their votes with an easy conscience. Additional polling which would include the mathematically modeled results that Barack always, always closes any Hillary advantage when he campaigns in a state could be purchased to clarify probable results.
I think that there is a 95% chance that the super delegates have more than enough reliable information on Fla/MI outcomes to cast their support to either Barack or Hillary comfortably and intelligently.
Revote, no revote, the super d's are going to call the eventual outcome with almost exactly the same Fla/Mi data that is presently known to them.. Move on.
Labels: barack, Clinton, fla, florida, Hillary, MI, michigan, next president, Obama, pledged, revote, super delegates, unpledged delegates
January 14, 2008
The "Fairy Tale" in the Clinton campaign
.
Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away. His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the "Brittany" effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.
I love Bill and could easily vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a "Fairy Tale" being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.
The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Mr Obama's ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressperson to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Mr. Obama's potential for a massive November turn out and his potential for systemic change in Washington and some modicum of national healing.
Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away. His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the "Brittany" effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.
I love Bill and could easily vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a "Fairy Tale" being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.
The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Mr Obama's ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressperson to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Mr. Obama's potential for a massive November turn out and his potential for systemic change in Washington and some modicum of national healing.
Labels: Barrack, change, Clinton, fairy tale, Hillary Clinton, Obama
December 15, 2007
Obama Drug use: Lessons from Turd Blossom
The press timorously asked, "George, what about your drug use?"
George replied, "I'm not going there." "It's rule one of gotcha politics that each answer to a query such as "What about your drug use?" only results in 'gotcha scenarios' and more questions. Therefore, I am not going there."
He did not go there and the media quit, no digging, no witnesses, no nada because George had learned from Karl that if you give the (lazy, frightened, sheep like) press zip, zippo, nada by way of easy lines and gossip you quash the topic.
Everybody knows part one of Rove's public relations manipulation schemes...rank propaganda.
If a meeting ends with Bush and company in agreement on legislation to turn back a decade of EPA constraints thus directly leading to increased chemical fouling of the atmosphere, I see them giggling and turning to Rove and asking,"Karl, what should we call this bill?"
He replies. "The Clean Skies Initiative" amidst high fives and laughter.
A voice is heard saying, "God damn, Karl can make almost anything seem sweet."
To which Dubya guffaws, "Why do you think we call him Turd Blossom."
But, part two of Rovian deceit par exellence is what Bush employed vis a vis his drug use.
The rule is, if, under ordinary circumstances, discussing a certain subject can not result in positive results then simply state that you will not discuss that subject. You might note that the pre Rove method was to talk around the subject or change the subject or get partially gothcha-d.
Absent a gutsy press, the subject will die.
Not going after Bush's drug history by the press or Kerry was victory numero uno for Rove's in-your-face deceit politics.
It emboldened the methodology which became Saddam caused 911, Saddam has nukes and "we torture but we don't call it torture."
Barack need only say, "I was a teenager. I dabbled. It's been discussed. Subject closed."
And we should pray that he doesn't thusly become infected with the viral dishonesty of Dubya and Turd Blossom.
George replied, "I'm not going there." "It's rule one of gotcha politics that each answer to a query such as "What about your drug use?" only results in 'gotcha scenarios' and more questions. Therefore, I am not going there."
He did not go there and the media quit, no digging, no witnesses, no nada because George had learned from Karl that if you give the (lazy, frightened, sheep like) press zip, zippo, nada by way of easy lines and gossip you quash the topic.
Everybody knows part one of Rove's public relations manipulation schemes...rank propaganda.
If a meeting ends with Bush and company in agreement on legislation to turn back a decade of EPA constraints thus directly leading to increased chemical fouling of the atmosphere, I see them giggling and turning to Rove and asking,"Karl, what should we call this bill?"
He replies. "The Clean Skies Initiative" amidst high fives and laughter.
A voice is heard saying, "God damn, Karl can make almost anything seem sweet."
To which Dubya guffaws, "Why do you think we call him Turd Blossom."
But, part two of Rovian deceit par exellence is what Bush employed vis a vis his drug use.
The rule is, if, under ordinary circumstances, discussing a certain subject can not result in positive results then simply state that you will not discuss that subject. You might note that the pre Rove method was to talk around the subject or change the subject or get partially gothcha-d.
Absent a gutsy press, the subject will die.
Not going after Bush's drug history by the press or Kerry was victory numero uno for Rove's in-your-face deceit politics.
It emboldened the methodology which became Saddam caused 911, Saddam has nukes and "we torture but we don't call it torture."
Barack need only say, "I was a teenager. I dabbled. It's been discussed. Subject closed."
And we should pray that he doesn't thusly become infected with the viral dishonesty of Dubya and Turd Blossom.
Labels: Clinton, drugs, Obama, Shaheen, Turd Blossom
July 26, 2007
Are Those Liberals Wearing Crosses?
.
Imagine a handful of mostly older women handing out toothpaste, razors and toothbrushes at a homeless shelter.
Imagine a group of mostly older women in the basement kitchen of a church cooking up chicken, peas and mashed (lots of coffee) for their weekly soup kitchen for the poor.
Imagine thousands of mostly older women volunteering and performing acts of charity all across America.
Some of the ladies have crosses in their lapels; are they not liberals?
Some of their brethren are altruistic agnostic or atheist volunteers; are they not serving the morality engendered in the world's god based religions.
It may serve Karl Rove's vision of political dominance to set these kind faced Americans upon each other over implications of being a 'liberal' but it really isn't the American way.
And it's not a word that anyone should remotely shy away from.
Craig Johnson
Imagine a handful of mostly older women handing out toothpaste, razors and toothbrushes at a homeless shelter.
Imagine a group of mostly older women in the basement kitchen of a church cooking up chicken, peas and mashed (lots of coffee) for their weekly soup kitchen for the poor.
Imagine thousands of mostly older women volunteering and performing acts of charity all across America.
Some of the ladies have crosses in their lapels; are they not liberals?
Some of their brethren are altruistic agnostic or atheist volunteers; are they not serving the morality engendered in the world's god based religions.
It may serve Karl Rove's vision of political dominance to set these kind faced Americans upon each other over implications of being a 'liberal' but it really isn't the American way.
And it's not a word that anyone should remotely shy away from.
Craig Johnson
Labels: Christian, Clinton, edwards, good works, Liberal, Progressive, Two Americas
