Last night, when history was made, three politicians gave speeches.
John McCain started out the evening in front of a hideous green backdrop, having stolen part of Obama's campaign slogan, and gave a dreadful speech in which he attacked Obama with a chorus of "That's not change we can believe in." As he finished each sentence, which he delivered quite seriously, he gave that silly artificial smile. The message, the delivery, the appearance of McCain, even the reaction of the crowd, was not befitting a presidential candidate. Additionally, it was foolish of McCain not only to try to steal Obama's moment from him, but to be willing to pair his speech with Obama's, and have it be compared unfavorably. From here on in McCain needs to realize that no one can match Obama's gift of oratory.
Hillary Clinton was up next, having ramped up expectations of what she might say by sending out little hints all day that she would, then she wouldn't concede, that she wanted or didn't want the vice presidential nod. Her speech was in the basement of a university, where cell phones and other wireless devices could not work. Apparently she held her listeners hostage inside the room, kept in ignorance that Obama had won the nomination, so she could pretend it hadn't happened yet. When she finally gave her speech, she did not acknowledge his victory, only his good campaign, and spent the time trying to tell her supporters what she wanted. The speech was all about her, all about her supporters, with the constant (untrue) reminder that more people had voted for her than for her opponent. By all accounts, except those of her staff, it was a poor loser speech, a speech in which she seemed to be saying to Obama: "not so fast buddy, you still have to deal with me." In my estimation, the speech was one more way of the Clintons saying "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." It all depends on what the meaning of sniper fire is, it all depends on what the meaning of the popular vote count is, it all depends on what the meaning of victory is. One wonders if Hillary will ever concede.
Then, speaking last, was the Democrat's new presumptive nominee. His speech was generous to Hillary, gracious to her and her supporters, and tough on his Republican rival. The tone varied from humble, to matter-of-fact, to fiery. In stark contrast to McCain, whose delivery of a speech ranges from reading lines to looking up and smiling, Obama knows how to vary his style, to make his speeches interesting, to move from facts to emotion and back again. Obama's speech inspired me and made me proud.
There were three speeches last night, each with its own goal.
McCain's goal was to upstage Obama. He failed miserably.
Clinton's was to deny Obama her concession, taint his victory, and warn Obama that he would still have to contend with her. In future days, it will be obvious that her strategy backfired.
Obama's was to claim the nomination, be gracious to Hillary, and set the tone for the general election contest. He succeeded on all counts.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Voting on the basis of race and gender
This morning on MSNBC, columnist Richard Cohen and regular contributor Pat Buchanan were arguing about what constitutes "racism" and what is simply "voting for your tribe," as Buchanan called it.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Cohen said that this election exposed the racism that is still in this country but that has not been talked about in a long time. He cites exit polls in many Appalachian states where white voters said race had played a role in their choice of candidates, and of these a majority voted for Hillary Clinton.
Buchanan said he saw no difference between blacks in Philadelphia voting for Barack because he is black and whites in West Virginia voting for Hillary because she is white.
Cohen replied that the difference was that many whites in West Virginia were actually voting against Barack because of his race, while in Philly blacks may have been voting for Barack because of his race, but were not voting against Hillary because of either race or gender.
Pat Buchanan is not the only white commentator, nor white American, who fails to see a distinction between African American citizens voting for a fellow black American and white citizens voting for a fellow white American. They are both examples of voting for your tribe and should be seen as perfectly acceptable, according to Buchanan.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. It's one of those things that no matter how you argue it, the other side simply does not get it. But I will try.
First off, blacks have more often than not voted for white candidates, sometimes because the white candidate was better than the black candidate, sometimes because the white candidate was the only candidate. In presidential contests, there have been very few black candidates an African American could vote for. The fact that for the first time in the history of this country there is the actual possibility that an African American could become president is something extraordinary, and it seems logical to me that a majority (though not all) of African Americans would see this as a historic opportunity to elect one of their own. The large majorities of women who support Hillary Clinton feel exactly the same way about voting for a woman for the first time.
It should be said that African Americans are not voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama just because he is black, but also because he is a gifted candidate. Indeed, he could not have gotten as far as he has were he not extraordinary. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She could not have gotten as far as she has were she not extremely bright and highly talented. Women and men who voted for Hillary at least in part because they wanted to elect a woman to the presidency are voting honorably. (I might add here that the intelligence and skills of the two Democratic candidates are of a completely different caliber than that of John McCain, who is a mediocre talent at best, no matter how compelling his personal story.)
But somehow voting for Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or any other white candidate, just because they are white, as voting for John McCain or Mike Huckabee or any other white male, just because they are white and male, has an element of prejudice about it. There's nothing wrong with voting for any candidate because you think they would make a good president, regardless of race or gender, but to vote for one gender or one race because you have a bias against the skin color or anatomy of the other candidate is something different.
Pat Buchanan wants to act as if we are a country with no history of racial hatred and violence. He wants to see the actions, thoughts, and history of white Americans as completely analagous to the actions, thoughts and history of black Americans and this is to completely ignore reality.
