Category: Election 2008

Posted on
by

Am I prophetic, or what? Only a couple days after I get done saying how the fight between the Dems is allowing John McCain to start the general election with a lead, he makes his first move.

A lot of people are saying the ad appears to be targeted toward Obama, and that McCain assumes he’ll be the eventual nominee. It’s definitely possible, given Obama’s current lead. Yet, the ad is vague enough so that even if he doesn’t win, it is generalized enough so that it can also be used in a campaign with Clinton.

Posted on
by

I was amused by the primary season for a while. More than that, I was interested in the exchange of ideas between the candidates. It was good, I thought, that no one candidate would get the nomination too easily.

My amusement and interest has gone away. It is time for the Democrats to choose a candidate and get it done and over with. The primary campaigns have gone on for too long, and it’s just gotten nasty. For those who follow the campaign in terms of the blogosphere, supporters of the two candidates have gotten downright bitter with each other.

Depending on where their loyalties lies, each side accuses the other’s candidate of destroying the Democratic party. One argument has Obama’s campaign untenable because of the Wright affair, and the other side’s argument has Clinton cooked over-easy for discrepancies between statements about her experience and her recently released records from her time as First Lady.

It’s gotten to the point where the two sides are practically attacking each other, rather than explaining why their candidate is the best. Meanwhile, John McCain and supporters are living it up in the weeks before Pennsylvania, visiting Iraq, and using what time he has to plan their strategy against the future Democratic nominee. This is good for McCain, since he’ll be pretty ready to present his case, and be better prepared to dodge and attacks coming his way. The Democratic nominee, on the other hand, will have to make up for lost time.

Therefore, I think Pennsylvania will need to be a decisive race. Obama or Clinton needs to get a huge win there. I’m talking like 65% or better, so that there can be some sort of idea of the direction for the nomination (assuming the Supers line up behind the candidate with the most pledged delegates). Garnering a win of this magnitude would make Obama look pretty sparkling, and I think put the final nail in the coffin of Clinton’s campaign. Clinton just could not go on any more, I think, if she doesn’t do really well here. If she does, I won’t be the end for her, but she’ll also have to do really well in the home stretch.

It’s all up to Pennsylvania, so get out there, voters. In the meantime, I’ll continue to wince at every new development in the unsustainable battle between the two candidates.

Posted on
by

Well, apparently nobody is getting elected President this year.

If you believe the comments made in the blogosphere over the past couple months, Barack Obama is screwed for associating with Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, Hillary Clinton is done for adding Geraldine Ferraro to her campaign, and John McCain is roasted turkey for accepting the endorsements of prominent preachers like John Hagee and Pat Robertson.

Under these circumstances, and if you accept what the bloggers say after these scandals, that the involved candidate’s run is over, you come to only one conclusion: none of them will be elected President this year.

Yet, all of us here in the real world know that the truth is quite the opposite. Lets face it people; all three candidates have been associated with somebody known for making racially charged statements during their campaigns. All three have distanced themselves from said people, and probably later than should have been done. And all three have yet to say racially charged statements on their own (surrogates need not count).

Now, can we get back to an election and maybe discuss the issues? Please?

Posted on
by

When the big stories hit, I prefer to sit back a little.  This allows me to view the whole range of messages, and gather my thoughts.  Then I can go back and have a completed, thorough, piece to present.

The situation I speak of right now is, of course, Wrightgate (if it hasn’t already been coined). What did Obama know, and how long did he know it?  Does he really not agree with Wright, or is he just pretending?  Is he right to not have left the church, or is staying okay?  Why add Wright to his campaign?  Is it actually an issue?  The last two questions are my own, and I’ll get to them toward the end.   I won’t go into the nooks and crannies of the whole thing, since they have been covered elsewhere.

Look, it’s no secret, I think, that Obama’s gotten a pretty clean ride so far in the media.  I won’t go as far to say, “Oh, that liberal media,” but I don’t think people can deny this.  Sure, he’s gotten a few things thrown his way.  There was the pamphlet thing, and NAFTAgate, but otherwise, he hasn’t gotten much flack.  Compare him to the other two candidate, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, and he was looking pretty good before this, in terms of negative media coverage, anyway.

