Liberty and Justice for All!

A Hillary Clinton email has been going around Louisiana trying to point out that Barack Obama voted against Louisiana getting its fair share. Here is what it says:

SENATOR OBAMA OPPOSED BILLIONS IN OIL REVENUE-SHARING FOR LOUISIANA

Feb. 7, 2008 Contact: C. Brylski (504) 897-6110

The Louisiana for Clinton Campaign issued the following statement today:

The people of Louisiana have understood for many years that the oil and gas
exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has been both a boon and bane to this
State. On one hand, the oil industry has provided Louisiana with economic
security and opportunity and, on the other, it was a contributing cause to
the coastal erosion that exacerbated the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. At the same time, the people of Louisiana believed that they did
not receive a fair share of the revenues that flowed from drilling in the
Gulf in view of Louisiana’s enormous contribution to domestic oil and
natural gas energy supplies.

Following the hurricanes of 2005, the status quo in Louisiana was no longer
tenable and the need for a fairer revenue sharing agreement that would
provide significant funding for coastal restoration/hurricane protection
reached a new height. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act represented the
practical solution that Louisiana needed. It struck a balance between
opening new areas to drilling and protecting the environment. And most
importantly for Louisiana, the bill gave Louisiana a bigger share of the
oil and gas revenues in the Gulf of Mexico, providing billions of dollars
for coastal restoration, levee building and other critical recovery
projects. That is why this important bill was fully supported by the people
of Louisiana and their elected representatives. And though other energy
issues loomed at the time, the urgency of acting to provide a secure source
of funding for Gulf Coast recovery efforts outweighed any shortcomings of
the legislation.

That is why Senator Clinton voted for it.

Senator Obama did not.

With all due respect, Senator Obama’s opposition to
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act was politically expedient. Senator
Obama said the following in his opposition:

Unfortunately, this bill sends the wrong message. Instead of making tough
political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this
bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill
our way out of our energy problems. We can’t, and for that reason, I plan to
vote against this bill. 152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02, 8503.

This act was not about sending the wrong message or lulling Louisiana into a
false sense of security. Louisiana knows the score, and it has known for a
very long time. The act was about helping Louisiana restore its coastline
and protect itself from future hurricanes while supporting an economic
lifeline for the state. By voting against this vital bill, Senator Obama
chose to score political points about “energy independence” instead of
moving forward with legislation to provide a steady source of funding for
recovery efforts in a post-Katrina/Rita Louisiana. Despite Senator Obama’s
assertion, our nation’s dependence on foreign energy was not something to be
solved by rejecting needed aid to the state of Louisiana.

Senator Clinton acknowledged that this was a “tough political decision” in
light of the many energy challenges that the United States faced, and stated
the following in support of the act: “I believe that as part of a balanced
energy policy, we need to expand domestic oil and gas production where it
has local support and can do so in an environmentally sound way. I think the
bill before the Senate meets that test . . . .” 152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02,
8505.

Senator Clinton further noted that “[e]xpanding domestic supplies is only a
partial solution to our energy problems,” as the country must “take steps to
increase energy efficiency and to expand production of renewable energy.”
152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02, 8505. In this regard, Senator Clinton filed
amendments to the bill, but did not insist on holding the bill hostage to
those amendments and vote to filibuster the bill, as Senator Obama did.

Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the state has become of symbol of the
ills of bureaucratic myopia. Politicians have flocked to New Orleans seeking
headlines that show that they care and that they will not leave Louisiana
behind.

Louisiana, look at the record.

Often what happens on C-SPAN is more telling
than what happens on CNN. Issues do matter. When Senator Obama had the
chance to stand with you, he chose not to.

Obama supporters quickly refuted this. So what is the answer? The answer is “yes”.

Barak Obama initially voted against the specific legislation S. 3711; Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006

However, when that legislation was included in H.R. 6111, Barack Obama did vote for the overall bill that included the Gulf of Mexico Energy Act. It is hard to tell from that link, but the Mary Landrieu press release shows the date and vote totals that help prove it.

We should all be used to these kind of politics. I am not saying we should accept it. However, I am dissapointed at both candidates. I am disapointed that the Hillary campaign would not include the whole story. I am also dissapointed at Obama for not supporting Louisiana initially. Unfortunately, the resolution of this story does nothing to solve my problem of who to vote for.

During the MSNBC coverage of Super Tuesday last night, they discussed the idea that John McCain was winning in states that Republicans don’t tend to win in the General Election. For example, McCain won New York and California but Huckabee won many southern states. This is a very interesting point to make. How well is the Republican Party served if the candidate the person they elect doesn’t win the key southern states? If he cannot rile up the Republican base in strong Republican states, will he really do well in the swing states where they need the Republican base to come out and win?

What surprised me was that they did not discuss the same issue on the Democratic ticket. Obama was unable to win New York, Massachusetts or California. Hillary also won Florida (even though they currently don’t count). However, he did win Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Utah, South Carolina, Colorodo, Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, North Dakota, etc. I have a feeling that he will win Louisiana as well. These are all states that went for Bush in 2004.