Pat knows as well as anyone that this country has a long history of discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, a history that began with white Americans owning African American slaves. Ever since then, it has been a struggle for African Americans to be treated as well as their white counterparts. First slavery had to be outlawed and the slaves emancipated, then segregation eliminated and Jim Crow laws overturned. Then voting rights had to be legally protected. The job isn't finished, however. Deep in the hearts of some people in this country, the color of one's skin determines how worthy a human being you are. This is something that cannot be overcome with laws. It can only be overcome with education and inspiration, and it has not happened yet in many areas of the country, as we have discovered in this primary season.
Those white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in West Virginia and other Appalachian states, who said race played a role in their vote, were making a statement about their lingering attitude towards people whose skin is dark. Many of these same people would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Fall were she the Democratic nominee, because they would actually prefer a white male like John McCain. Since they didn't have a white male candidate, they chose a white female candidate. In the lingering caste system they live by, a white male is superior to a white female, but a white female is superior to a black male.
It is different with black voters, who are far more willing to vote for the white candidate. Even the exit polls showed that far more Obama supporters said they would vote for Hillary in the Fall if she were the nominee, than Hillary supporters said they would vote for Barack. This was especially true among voters who said race played a role in their choice of candidate.
Wanting to vote for the first female nominee for president if you are a woman, or the first black nominee for president if you are African American, is understandable. There is nothing prejudiced about it. Blacks have been voting for white presidential nominees for decades and women have been voting for male candidates since 1893, but this is the first year either group has actually had an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate of their race or gender. This year blacks didn't all of a sudden become prejudiced against whites (although Obama's opponents will try to use the comments made by pastors in his former church to make the case that his supporters are "racist") or females prejudiced against males. This is simply the first year these constituencies actually had a choice other than a white male, and they felt pride in those candidates.
Certain groups of white voters, on the other hand, who voted against Obama because of his race, were doing something completely different than voting on the basis of pride in their candidate. They were voting against a candidate because they did not see him as worthy, based only on his race.
If Pat Buchanan cannnot see this, perhaps it is because he shares their prejudice.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Doing the best you can do with a bad situation
The past week has brought us an interesting juxtaposition of two voting controversies in Florida. Last Sunday we saw the HBO movie Recount, in which the events of the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida were dramatized, and yesterday we watched as the Democratic Party's Rules and By-Laws Committee decided what to do about the votes in Florida (and Michigan) which they had disallowed last August when both states violated the authorized calender for holding primaries.
Hillary Clinton has tried to say these "disenfranchisements" of the voters in Florida in 2000 and 2008 are exactly the same, but they are not. The 2000 election, in which there were multiple problems with the vote, could have been resolved with a statewide recount. For whatever reasons, Al Gore did not ask for a total state recount, and the partial recount he did ask for was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a travesty. There was a remedy that was obvious to all, but the Republican Party sent out their staffers to act as Florida residents spontaneously protesting, and the Supreme Court decided it was more important to put Bush into office than allow the protests and the recount to continue.
The problems in the 2008 primaries in Florida and Michigan were numerous, and only one resembled the situation with Florida in 2000. First of all, the voters of Florida and Michigan were told months ahead of time that their votes would not count because their states had decided to hold their primaries before Super Tuesday. After a long process of contemplating what states should go first, the DNC had decided to let four states go before all the others (an imperfect system, certainly, but necessary in order to create an orderly process). Florida and Michigan were not among the four, but scheduled their primary early anyway. This was nothing like Florida in 2000, which first of all was a general election and not a primary, and secondly was a dispute about who really won a very close election where there were multiple problems with voter rolls and ballots.
The one way in which Florida in 2000 resembled Florida and Michigan in 2008 was not a way that provided an advantageous argument to Senator Clinton. In Florida in 2000 many people had been taken off the voting rolls because Katherine Harris had hired a company to eliminate people whose names resembled those of felons in the state. Hundreds of thousands of people may have been mistakenly turned away at the polls because of this and been unable to vote. In Florida and Michigan, hundreds of thousands may also not have voted, primarily because they believed the election would not count anyway.
When Florida and Michigan went ahead awith their unauthorized primaries, many voters stayed home as they believed their vote would not count. So the final vote count could not have been a true reflection of the will of the people. It was only a true reflection of those who chose to go to the polls. Senator Clinton wanted us to believe that the vote in Florida and Michigan in 2008 was a true reflection of the will of the people, when in fact it was not. Trying to discern what that will was would have been impossible, just as impossible as going back and reinstating all those Floridians wrongfully disenfranchised in 2000 and allowing them to vote after the fact.
Nevertheless, the other problems in Florida in 2000 could have been remedied with a recount, which was never allowed. There was no similar remedy in Florida and Michigan in 2008, unless there had been new elections which were costly and logistically problematic, and so the states both decided against them.
This meant that if Florida and Michigan wanted their votes to count, they would have to appeal to the Rules and By-Laws Committee, which they did. Last Saturday at the hearing, the committee members had a tough job. First they had to decide if they should give back the votes they had stripped from Florida and Michigan, and then they had to decide if the vote that was recorded was a true reflection of the will of the people, especially when many people in those states didn't vote because they believed the vote would not count.