Well, it’s full court press now, isn’t it?  I’m going to take a skeptical approach, though?  Besides the clips we’ve seen, was Reverend Wright saying all this crap about how white people are responsible for all the ills of black people every Sunday?  I doubt it.  Saying this is like saying that every Christian right church is espousing the evils of abortion or homosexuality every Sunday.  I no more believe that than I do about what’s being said at Trinity.  And before anyone says, “Mike, you don’t go to church, so how can you know?”  Well, I doubt people who go to Trinity all the time can really know, either.  I’m just taking my best educated guess, going on what I know about churches.  And my best guess is that mostly, they’re all talking about accepting Jesus Christ in to your heart, or some related topic.

So, is it going to be a problem for Obama?  A lot of conservatives or Clinton supporters seem to think so, but consider this.  After the whole Ferraro incident, a lot of people thought it was the end for Clinton, as many times they have said before.  Also remember Shoutingate after Pamphletgate, where Clinton lost traction…and then ended up winning Ohio and basically tieing in Texas.  My point is, these things come and go in phases.

Understand how the media works.  A big story comes along.  It floats around for a while, and is debated by everybody.  Then a new comes along, pushing the old one out of the way.  Keep in mind that a couple weeks ago, McCain was getting pounded over the maybe-sorta-probably not affair with the lobbyist, and whatever unethical actions he might have had there.  Now, most people probably don’t remember it.

So, I predict that within a week’s time, something new will come along, and probably for one of the other candidates.  There’s six weeks to go before Pennsylvania.  If Clinton can recover after losing 11 states, I think Obama has a good chance of re-gaining ground in the next six weeks.  So, is it an issue?  Right now it is, but the media moves quickly.  In six weeks, it might not be such a big deal.

Only time will really tell…

Posted on
by

CNN is reporting some comments from former President Bill Clinton about how he thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

For a long time now, many commentators from the media and blogosphere have suggested that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket might be necessary in order to keep the party together, once the convention is done and over.  The theory is that, the closeness of the the pledged delegate count, plus the possibility of a split superdelegate vote, would harm the party.  I’m not sure about that, because since Obama since winning 11 states in a row, he had quite a few jump overs.  Still, it is a fear.

Yet, instead of focusing on a “marriage” of convenience, President Clinton focuses on one of strength.  If you think about it, he has a good point.  Consider the demographics the two cover.  Clinton has a huge advantage with women voters.  I think that she might even be able to woo some female Republican voters for that reason alone.  Obama, on the other hand, holds a enormous hold on the African American vote.  Clinton, likewise, has a big advantage with Hispanics.  Finally, Clinton would seem to be doing well those who formerly supported John Edwards – those poor and rural voters, and Obama has a hold on the youth and city vote.  Take all these together, and you have a large swath of the country.

Then you have the message vs. substance debate.  Clinton’s bark about Obama’s “angelic” rhetoric probably sounds worse than she means it to.  We don’t see a lot of Obama’s speeches, especially his stump speeches in states he visits to garner primary votes.  So, he probably has a lot more substance than we think.

Then there’s geography.  Now, technically, both candidates would be considered “northerners,” and that’d go against the old strategy of pairing up North with South.  However, lets not forget that before heading to D.C., Clinton was from Arkansas.  So, conservatives know Clinton.  And despite all this stuff about conservatives hating her and Bill, I think that’s mainly garbage spewed from the talk-radio crowd.  And even if they are both northerners now, the strategy of picking a running mate from the same region of the country isn’t new.  Bill did it in 1992, picking Gore, a southern man.

So, we have a pair that could win some key demographics.  Politically, we see some similar things going on, with Obama having gotten on the good side of many Republicans.  Unlike John McCain, who I think who is probably right to accept Bush’s endorsement, but should probably keep a firewall between himself and Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Obama and Clinton, need the Republicans.

