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.

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.

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.

In a recent letter to the editor, David Goldberg expounds on how wonderful America is for looking beyond race and embracing change. He uses the election of Bobby Jindal and the win in Iowa by Barack Obama. This is just laughable. Does anybody actualy believe that the kind of people who voted for Barack Obama are the same kind of people who voted for Bobby Jindal?

Ignoring my conspiracy theory I put up on YRHT that conservative independent voters could have came to the Obama camp to try and get the Democrat who is less likely to win the election the votes… people who would support Obama have no issue voting for a black person. The same cannot be said about  some of the people who would vote for Bobby Jindal.

The most amazingly ignorant comment made in this letter was this:

The theme is clear — a new generation does not look at color, race or even political ideology.

This cannot be further from the truth. First of all, if Bobby Jindal wasn’t an extremist woman hating social conservative, he would not have been embraced by the Republican party as much as he was. And had Bobby Jindal not lied about being a “born again Christian”, perhaps people in the north would not have voted for the Catholic Jindal.

What really ruins the quote is this story that I constantly tell because I am just shocked it actually happened. When I was campaigning for David Gereighty in the 2006 Congressional election (you know, the election that Bobby Jindal campaign for Governor in), we spoke to people in St. Tammany parish. Those wonderfully open minded people who David Goldberg feels are “leading our nation and our state into a different, and I hope better, direction”, told us that they would never vote for a Democrat because Democrats are a bunch of “N***ER LOVERS”. So you will forgive me if I lack the optimism David Goldberg has about voting trends in Louisiana and in our country as a whole.

It seems like David also thinks that Bobby Jindal is a breth of fresh air. How dirty is the air he is breathing now?