In both cases, the committee decided to give back half of the votes, a compromise to honor those who voted and still exact a penalty so in future elections states would honor the dates authorized by the Party. With Florida, the votes were awarded as the people voted, even though this could not have been a fair reflection of the will of all the voters. This was a concession by the Obama campaign.
Michigan, however, was a different story, in that most of the candidates had taken their names off the ballot, and of the final contenders, only Senator Clinton's name remained. There was a category for "uncommitted," however, which complicated things.
There was a big difference of opinion on the committee about how to deal with Michigan and its uncommitted votes. Ultimately, the decision was made to accept the compromise worked out by the Michigan Democratic Party which awarded Obama all of the uncommitted delegates plus four more, largely because write-in votes for him had been disallowed and because exit polls showed that most of those who voted "uncommitted" as well as some who voted for Clinton actually preferred Obama.
Obviously, this was an imperfect decision, as all compromises are. Had the committee done what Senator Clinton wanted, to not award any delegates to Obama, it would have been even more imperfect.
Harold Ickes, a Clinton supporter and advisor to her campaign, and a member of the committee, went ballistic. He insisted this decision was not a true reflection of the will of the voters, and threatened to appeal the decision. He threw around the word "ass" a lot, and fired up Clinton supporters in the audience who began shouting "McCain" and "Denver," as in "we'll vote for McCain rather than Obama," and "we'll take this to the convention in Denver."
I understand the disappointment of the Clinton people, including Ickes, but this is such a unique situation that I don't think there was any solution that could have satisfied both campaigns and the voters of both states. What Ickes doesn't want to acknowledge is that the starting point was that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama were going to get any votes from those states when the day started yesterday. By the end of the day, both states were given half their delegates back, and Clinton got more delegates than Obama. There was absolutely no way to know how those states would have voted if their votes had counted from day one, and no way to know how many stayed home that day because they believed their votes wouldn't count. There was also no way to know how many of Obama's supporters in Michigan stayed home not just because the vote wouldn't count, but because their candidate's name wasn't even on the ballot.
So the Rules committee accepted a compromise which the members could live with. If Harold Ickes cannot live with the compromise, it's because he's a fierce Hillary supporter who didn't get what he wanted.
As some commentators were saying yesterday, this ruling proves that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic Party. Let's hope what the ruling does mean is that compromise, rationality, and a spirit of unity are what controls the Democratic Party. And let's hope further that Senator and President Clinton adopt that spirit as well and do the right thing this week when Senator Obama wins the number of votes needed to be the nominee.
Hillary Clinton has tried to say these "disenfranchisements" of the voters in Florida in 2000 and 2008 are exactly the same, but they are not. The 2000 election, in which there were multiple problems with the vote, could have been resolved with a statewide recount. For whatever reasons, Al Gore did not ask for a total state recount, and the partial recount he did ask for was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a travesty. There was a remedy that was obvious to all, but the Republican Party sent out their staffers to act as Florida residents spontaneously protesting, and the Supreme Court decided it was more important to put Bush into office than allow the protests and the recount to continue.
The problems in the 2008 primaries in Florida and Michigan were numerous, and only one resembled the situation with Florida in 2000. First of all, the voters of Florida and Michigan were told months ahead of time that their votes would not count because their states had decided to hold their primaries before Super Tuesday. After a long process of contemplating what states should go first, the DNC had decided to let four states go before all the others (an imperfect system, certainly, but necessary in order to create an orderly process). Florida and Michigan were not among the four, but scheduled their primary early anyway. This was nothing like Florida in 2000, which first of all was a general election and not a primary, and secondly was a dispute about who really won a very close election where there were multiple problems with voter rolls and ballots.
The one way in which Florida in 2000 resembled Florida and Michigan in 2008 was not a way that provided an advantageous argument to Senator Clinton. In Florida in 2000 many people had been taken off the voting rolls because Katherine Harris had hired a company to eliminate people whose names resembled those of felons in the state. Hundreds of thousands of people may have been mistakenly turned away at the polls because of this and been unable to vote. In Florida and Michigan, hundreds of thousands may also not have voted, primarily because they believed the election would not count anyway.
When Florida and Michigan went ahead awith their unauthorized primaries, many voters stayed home as they believed their vote would not count. So the final vote count could not have been a true reflection of the will of the people. It was only a true reflection of those who chose to go to the polls. Senator Clinton wanted us to believe that the vote in Florida and Michigan in 2008 was a true reflection of the will of the people, when in fact it was not. Trying to discern what that will was would have been impossible, just as impossible as going back and reinstating all those Floridians wrongfully disenfranchised in 2000 and allowing them to vote after the fact.
Nevertheless, the other problems in Florida in 2000 could have been remedied with a recount, which was never allowed. There was no similar remedy in Florida and Michigan in 2008, unless there had been new elections which were costly and logistically problematic, and so the states both decided against them.