I don’t think they can simply win on their own, unless all the Republicans were to stay home.  Considering the differences in turnout during the primaries, that could very well be the case, but lets not speculate those numbers this far away from the general election.  Lets assume for now they will need a good amount of Republicans in order to be the clear winners in November.  This is where I think Obama’s “I will cross party lines” message is going to help them.  Voters don’t want to hear about partisanship, and I certainly don’t.  If Clinton becomes the nominee, she needs to pick up on this message as well, I think.  Otherwise, she’ll have trouble climbing the hill toward the election.  If they can get a decent amount of Republicans, they’ve got it in the can.

My only concern in this ticket is military experience.  Neither can claim it.  Still, neither could former President Clinton.  Only his running mate, Gore, could.  Still, this may not be an incredible barrier.  Lets not forget that Gore was in the last conflict that required a draft, and Obama came of age after that.  Clinton, on the other hand, has the advantage of 8 years of looking over Bill’s shoulder on his military decisions.  This could help, as Clinton can claim some knowledge of how an actual President makes military choices.

So, to conclude,  an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket may indeed be more than just a necessity.  It may be indeed a strong ticket destined to win.

Posted on
by

This primary season update brought to you via mobile post, because I’ve been sitting at another dorm for two and a half hours trying to collect clothes for a community service project.

Republicans

Anyway, the big news of the night is the apparent end of the GOP primary race. According to CNN (can’t link to it from my current location but you can’t miss it), Huckabee’s campaign manager says the candidate will drop out from the race.

The reports are saying the McCain has swept up Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, which puts him past the 1,191 delegate count needed to clinch the nomination.

The writing has been on the wall for some time, but for some reason, Huckabee continued to wait. This baffles me somewhat. It was mathematically impossible for him to get the required delegates on his own. It would have likely taken the combined efforts of the unpledged delegates (all of whom usually vote for the state winner for the Republicans, unlike the Democrats) and the remaining delegates from Romney (who already has urged them to vote for McCain), and even then, I don’t think he would have gotten past the marker. So, even if he had gotten every other single pledged delegate in this race, it wouldn’t have gotten him past 1,191. Then there’s the whole thing about McCain’s huge lead in general, but even that’s not a marker of success, as I’ll get to next. Regardless, it just wasn’t happening for Huckabee.

Democrats

On to Clinton and Obama. Since I started writing this post at 9pm or so, Clinton has won Ohio and Rhode Island, and is currently doing so in Texas. Obama has won Vermont o far tonight.

You know, for the past two weeks, the stories in the media and blogosphere seem to have been on the inevitability of an end for Clinton’s run. After 11 wins in a row, it would seem to make some sense. Obama’s unbeatable, isn’t he?

Wrong! Did nobody learn their lesson on Super Tuesday with Mike Huckabee? He was destined to have become a nobody after winning no states after Iowa, and then made that huge comeback that is probably what make Romney decide to leave. Then there’s John McCain. Last Summer, he was dead in the water. No money, staff leaving left and right, no momentum at all, and no chance in hell. Heck, everyone was rooting for Rudy. Now look what’s happened. The man’s the nominee.

In the last two weeks, Clinton has shaken things up in her campaign staff and given herself a loan. Then there was that picture of Obama in Somali garb and her fit over that brochure (which I think may have actually helped her despite the media portrayal of it). Yet, here she is, with a big comeback. She’s won Rhode Island, Ohio, and by my projection, will probably slimly win Texas.

Things have switched up so much on both sides in this primary season, that it is nearly impossible to tell what will happen. I think the media and blogosphere need to take a step back and consider what has happened tonight. Then perhaps they’ll be a little more analytical and a little less knee-jerk when talking about what will happen.

The fact is, I think, you need to consider a few things that have happened in the past couple days. To keep things simple, I’ll do the “-gate” prefix thing. He’s had brochuregate and NAFTAgate. Those are the two big ones I can think of. Maybe there’s some others.