Now, I am not suggesting that Obama would lose California or New York if he was the nominee. However, I do worry about his ability to draw enough Democrats out in swing states (especially those like Ohio, Florida, and Pensylvania) to make the difference in the general election.

We cannot rely on the hatred of Bush to win. We hated Bush in 2004 as well, and that didn’t help us win when he was actually the candidate. Obama’s ability to bring out new voters is impressive and perhaps that would help him overcome his inability to win the Democratic stronghold states in the primary. I just worry about the possibility that a Democrat gets the nomination by winning many states in the primary that wont be won by a Democrat in the general election.

I guess this is one of the reasons why I am reluctant to come out and just choose a candidate to support this saturday (other than myself). I am more concerned with supporting the Democrat who wins and working to change the Democratic Party in Louisiana and start helping the progressives to make actual progress.

Previously I discussed that Democrats need better wordsmiths. The debate tonight continues that concept. Hillary did have one good line where she stated that it took one Clinton to fix the mess one Bush made, maybe it will take another Clinton to fix the mess of this Bush.

However, she still needs some wordsmiths. Hillary was asked if she made a mistake or was naive when she voted to authorize force in Iraq.

She gave her answer which went all over the place. Her answer should have been:

“No. It was not a mistake. I made a decision based on what was presented to me as facts. The President lied. Had the President not misled us, I would have voted differently. But that was not my mistake, it was his lie. He should take all the blame. The question we should ask now is why are there still Republicans who still support his failed policies.”

It is really that simple. It is just like how John Kerry should have stopped saying “I voted for the war before I voted against it” and should have said “I voted to give the President power to take appropriate action. The action he took was not appropriate”.

I also had an issue with one of Obama’s answers. In the discussion of the decision to give the President power to take action. Hillary stated that we have used the threat of force to cause other people to take action before. Obama criticized the vote to authorize force because he said that she had to know that the President could take military action with the authority granted.

Now, hindsight is 20/20 and all reasonable people wish that we had not given the President the power to take action. However, how effective would legislation been that was geared to make Saddam take action if it lacked the teeth to back up the demands? It is like the mall security guard running after you saying “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!”.

Basically, Congress should be able to authorize the President to use the threat of force and trust that the President will use that power responsibly. Because Bush failed to use his power responsibly does not mean that we should be blaming those who he misled.

Personally, I think all primaries/caucuses should take place on the same day. No one state should have more value than another state when it comes to timing. However, since the Democratic party has rules, I would normally say that the rules should absolutely be followed. In this case, the rules are really dumb and need to be fixed.

Florida, the state where 537 votes swung the election for Bush in 2000, is now being ignored by the Democratic party because the Florida Democrats wanted their choice made earlier to be more relevant. In 2004, people pretty much could guess who would get 47 of the states and the election came down to three states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Florida is plainly important for winning the presidency in 2008. So why on earth would the DNC want to reject the will of Democratic voters in Florida? By doing so, don’t they risk alienating them and making the Democrats less likely to win in that state? It just doesn’t seem smart to just ignore their votes.

In a Scott Galindez article for truthout.org, he used the term that the Republicans used during the Clinton presidency to show the amount of disdain they had for Hillary being a strong First Lady: “Billary”.

He doesn’t stop there. He points out that Bill Clinton is not running for President and wonders why people seem to be supporting him and not her. However, he then goes on to attack his record? If people are supporting Hillary because of Bill, and he is critical of this, then why is he perpetuating the discussion of Hillary’s campaign in the terms of what Bill did by attacking them? It makes no sense.

He also attacks Bill Clinton for policies passed during his tenure as if Bill Clinton had carte blanche to pass whatever he wanted. After 1994, he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress. Was Clinton the perfect President or the perfect Democrat? Of course not, but who is? And as Galindez says, he is much better than Reagan or Bush.

To get back to the main point though, I find it deplorable that liberals are using Republican terms to describe Hillary. All it does is just perpetuate the ideas of Conservative punditry (and no Democrat should be perpetuating Conservative punditry). And then there is the way it demeans one of our front runners. To imply that Obama is facing “Billary” implies that Hillary is not strong enough to be a candidate on her own. This is just bad thinking. If Hillary gets the nomination, do we really want Republicans pointing to us saying “look, even the Democrats don’t think she is strong enough to be President”. Are any of us really going to vote for a Republican if our 1^st choice doesn’t make it? I didn’t think so. So why would we act in a way that hurts our chances of having a Democratic President? Again, it makes no sense. One thing we need to do is think more in the long term, and sometimes our passion interferes with long term goals. In the days of the internet, anything we say can come back to haunt us. And while I absolutely support being critical of policies that a candidate may have that we may disagree with, I think we can do so without resorting to the tactics that the other side uses against us.

