Liberty and Justice for All!

To all those Hillary supporters who are saying that they wouldn’t vote for Obama, I have two points.

A) She would accept the V.P. nomination if it would help the Democrats win the White House. She is a team player, you should be too!

B) Imagine the idea of eight years of Hillary as V.P. followed by eight years of Hillary as President. Sixteen more years of a Clinton in the white house. That should be music to your ears and should drive the Conservatives crazy.

Just sayin…

I have been trying to figure out the exact problem the Democrats are having this election. It shouldn’t be that hard. You have a Republican presidential candidate who is going to follow in the footsteps of President Bush if elected. Well, I figured it out.

This election should have been a referendum on the Bush Administration and those Republicans who continue to blindly follow Bush’s failed policies. However, it has become a referendum on “making history” and how we should do it (by either electing a black man or a woman to be our president).

This is not just a recipe for failure in the 2008 general election. This also loses sight of the main point of fighting for civil rights. We are not supposed to be supporting people because they are a woman or belonging to a minority group. We are supposed to try and treat all people equally regardless of their gender or ethnicity. As Dr. King said, judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

And yes, I completely  understand and accept the argument that a black person is likely to think that a black president would understand the needs of the black community (just as a woman might think that a woman president would understand the needs of women). That is all well and good for the individual. However, for the party as a whole, we need to get off of the idea that electing our candidate will make history. We need to get back to the idea that if John “Bush Wannabe” McCain gets elected, that our rights and civil liberties will BE history.

Don’t say this:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it

I mean seriously, it was just creepy and not a smart thing to say at all. What she should have said was “unexpected things can happen over the course of the primary, especially those where the winner is not determined until close to the very end”.

h/t to Oyster

According to Bayou Buzz, LAGOP Executive Director Matt Parker (Jindal’s homeschooled homeboy’s  brother in law) stated this about Mary Landrieu and her failure to respond to Nagin’s endorsement of Barack Obama:

Today’s endorsement raises more questions than answers.  In a press release announcing today’s endorsement, Nagin cited ‘Obama’s advocacy for the people of

Louisianaand working men and women across the county’ and specifically his work to address the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.   Does Mary Landrieu disagree with Nagin?  Why won’t Landrieu stand up and let Louisianans know why she won’t endorse Obama?”

Say what?!?!?! Mabye Landrieu doesn’t want to take sides. Maybe Landrieu would be happy voting for either of the two Democrats against John 100 years in Iraq McCain. Maybe Landrieu figures that she can be silent in a race where the presumptive Republican nominee didn’t get the most votes in the Republican primary. Maybe Mary Landrieu didn’t feel that she needed to make an anouncement over an endorsement by someone else. Or maybe, just maybe, Mary Landrieu doesn’t feel the need to answer to the head of the party who is trying to unseat her. I would at least go with the last one, though others may be valid as well.

This is just a silly question raised by Matt Parker. Now, is he the voice of Cartman? Or is that Trey Stone? See, I got the names mixed up and even those are better questions than the brainchild of Homeschool’s brother in law.

The idea that Nagin’s endorsement raises more questions than it answers is absurd. I guess the Republicans set the bar low when they chose their executive director.

In response to a question on why Barack Obama is the front-runner, she said:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

Again, Democrats need to invest in people who will help them say things the right way. First of all, there is no way to claim to know what position the mythical “white Barack Obama” would be in if he was running for President. As a caller to WWL rightly said this afternoon, it is highly possible that the mythical ”white Barack Obama” would have already locked up the nomination since there are still, unfortunately, some people who still look at race when walking into the voting booth.

What Ferraro should have said, and what I think she meant, was that Barack Obama has been successful in many states because of his race. The polling numbers clearly show that voters who are black are coming out to vote and a super-majority of them are voting for Obama. Clearly, Obama is doing well in Southern States where a large percentage of the Democratic Party are Black. His success in those races have enabled him to obtain and retain the lead. So his race may very well have HELPED.

However, her assumption that those voters would not have come out in support of the mythical “white Barack Obama” is clearly flawed because there is no way to know what voters who are Black may have done. Barack Obama is an exceptional person and I feel that he would likely be a star in the party if he was blue.

Obama’s response shows he really doesn’t understand what she was saying.

If you were to get a handbook on what’s the path to the presidency, I don’t think that the handbook would start by saying, ‘Be an African American named Barack Obama.’ I don’t think that would be generally considered an advantage, and it certainly wasn’t when I was running for the United States Senate or the presidency

Of course such a handbook would not say that. However, it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Obama’s race has not helped him. It is just also foolish to claim that Obama would not be in the lead if he was another race, or a woman.

And where do we get that handbook…..

According to a report by truthout, the Democrats believe they have a shot to give a Democratic President a 60 vote, filibuster proof, Senate. This will be the first time since Carter that such a Senate would exist. This would mean that the Democrats would have to get 10 new Democratic Senators. Someone in the article stated that 60 would be the target and that only 9 seats will be needed. However, on issues pertaining to the war, I believe Joe Lieberman would aid the filibuster of legislation he disagrees with. So if we want a truly filibuster proof Senate, we need 10 new Democrats. Here is a map of the seats that are up for grabs, the darkest red states have two Senate races.

Now lets look at the Obama electoral map and the Clinton electoral map.

Obama has the lead in WA/NM/CO/WI/VA/ME/NH and is very close in TX. 

Clinton has the lead in NM/WI/ME.

Assuming that the Democrats can hold on to their red state senators, a Hillary campaign may help the Democrats gain 3 seats. However, an Obama campaign may be able to gain 7 (or possibly even 8) seats. This, of course, doesn’t take into consideration the strength of the Democratic candidate in those races. It only takes into consideration the coattails that someone may be able to ride if a particular candidate is the Democratic nominee.