I think the Democrats in Ohio, very touchy about NAFTA, saw the second one in particular, especially after the lack of response to NAFTAgate, and decided he wasn’t worthy of their vote. They didn’t like how he handled that debacle, and he paid for it there.

Look, it’s been shown before several times that bloggers and the media can say it’s over for one candidate or another, and then the people will take things into their own hands. Prove them wrong.

I’ve said it too many times already, and I know I’ll be saying it again before it’s all over. We cannot call the game for the Democrats before all the cards are counted. Votes are proportional, and they often are too close to count. If you think you know what’s going to happen, you’re probably going to be disappointed.

Independents Week

Unfortunately, I’ve got a lot more going on than I intended on this week.  So, I’m going to have to take time this weekend, do a little planning, then hopefully on Sunday, I will finally be able to start this segment.

Posted on
by

I think I just found out how ill-prepared I am for taking on the task of covering the Independents who are running for President this year.  Take a look at this page to find out why.

That’s a lot of Independents/no party affiliation people, even if you took out all the 3rd-party people mixed in.  So, I have more work to do than I thought.

The problem is that Vote Smart seems to have a rather loose system of identifying your party affiliation.  There are people on there who are listed as “Independent”, “no party affiliation,” and “none.”  Then there’s a couple who have nothing listed at all in that column.  Finally, some of the “Independents” have few or no details listed, making it hard to profile them.  I don’t want to do it, but I’ll have to leave these people out…unless of course they happen to see this entry and want to send me information!  I’m here to profile you, people, free of charge!  Email me, hint hint hint!

Another issue is that some people who are listing themselves as “Independent” are really members of one of several Independent parties in the U.S.  The New American Independent Party is the one I’m seeing most often.  The thing I need to consider is whether this qualifies the candidate for Independents Week, or whether I should consider it just another party.  Although I understand the purpose behind it, officially, it is just another party.  My inclination for them is to leave it until I get to 3rd parties, and that is probably what will happen.

So, a bit of planning needs to be done.  I will start this weekend with a profile, and continue on.  However, I do this Independents Week will turn into Independents Weeks.

Posted on
by

What is this stupidity at the New York Times regarding stories about John McCain.  First it was the affair story that had no solid backing.  Now it’s this story about McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone bringing up questions about his Presidential eligibility.

What a stupid story.  McCain was born to someone who was serving in the military of the United States.  He certainly couldn’t do anything about that, so why should he be prevented from trying to lead his country?

So, yes, McCain should be able to run.  It shouldn’t even have been a question that was brought up, and McCain certainly seems to have enough precedent to his favor.  Four other people have had similar questions brought up, and all had rulings in their favor, or no question was brought up.

The bigger question is the ‘natural born’ clause in the Constitution.  Now, I understand the reason for having it back when it was created.  They certainly didn’t want England to try and sneak in someone or something!

Well, these days, when nobody’s about to be questioning our country’s right to exist, is it still needed?  I say, if someone has committed themselves to this country so much that they become a citizen, why should it matter?  We’re certainly not going to have someone as President who hasn’t proven themselves whether as a Congressperson or a Governor, or other political position (it just isn’t going to happen, as I’ll discuss in my Independents Week entries).

So, if they’ve committed themselves, why not let anyone who’s a citizen on this country become President?  Call me one to be against the Constitution if you wish, but I think there’s some people in this country who could make a difference.  Except they can’t, because they’re not natural-born citizens, just citizens.

What say you?  Retain the natural-born clause, or should it be removed?

Posted on
by

As live blogging as I can get, anyway.

Wrap-up: I thought the debate started off lopsided on the questions for Clinton.  However, not much later tough questions were asked to both, and it stayed this way throughout.

I thought some of the answers were rather bland.  Except the the heated mini-debate on healthcare, no real zingers here.

I don’t think Obama made any mis-steps, but neither did Clinton make any real steps forward.

I think, and some people seem to agree on this already, that it was basically a tie here.  I don’t know if it’s going to hurt or help either candidate.

Well, that’s all for tonight.  I’ll see you tomorrow!