This meant that if Florida and Michigan wanted their votes to count, they would have to appeal to the Rules and By-Laws Committee, which they did. Last Saturday at the hearing, the committee members had a tough job. First they had to decide if they should give back the votes they had stripped from Florida and Michigan, and then they had to decide if the vote that was recorded was a true reflection of the will of the people, especially when many people in those states didn't vote because they believed the vote would not count.
In both cases, the committee decided to give back half of the votes, a compromise to honor those who voted and still exact a penalty so in future elections states would honor the dates authorized by the Party. With Florida, the votes were awarded as the people voted, even though this could not have been a fair reflection of the will of all the voters. This was a concession by the Obama campaign.
Michigan, however, was a different story, in that most of the candidates had taken their names off the ballot, and of the final contenders, only Senator Clinton's name remained. There was a category for "uncommitted," however, which complicated things.
There was a big difference of opinion on the committee about how to deal with Michigan and its uncommitted votes. Ultimately, the decision was made to accept the compromise worked out by the Michigan Democratic Party which awarded Obama all of the uncommitted delegates plus four more, largely because write-in votes for him had been disallowed and because exit polls showed that most of those who voted "uncommitted" as well as some who voted for Clinton actually preferred Obama.
Obviously, this was an imperfect decision, as all compromises are. Had the committee done what Senator Clinton wanted, to not award any delegates to Obama, it would have been even more imperfect.
Harold Ickes, a Clinton supporter and advisor to her campaign, and a member of the committee, went ballistic. He insisted this decision was not a true reflection of the will of the voters, and threatened to appeal the decision. He threw around the word "ass" a lot, and fired up Clinton supporters in the audience who began shouting "McCain" and "Denver," as in "we'll vote for McCain rather than Obama," and "we'll take this to the convention in Denver."
I understand the disappointment of the Clinton people, including Ickes, but this is such a unique situation that I don't think there was any solution that could have satisfied both campaigns and the voters of both states. What Ickes doesn't want to acknowledge is that the starting point was that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama were going to get any votes from those states when the day started yesterday. By the end of the day, both states were given half their delegates back, and Clinton got more delegates than Obama. There was absolutely no way to know how those states would have voted if their votes had counted from day one, and no way to know how many stayed home that day because they believed their votes wouldn't count. There was also no way to know how many of Obama's supporters in Michigan stayed home not just because the vote wouldn't count, but because their candidate's name wasn't even on the ballot.
So the Rules committee accepted a compromise which the members could live with. If Harold Ickes cannot live with the compromise, it's because he's a fierce Hillary supporter who didn't get what he wanted.
As some commentators were saying yesterday, this ruling proves that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic Party. Let's hope what the ruling does mean is that compromise, rationality, and a spirit of unity are what controls the Democratic Party. And let's hope further that Senator and President Clinton adopt that spirit as well and do the right thing this week when Senator Obama wins the number of votes needed to be the nominee.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Time for ministers to shut up and Democrats to unite
The latest reverend to slink out of the ooze and perform before an audience is once again tarnishing Barack Obama. Not content to let FOX obsess about it, MSNBC and even PBS's News Hour showed clips last night of a Catholic priest giving a "guest" sermon at Obama's Chicago Church in which, among other things, he ridiculed Hillary Clinton. (Obama wasn't there to hear it, but when he saw the clips he strongly condemned what the priest said.)
And, honestly, what the priest said was completely over the top. I'm not going to repeat any of his rant, which every Catholic should find embarrassing. Certainly Obama found it offensive. Mark Shields, of the News Hour, was so horrified by it that he suggested Obama apologize to Hillary for the ridicule that this priest directed at her. I wouldn't go that far, in that this crazy man's ideas do not reflect anything Obama has ever said or stood for. And Obama had no part in this nonsense, nor was he even there to see it firsthand.
But I do think Obama needs to do two things. He needs to leave the Trinity United Church of Christ and publicly join another church, one that is much more subdued and dignified and thus matches his own demeanor. While all of the members of this congregation may not be radical, its ministers flirt with radical ideas and while this may have been okay when Obama was simply a state senator, it is not okay for him to be associated with anything radical or unseemly now that he is running for the highest office in the land. Furthermore, Obama is nothing like either of these ministers, has never spoken any of these ideas, or acted like either of these men, and he needs to find a church that will befit his dignity and not continue to embarrass and hurt him. He needs to do this without insulting the members of Trinity United, and with gratitude to them for their love and support.
He also needs to make a concerted outreach to women, starting with a speech in which he talks about gender issues and reaches out to Hillary's supporters. Perhaps he even needs to ask Hillary to be his vice presidential running mate (if only he can put Bill in cold storage for eight years) to heal the growing rift between his supporters and Hillary's supporters. Because this rift must be healed.
What started out as a primary season to be proud of – with a female candidate, African American candidate and Hispanic candidate within a larger democratic field – has turned into a nightmare of racist and sexist accusations. The fellowship once felt between women and African Americans in their parallel fights for equality, has been turned into a competition as the two populations line up behind different candidates. There were shades of this in the seventies, of course, when African American women felt the women's movement was primarily about white women and ignored the problems blackwomen encountered because of their race, but no one could have predicted that these two candidates would inspire such division among Democrats who have always been champions of both women's rights and minority rights.
