Liberty and Justice for All!

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.

Barack Obama was interviewed and he said that he wants Will Smith to play him. One reason he said that was because of the ears. But I still think that Dwayne “the rock” Johnson is a better choice, especially for the voice.

Ah yes, it has been reported that good old Ralph Naderis doing his best to hand our nation over to the Republican “Corporatists” that he claims to despise, yet again.

 As reported by Oyster and seen on Meet the Press, Nader says that if Democrats cannot win this in a landslide, it is their own fault and not his. Ralph could not be more wrong, and his ego is blinding him to the truth… or is it?

Seems to me that his taking votes away from Democrats and helping Republicans win helps him to keep his “complain about the Corporatist” title, which only serves to feed his undying ego. If the Corporatists go away, so does the “need” for anti-corporatists like Nader. By keeping them in power, Nader gets to stay in the spotlight, regardless of the harm it does the rest of the country.

Barack Obama made some good statements about Nader. Basically pointing out that Nader is the kind of person (that I have complained about) who cuts of his nose to spite his face because the leading Liberal candidate is not “perfect” in his eyes.

“Mr. Nader is somebody who if [you] don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, [he] thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama said. “Historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers, so in many ways, he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him, but I do think there’s a sense now that, you know, if somebody’s not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda then you must be lacking in some way.”  

I have been complaining about voters like that for a long time. And to all those “my candidate has to be the perfect liberal” voters on the far left who live in swing states that vote for Nader again and cause our nation to fall into the hands of John “100 years” McCain, we will be blaming you. Your cutting off your collective noses to spite your faces will harm us all. And the excuse that the Democrats have no reason to lose this race is absurd. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate, as will many others like me. So it is not us that are throwing the shoes in the works, it is you. It will be your fault. So just think about the risk of a McCain presidency before you go pulling a lever for Ralph Nader.

I will repeat: Any liberal who votes for Nader in this election, especially in swing states, will be to blame if their quixotic quest for the perfect liberal candidate leads our country to “for more years” of the same old same old in the oval office.

One more time, just so it sinks in to anyone even considering voting for Nader in this election. Any liberal who votes for Nader in this election, especially in swing states, will be to blame if their quixotic quest for the perfect liberal candidate leads our country to “for more years” of the same old same old in the oval office.

Get it?

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.

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.

I don’t understand why so called “political experts” are shocked at the success that Barack Obama is having in southern states. He won South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. It also looks like he will also win Louisiana. In a T-P article (announcing that he will be at Tulane on Thursday) they state:

Obama has shown unexpected strength in the South.

Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?

According to CNN exit polls in Georgia, a majority of the Democratic voters yesterday were black (52%), and a super-majority of those black voters (87.4%) voted for Barack Obama. (Only 2% of the voters in the Republican primary were black)

Compare that to the 2004 Georgia exit polls in the general election where only 25% of the overall vote in Georgia was from black voters.

Barack Obama winning Georgia in the 2008 general election? That would absolutely be unexpected. The southern strategy of Nixon and Reagan is alive and well. They know that there are a lot of racists in the south who do not like that the Democratic Party is actually… *gasp*… willing to treat black people as equals (the horror!). They target the old school “southern democrats” who split from the Democratic party after the Democrats pushed for civil rights.

However, Barack Obama getting success among current southern Democrats is hardly shocking at all. A large percentage of those voters are black voters who are likely to identify with Obama and who are excited at the potential to get the first black president. To suggest that Barack Obama’s success among current southern Democrats is “unexpected” shows a complete ignorance of the political landscape of the south.

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.