10:31pm: What question must the other answer?

Obama: She’d be great as the nominee. I’ll be better for President because I can do and have done stuff.

Clinton: I’ll be better because I’ve done a lot for a long time.

Me: So, basically the same answer. Also notice how neither actually answered Williams’ question?

10:26pm: Clinton on worst vote: “I should not have taken this country into Iraq.” She is ready to lead, having exp. on both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.

Obama: I didn’t stand up and stop Congress from interfering into the Terry Schaivo situation. Whoever is nominee will be ready to help.

Me: Can’t expect much else here.

10:22pm: Clinton: Russia’s successor handpicked. Bush has had an incoherent policy toward Russia. We’ll be meeting with him, but Putin will be the decider.

Obama: Clinton says it right.

Me: Eh, what else can they say?

Obama: Kosovo? If Russia tries to help Serbia, we’ll “talk.”

Me: Clinton not going to be let to reply on it? Meh.

10:19pm: Me: Good answer on the ratings, Obama. I don’t think it’s a liberal vs. conservative thing. People like John McCain should be for it. Shouldn’t he?

10:13pm: Clinton: “There’s a difference between denouncing someone and rejecting support.”

Obama: “I’ll reject and denounce.”

Me: Zing!

10:08pm: Obama doesn’t want Farrakhan’s support. Denounced him many times.

Now Tim is asking about Obama’s pastor, esp. on Jewish support.

“I have some of the strongest Jewish. I’ve supported them, they’ve supported African Americans. We love each other, man!”

Me: Good answers here.

Sorry, had to go sign up for community service…

9:42pm: Someone’s about to call him John McCain. “If they want a partnership for protection of stability in the region….” and stops there!

Me: Yet, he speaks against what John McCain has now clarified. Difference???

Now, Clinton: Withdrawl within 60 days. He talks the talk with Afghanistan, but doesn’t do anything when he chairs the subcommittee with authority over it.

Obama: We’ll cooperate with allies, but act if there’s a threat.

9:40pm: And he comes back: “She was for Iraq before she was against it.”

And, I’m loving it, and so are millions of fangirls, I’m sure: “PAHHHK-ISTAHN”

“I did not say I’d bomb them. Only if we had info on Al-Queda, and they won’t help us.”

9:38pm: Come back to Clinton late, but: “He’ll bomb Pakistan, and meet with dictators. FEAR HIM!”

9:35pm: Foreign policy: Obama brings up “100 years” again. Stop it!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and I love his pronounciation: Paaahk-istahn. Which may be right, according to Wikipedia.

Anyway, he basically says: Given the past seven years, my inexperience makes no difference.

9:33pm: On not getting the 200,000 jobs, Clinton says: I didn’t have the President I wanted. I’m not going to speak on job making, since I don’t know much about it, except to say: See globalization.

9:26pm: Clinton says we’ll be out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate the agreement. I think Clinton’s been put on the defensive unfairly, here. She’s been getting all the tough questions, and Obama’s been the responder so far.

Me: Wait…there we go. A little tougher. He brought up a thing that Obama said about NAFTA. Maybe it’ll be a little more fair?

9:22pm: Oooh, Obama goes on the attack, saying Clinton was for NAFTA before she was against it.

9:18pm: Clinton’s not happy she got the first question, and has on past debates, too. Doesn’t like NAFTA, notes where it’s worked, and where it hasn’t, like in New York. I’m sure you know the debate so I won’t bore you, but lost jobs to overseas, etc.

9:12pm: Clinton finally comes out and says she or her top staff didn’t authorize the photo. A little late perhaps, but finally she says it. Ok, then, back on my consideration list for you.

Now they’re talking about how their nearly similar healthcare plans are different. Clinton explains why she would require everyone to be on her plan and how Obama leaves out 15 million or something, and Obama says he doesn’t want to fine people who don’t want it. They want to keep on it, and won’t let the mods move on.

Me: I think both have good points, but I think Obama’s reasoning is better. By the way, I’d love to know who these “experts” they both keep talking about are.