This primary contest needs to be resolved now. The leaders of the Party need to exert their influence and Hillary and Barack need to sit down and end this growing animosity. They need to speak to their followers about unity and common cause, and turn the anger of their supporters in the right direction – against the horrible record of this administration and the man who wants to continue those policies for four more years. They need to speak against sexism and racism, apologize publicly for anything they or their surrogates or crazy ministers have said or done to fuel the fire, and start working together for the good of this country.
One of these days I'm going to write a long post about the dangers of religious and clerical involvement in our political campaigns and our government, one that is long overdue, but that post can wait. For now, we need to unite this party and Hillary and Barack must lead that effort. We can't afford to continue this fight any longer. We must have a nominee now and begin to heal so that we can all be on board to return the White House to Democratic hands. Because there is one thing for certain. Anyone who cares about civil rights and the rights of women, anyone who cares about stopping this war, anyone who cares about the health of our citizens and their access to health insurance, will be sorely disappointed by a John McCain presidency.
And, honestly, what the priest said was completely over the top. I'm not going to repeat any of his rant, which every Catholic should find embarrassing. Certainly Obama found it offensive. Mark Shields, of the News Hour, was so horrified by it that he suggested Obama apologize to Hillary for the ridicule that this priest directed at her. I wouldn't go that far, in that this crazy man's ideas do not reflect anything Obama has ever said or stood for. And Obama had no part in this nonsense, nor was he even there to see it firsthand.
But I do think Obama needs to do two things. He needs to leave the Trinity United Church of Christ and publicly join another church, one that is much more subdued and dignified and thus matches his own demeanor. While all of the members of this congregation may not be radical, its ministers flirt with radical ideas and while this may have been okay when Obama was simply a state senator, it is not okay for him to be associated with anything radical or unseemly now that he is running for the highest office in the land. Furthermore, Obama is nothing like either of these ministers, has never spoken any of these ideas, or acted like either of these men, and he needs to find a church that will befit his dignity and not continue to embarrass and hurt him. He needs to do this without insulting the members of Trinity United, and with gratitude to them for their love and support.
He also needs to make a concerted outreach to women, starting with a speech in which he talks about gender issues and reaches out to Hillary's supporters. Perhaps he even needs to ask Hillary to be his vice presidential running mate (if only he can put Bill in cold storage for eight years) to heal the growing rift between his supporters and Hillary's supporters. Because this rift must be healed.
What started out as a primary season to be proud of – with a female candidate, African American candidate and Hispanic candidate within a larger democratic field – has turned into a nightmare of racist and sexist accusations. The fellowship once felt between women and African Americans in their parallel fights for equality, has been turned into a competition as the two populations line up behind different candidates. There were shades of this in the seventies, of course, when African American women felt the women's movement was primarily about white women and ignored the problems blackwomen encountered because of their race, but no one could have predicted that these two candidates would inspire such division among Democrats who have always been champions of both women's rights and minority rights.
This primary contest needs to be resolved now. The leaders of the Party need to exert their influence and Hillary and Barack need to sit down and end this growing animosity. They need to speak to their followers about unity and common cause, and turn the anger of their supporters in the right direction – against the horrible record of this administration and the man who wants to continue those policies for four more years. They need to speak against sexism and racism, apologize publicly for anything they or their surrogates or crazy ministers have said or done to fuel the fire, and start working together for the good of this country.
One of these days I'm going to write a long post about the dangers of religious and clerical involvement in our political campaigns and our government, one that is long overdue, but that post can wait. For now, we need to unite this party and Hillary and Barack must lead that effort. We can't afford to continue this fight any longer. We must have a nominee now and begin to heal so that we can all be on board to return the White House to Democratic hands. Because there is one thing for certain. Anyone who cares about civil rights and the rights of women, anyone who cares about stopping this war, anyone who cares about the health of our citizens and their access to health insurance, will be sorely disappointed by a John McCain presidency.
Friday, May 30, 2008
The rational solution to Florida and Michigan: a prediction
I'm going to do something very dangerous. I'm going to predict that the rules committe that meets tomorrow will be rational. That is a dangerous prediction in that it has been my experience that human beings, especially when it comes to politics, are rarely rational.
Nevertheless, let's look at the problem, the arguments, the counterarguments, and the only rational solution the committee can come to. This doesn't mean they will choose the rational solution, but I predict they will come close.
The problem: Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. They were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway. Currently, their delegates do not count and the number of delegates needed to win is thus much lower than it would have been had their votes counted.
All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in these two states and both Hillary and Barack stated publicly that they accepted the fact that the votes in these states would not count. Barack and several others even took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Hillary did not. Hillary won in Michigan, against "uncommitted." In Florida all the names were on the ballot and Hillary also won.
The Hillary arguments: Since it became apparent that Hillary could not possibly win the nomination without the delegates in Michigan and Florida, she has been arguing that the DNC should not enforce the rules she agreed to, rules that were written with the assistance of her supporters. Furthermore, she argues that the votes should be assigned as they were cast, which means that Barack Obama would get no delegates from Michigan and no penalty would be assigned to these states for violating the rules.