The bottom line is that most likely, the Democrats will probably not be able to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. However, I do applaud people in the party for aiming high. Getting 54-57 seats would be nothing to sneeze at. However, in aiming high, we need to make sure we do not lose any seats. The Republican goal of gaining 2 seats is much more modest than our goal of getting 60. I would hate to see us shoot for the stars and in doing so cause the Senate to turn Republican for our next Democratic President.

About a month ago I asked why they can’t produce a “meaningful poll”. To me, national polls do not tell the picture since we elect our president based on the electoral college. An example is a poll done by SurveyUSA showing Hillary having a better nationwide result than Obama over McCain.

Well, thanks to oyster, we now have meaningful polls taken in the presidential race. These polls are done on a state by state basis and, while not perfect, show a snapshot of how the country is leaning.

According to the newest SurveyUSA poll, Barack Obama beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 280-258. Hillary Clinton beats John McCain with an electoral vote count of 276-262. What is even more impressive is that they take into account the way that some states split electoral college votes.

Hillary does what she needs to do in this poll and wins all three “swing states” (OH/PA/FL)  and also wins AK/WV but loses WA/OR/MI. Obama loses PA, FL, and NJ! However, Obama wins by swinging VA/NV/CO/ND/IA into the blue corner. Both candidats pick up NM.

The polls do not reflect the possible theory that Obama would be able to pick up southern states because of a Republican disinterst in McCain and a large minority turnout. Obama loses the deep south and barely wins VA. Of course, Hillary also loses most of the south as well.

But the bottom line is that at the moment, dispite the nationwide poll showing Hillary as having the advantage, Obama is actually polling better in the electoral college and I feel much better about the possibility of an Obama nomination.

Hillary is doing it. Obama is not. Hillary Clinton is winning Ohio, a swing state that Democrats need to win in the fall. With 80% of the precincts reporting, Hillary is beating Obama by 14% in. Hillary has also won California, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida (even though the vote did not count, and they may be holding new elections there).

What is even more important is that Hillary with 80% of the vote reporting has more votes than all the other Republican candidates combined, Obama does not. Now, it is possible that other, more conservative, areas of the state may still report and when the vote reaches 100% that fact may not be true. However, the goal here (as I have said from day one) is to elect the most electable Democratic candidate. I had my doubts about Hillary initially. However, it is clear that she is winning the states that she will need to win in the fall and Obama is winning states that he will not win in the fall.

Change is great. If Obama wins I will support him 100%. However, I fear that the idealism that people are feeling for Barack Obama is a lot like the blind following that a certain Governor of Louisiana had in his election. Louisiana is learning, some faster than others, that the blind faith they put in Jindal was misplaced. If Obama cannot rally enough support in states where the Democrats need him to win, but he still manages to win the primaries, will his victory be a Phyrric (Olbermann’s new favorite word) one? Obama supporters need to take a long hard look in the mirror and really consider whether an Obama victory will mean a Democratic victory in the fall. We should not blindly support ”change” if at the end of the day we end up with more of the same.   

And of course, Hillary can “win” Texas and Obama could get more delegates out of Texas, something the political spinsters will love and will make this race into even more of a headache.

MSNBC is also reporing that there was a supposed call from Obama to Clinton tonight. Im sure that if this did happen it really meant nothing other than perhaps a “congrats” on winning Ohio.

In the debate today, each of the candidates said something about superdelegates that really goes against their best interests.

Barack Obama said that the will of the people should be followed. If he truly believes that, then wouldn’t he agree that the Florida delegates should be counted? (Something that would hurt him as it would put Hillary back in the lead)

Hillary Clinton said that the rules should be followed and that it will all work itself out. Well, if the rules should be followed then, according to Hillary, the Florida delegates should not be counted. (Making it more likely for her to lose)

It is just very interesting. This Florida mess is going to disenfranchise someone and it could wind up costing the Democrats the election. I typically make a comment similar to the idea that if you are playing chess, you should not complain that you cant pass go and collect $200. Basically, follow the rules of the game you are playing. However, in the case of Florida, the Democratic Party made a bad decision. Does that mean that Florida Democrats should not have their votes counted because their party leadership gambled and lost? However, if you do allow the Florida votes and by nature of those votes it causes Hillary to get the nomination, wouldn’t that make the Obama supporters feel slighted as well, as if it was some political trick to make sure Clinton won?

I just hope that after TX and PA and OH that there is a clear winner, that the Florida (and other uncounted) Delegates dont matter, and that nobody in the Democratic Party can cry foul so we can truely get behind the winner of this primary and sail on to victory. I just fear that as with the last election, we will manage to snag defeat out of the jaws of victory.

A recent poll claims that in a head to head matchup that Barack Obama has a better shot at beating John McCain than Hillary Clinton. The poll is a nationwide poll of likely voters. Barack beats McCain 48-41 while Hillary and McCain are tied at 46. I would guess that one reason for this is that while conservatives are undecided on if they could actually come out and support McCain against Obama, they are probably sure that they would vote for anybody against Hillary. This is one of the things that makes me lean towards Obama (though I still have yet to make up my mind).

The problem with the poll is this. It does not actually give meaningful results about what the actual election results would be! We do not choose our President based on who gets the most votes nationwide. The President is chosen via the electoral college. So telling me who gets the popular vote doesn’t give me a meaningful answer with such a close race. Why can’t the polling “experts” take a poll in each state (and in each congressional district in states that award electoral votes for winning congressional districts) and then determine who would get the electoral votes based on those poll numbers.