When Hillary Clinton was asked “Are you looking to end this war or win it?” she responded “I’m looking to bring our troops home”.

Progressives, liberals, Democrats and any of the other labels you want to place on those who want and end to this war will stand up and applaud those comments. However, we need to not just pander to our base. We need to have our candidates anticipate the Republican attacks on the statements that are made and cut them off at the pass.

By saying what she said, anybody can see the Republican attack on it now. “When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wants to win the war, she did not say yes”. The flag will be flying in the background, with a shot of our troops, and maybe some 9-11 imagery.

Assuming the view that we have not won the war yet is correct, Hillary Clinton should have said is this:

“The only way to win the war is with diplomacy and an expectation of Iraq to take its duty to defend itself seriously. By bringing our troops home and uplifting a Democratically elected Iraq, we win this war by winning the peace.”

Now, I am of the opinion that the war was won years ago when Saddam was toppled and the reason Bush is still in Iraq is to use it as a terrorist magnet (and thus perpetuating the terrorist problem with our own actions and justifying, in his mind, our continued presence). So if I was on the stage, I would have stated:

“This war was won when we toppled Saddam’s regime. Now we have to win the peace and we cannot do so without the Iraqi people embracing their duty to take care of themselves. The best way to do this is a structured withdrawal from Iraq that includes the training and equipping of the Iraqi military. Such provisions where included in HR 1591. However, the Republican obstructionists who are blindly following the failed “stay the course” policies of our President blocked that legislation from coming forward”.

By saying something like this, Hillary would have been able to both get the applause from the progressives while also presenting a preemptive attack against the Republican statements that we all know will come.

I was watching the Republican debate the other day. It started with the candidates going back and forth over who was more conservative (or basically who is going to be the worst choice for America). Then they got to prove how bad for

America they would be when they started talking about how government should discriminate against homosexuals and women.

Duncan Hunter stated that they are the party of freedom and used some foreign actions to show that a Democratic President did not help Cuban freedom fighters but Republican presidents have helped other people who are oppressed. I find this completely laughable since the Republican Party has been stripping Americans of their freedoms over the last 6 years. It is the job of the President, first and foremost, to protect freedom at home and not abroad. I would be interested to hear Ron Paul’s answer as to whether President Kennedy should have involved our military Cuban affairs.

Later in the debate, the moderator asked a question about the fact that Hillary is beating everyone on the stage and they were asked what they would do to beat her. It then became a “lets pile on Hillary” event. Why? Well, because they know our nation is sick and tired of the Republican Party leading our nation into the ground and will most likely reject any candidate the Republican Party has (sans dirty Rovian style tricks of course).

I will start this off by saying that Hillary Clinton is not my choice for President. I think she is a very intelligent woman who goes out and get what she wants. She is a strong person and has the ability to be an effective leader. I wouldn’t want to cross her; that is for sure. So you may be asking “so what is the problem”?

My problem with her is twofold. First, I have a problem with people who move just so they can run for a particular office. Second, I think that she would bring out the conservative vote against her. The right wing absolutely hates this woman with a passion and I think that Hillary Clinton may be the only way a Democrat loses in 2008. I don’t see any Republican in the field that will be able to rile up the conservative base more than a Hillary for President bumper sticker will.

That being said, I really think she did a good job at the debate last night. I didn’t get to watch the first few minutes. However, what I did see made her look really good. The comment I thought was the wisest one was the comment on people who are gay serving in the military. She finished her statement by quoting conservative Barry Goldwater by saying “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight”. Goldwater hit it right on the head and Hillary also did the same thing by bringing up that line.

Other comments about gays in the military where spot on as well. Our men and women who serve our country in Iraq are serving along the side of soldiers from other countries that don’t have our restrictive policies on who can serve. The fact that our soldiers can do an effective job not knowing that the people serving next to them from England might be gay proves that the ban on gays in the military is archaic and needs to be removed. And it is absolutely ridiculous that our military fired Arabic translators who happened to be gay when we had a shortage of translators to begin with. Anyone who believes those people should have been fired does not take national security seriously.

But Hillary, by using the quote of a conservative to back her point and to remind people that she used to be a “Goldwater Girl”, was very wise. Not only was it a very well placed line, but it also goes to show how far the Republican Party has moved from actual conservatism.

She has the lead in the polls and it is really her race to lose. Any other year, that would be a good thing. I think our country is ready for a female president and it would be a huge step in the history of our nation. However, with an aging court and the possibility of having another opening on the Supreme Court any time soon, it is absolutely vital that elect someone who won’t put a conservative judicial activist on the bench. We need to make sure that a Democrat wins and I think we have a better shot with other candidates than we do with her.  

If she does get the nomination, I will be supportive of her. But if she does win the nomination, I hope I am wrong about the effect she will have on those conservative voters. I don’t want another 4 more years of suspended habeas corpus, erosion of individual freedoms, and a war that just won’t end.