Part of her argument is that the Democratic Party should never have instituted these rules because they have disenfranchised the voters of these states. She further argues that the voters of these two states will be mad at the Democrats if their delegates don't count, and may vote for McCain in the Fall as a result.
The counterargument: Those who oppose Hillary's argument, including Obama, say that everyone agreed to play by these rules and that has affected strategy. If Obama knew Florida and Michigan counted, he would have campaigned differently, spending time there to introduce himself to voters in order to have an equal chance against the more well known Clinton.
Furthermore, he argues, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes for him were automatically thrown out. He also points to the fact that many voters, including his supporters, did not even vote as they knew the election wouldn't count. To now count the votes of these states would be to disenfranchise those who stayed home, accepting the rules, and would penalize all those states that scheduled their primaries later in order to abide by the rules.
Others in the Party argue that to threaten to penalize these states, but then not penalize them at all, would be to open the process up to chaos in coming years as more and more states moved their primaries up to ridiculously early dates, making the primary season longer and more expensive than ever. Unless these states are penalized, they argue, the DNC will lose all control of the primary process.
The rational solution: First, the states must experience a consequence for violating the rules. Since traditionally that violation has been to strip a state of half of its delegates, that seems a sensible solution this year. The delegates will still be seated, giving their state a part in the nomination process, but not as much power as they would have had if they had adhered to the rules. Even Clinton campaign manager Terry McCauliffe promised to strip Michigan of half of their delegates in 2004 when they threatened to move their primary up, so if this solution wasn't understood by the Clinton campaign, Terry could explain it to them.
Second, because the states were in violation of the rules, and the candidates acted with a good faith belief that the votes would not count, and planned their campaign strategies accordingly, these states cannot be allowed to decide the election and overturn the will of the other 48 states.
Again, with Obama ahead by almost 200 delegates, a seating of half of the delegates from the states will not overturn the current status of the race and thus seems sensible.
Third, some accomodation must be made for the fact that only Clinton's name was on the ballot in Michigan. She can't be allowed to benefit from this unusual circumstance as it is obvious that were Obama's name on the ballot, he would have received a considerable number of votes. The rules committee can give him all of the "uncommitted" or some portion of the uncommitted that is acceptable to the committee and to Obama. (One unique solution I recently heard was to take a series of polls in Michigan - and perhaps even Florida - and assign delegates according to the results of the polling data. That seems reasonable as well.)
So that, to me, is reasonable. It achieves the goals of punishing the states so as to prevent future chaos, seating the delegations so as not to totally disenfranchise the voters who weren't responsible for the policy, and arriving at a reasonable vote assignment in Michigan where the frontrunner was not even on the ballot.
This is what I predict the committee will do - regardless of how emotional Hillary's supporters get, and how forcefully her surrogates argue her position. Her position is irrational , unjust, and completely self-serving, and if the committee members are at all rational, they will not give her everything she wants, but will try to find a reasonable and sensible compromise.
Nevertheless, let's look at the problem, the arguments, the counterarguments, and the only rational solution the committee can come to. This doesn't mean they will choose the rational solution, but I predict they will come close.
The problem: Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. They were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway. Currently, their delegates do not count and the number of delegates needed to win is thus much lower than it would have been had their votes counted.
All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in these two states and both Hillary and Barack stated publicly that they accepted the fact that the votes in these states would not count. Barack and several others even took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Hillary did not. Hillary won in Michigan, against "uncommitted." In Florida all the names were on the ballot and Hillary also won.
The Hillary arguments: Since it became apparent that Hillary could not possibly win the nomination without the delegates in Michigan and Florida, she has been arguing that the DNC should not enforce the rules she agreed to, rules that were written with the assistance of her supporters. Furthermore, she argues that the votes should be assigned as they were cast, which means that Barack Obama would get no delegates from Michigan and no penalty would be assigned to these states for violating the rules.
Part of her argument is that the Democratic Party should never have instituted these rules because they have disenfranchised the voters of these states. She further argues that the voters of these two states will be mad at the Democrats if their delegates don't count, and may vote for McCain in the Fall as a result.
The counterargument: Those who oppose Hillary's argument, including Obama, say that everyone agreed to play by these rules and that has affected strategy. If Obama knew Florida and Michigan counted, he would have campaigned differently, spending time there to introduce himself to voters in order to have an equal chance against the more well known Clinton.
Furthermore, he argues, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes for him were automatically thrown out. He also points to the fact that many voters, including his supporters, did not even vote as they knew the election wouldn't count. To now count the votes of these states would be to disenfranchise those who stayed home, accepting the rules, and would penalize all those states that scheduled their primaries later in order to abide by the rules.
Others in the Party argue that to threaten to penalize these states, but then not penalize them at all, would be to open the process up to chaos in coming years as more and more states moved their primaries up to ridiculously early dates, making the primary season longer and more expensive than ever. Unless these states are penalized, they argue, the DNC will lose all control of the primary process.
The rational solution: First, the states must experience a consequence for violating the rules. Since traditionally that violation has been to strip a state of half of its delegates, that seems a sensible solution this year. The delegates will still be seated, giving their state a part in the nomination process, but not as much power as they would have had if they had adhered to the rules. Even Clinton campaign manager Terry McCauliffe promised to strip Michigan of half of their delegates in 2004 when they threatened to move their primary up, so if this solution wasn't understood by the Clinton campaign, Terry could explain it to them.
Second, because the states were in violation of the rules, and the candidates acted with a good faith belief that the votes would not count, and planned their campaign strategies accordingly, these states cannot be allowed to decide the election and overturn the will of the other 48 states.
Again, with Obama ahead by almost 200 delegates, a seating of half of the delegates from the states will not overturn the current status of the race and thus seems sensible.
Third, some accomodation must be made for the fact that only Clinton's name was on the ballot in Michigan. She can't be allowed to benefit from this unusual circumstance as it is obvious that were Obama's name on the ballot, he would have received a considerable number of votes. The rules committee can give him all of the "uncommitted" or some portion of the uncommitted that is acceptable to the committee and to Obama. (One unique solution I recently heard was to take a series of polls in Michigan - and perhaps even Florida - and assign delegates according to the results of the polling data. That seems reasonable as well.)
So that, to me, is reasonable. It achieves the goals of punishing the states so as to prevent future chaos, seating the delegations so as not to totally disenfranchise the voters who weren't responsible for the policy, and arriving at a reasonable vote assignment in Michigan where the frontrunner was not even on the ballot.
This is what I predict the committee will do - regardless of how emotional Hillary's supporters get, and how forcefully her surrogates argue her position. Her position is irrational , unjust, and completely self-serving, and if the committee members are at all rational, they will not give her everything she wants, but will try to find a reasonable and sensible compromise.
News of the week, with commentary
This week's headlines:
We start out with remnants of the stories of John McCain's "pastor problem," then move on to McCain and Obama arguing about Iraq. But no one is really tuned into Iraq, so the weather gods did the news a favor and brought a number of deadly tornadoes to the Midwest…
MY COMMENT: Why does anyone give any attention to crazy pastors? I'm sure there are plenty of hard working and sincere ministers out there trying to help people with their physical, economic, moral and spiritual problems, so why do we give press to those few nutjobs who get involved in politics or foreign affairs or controversial topics. Let's just end the tax break for religions, and shove religion back in the churches. If the media would not cover these insane showmen, we could focus on more important things, like health care and the cost of gasoline.
More tornadoes this year than ever before. Climate change anyone?
…The coverage of tornadoes got boring after a day or two, so it was fortunate that former lightweight press secretary under Bush, Scott McClellan, went on a book tour for his book about "What Happened" while he was in the White House, and he didn't have many good things to say. As White House spokespersons all expressed how "puzzled" they were by Scott's book, and various media outlets either praised him for his honesty or criticized him for his disloyalty, or accused Scott of using liberal bloggers to write the book (no, I'm not kidding), the Republicans obviously needed a distraction…
MY COMMENT: Scott McClellan is an idiot. He was an idiot as press secretary when he looked like his head contained only pre-recorded talking points, and he is an idiot now who wants to sell a book. I have absolutely no sympathy for the morons who supported these criminal monsters: the president and vice president. It is too late to be sorry. You can't bring back those dead Americans in Iraq and New Orleans, and you can't bring back those dead Iraqis. Scotty and the rest of the people surrounding George Bush are either the stupidest people on the planet or the most criminal. No one should buy this man's book. He is six years too late.
…The distraction from McClellan turned out to be a tape of a radical Catholic priest giving a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's (former?) church. Obama wasn't there, of course, and while this priest allegedly spent a short time on a panel of ministers doing outreach to churches or advising for the campaign, it has been decided by the media that he is Obama's new "pastor problem"….
MY COMMENT: Read the first comment above.
….This morning, the deadly collapse of a second crane in New York City pushed the crazy pastor story out of the headlines (because stories about New York are always more important than anything else). Tomorrow, the DNC rules committee meeting will push the crane, pastor, tornado, and McClellan stories out of the headlines…
MY COMMENT: The news will cover the women protesting at the DNC event, women who think Hillary Clinton must be crowned queen of America because she is the symbol of female equality and who are demanding that the DNC seat all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. I don't think they should seat any of them, because not only did they break the clear rules set out by the DNC, but all the candidates agreed to abide by those rules. Now the losing candidate wants to change the rules so she can win. This is an example of what some call "situational ethics." If it feels good, do it. If you can't win by following the rules, change the rules. Democrats have been accused time and again of operating according to situational ethics and of not having a backbone. The DNC needs to show the country and the renegade states that they can enforce rules and that they have a backbone. They need to stick to their rules, make a sane decision, and tell Hillary' it is time for her to accept reality. In time, Michigan and Florida will get over it and decide that that voting for McCain will just give them four more years of Bush.
…..Then we have the final primary elections - in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana - and the drama Hillary will provide when she decides whether or not she is going to continue to hold the party hostage…
MY COMMENT: Puerto Rico is irrelevant. They cannot vote in the general, so while they have been given some power to help choose the nominee, the popular vote there should not be included in Hillary's bogus popular vote count. Besides, why is anyone in the press falling for this popular vote argument? The party chooses the nominee on the basis of delegates won, not popular votes. Since many of the caucus states don't record the actual popular vote, there is really no way of knowing who won the most popular votes, regardless of the fairy tale Hillary is spinning.
Why is anyone letting Hillary determine the metrics for winning? And furthermore, didn't the Clintons cause the Democratic Party enough trouble in the late nineties, including making it impossible for Al Gore to win in the 2000 election? Why on earth would anyone give them a second opportunity to lose an election for the Democrats by trying to change the rules and using prolonged negative campaigning against the nominee?
Can't wait for next week's headlines!
We start out with remnants of the stories of John McCain's "pastor problem," then move on to McCain and Obama arguing about Iraq. But no one is really tuned into Iraq, so the weather gods did the news a favor and brought a number of deadly tornadoes to the Midwest…
MY COMMENT: Why does anyone give any attention to crazy pastors? I'm sure there are plenty of hard working and sincere ministers out there trying to help people with their physical, economic, moral and spiritual problems, so why do we give press to those few nutjobs who get involved in politics or foreign affairs or controversial topics. Let's just end the tax break for religions, and shove religion back in the churches. If the media would not cover these insane showmen, we could focus on more important things, like health care and the cost of gasoline.
More tornadoes this year than ever before. Climate change anyone?
…The coverage of tornadoes got boring after a day or two, so it was fortunate that former lightweight press secretary under Bush, Scott McClellan, went on a book tour for his book about "What Happened" while he was in the White House, and he didn't have many good things to say. As White House spokespersons all expressed how "puzzled" they were by Scott's book, and various media outlets either praised him for his honesty or criticized him for his disloyalty, or accused Scott of using liberal bloggers to write the book (no, I'm not kidding), the Republicans obviously needed a distraction…
MY COMMENT: Scott McClellan is an idiot. He was an idiot as press secretary when he looked like his head contained only pre-recorded talking points, and he is an idiot now who wants to sell a book. I have absolutely no sympathy for the morons who supported these criminal monsters: the president and vice president. It is too late to be sorry. You can't bring back those dead Americans in Iraq and New Orleans, and you can't bring back those dead Iraqis. Scotty and the rest of the people surrounding George Bush are either the stupidest people on the planet or the most criminal. No one should buy this man's book. He is six years too late.
…The distraction from McClellan turned out to be a tape of a radical Catholic priest giving a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's (former?) church. Obama wasn't there, of course, and while this priest allegedly spent a short time on a panel of ministers doing outreach to churches or advising for the campaign, it has been decided by the media that he is Obama's new "pastor problem"….
MY COMMENT: Read the first comment above.
….This morning, the deadly collapse of a second crane in New York City pushed the crazy pastor story out of the headlines (because stories about New York are always more important than anything else). Tomorrow, the DNC rules committee meeting will push the crane, pastor, tornado, and McClellan stories out of the headlines…
MY COMMENT: The news will cover the women protesting at the DNC event, women who think Hillary Clinton must be crowned queen of America because she is the symbol of female equality and who are demanding that the DNC seat all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. I don't think they should seat any of them, because not only did they break the clear rules set out by the DNC, but all the candidates agreed to abide by those rules. Now the losing candidate wants to change the rules so she can win. This is an example of what some call "situational ethics." If it feels good, do it. If you can't win by following the rules, change the rules. Democrats have been accused time and again of operating according to situational ethics and of not having a backbone. The DNC needs to show the country and the renegade states that they can enforce rules and that they have a backbone. They need to stick to their rules, make a sane decision, and tell Hillary' it is time for her to accept reality. In time, Michigan and Florida will get over it and decide that that voting for McCain will just give them four more years of Bush.
…..Then we have the final primary elections - in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana - and the drama Hillary will provide when she decides whether or not she is going to continue to hold the party hostage…
MY COMMENT: Puerto Rico is irrelevant. They cannot vote in the general, so while they have been given some power to help choose the nominee, the popular vote there should not be included in Hillary's bogus popular vote count. Besides, why is anyone in the press falling for this popular vote argument? The party chooses the nominee on the basis of delegates won, not popular votes. Since many of the caucus states don't record the actual popular vote, there is really no way of knowing who won the most popular votes, regardless of the fairy tale Hillary is spinning.
Why is anyone letting Hillary determine the metrics for winning? And furthermore, didn't the Clintons cause the Democratic Party enough trouble in the late nineties, including making it impossible for Al Gore to win in the 2000 election? Why on earth would anyone give them a second opportunity to lose an election for the Democrats by trying to change the rules and using prolonged negative campaigning against the nominee?
Can't wait for next week's headlines!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Free press no more
Why is it only now coming out that the media was in the tank for the Bush administration throughout most of his presidency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)