Election Watch

I'm starting a new thread about today's Super Tuesday primary elections in the USA. I thought about just continuing on the Barack thread, but I don't want to assume everyone's voting for him.

So, please feel free to shoot the breeze here without much regard for staying on-topic. Consider it the party you'd go to if we all lived in the same place.

I'd like to hear what people's favorite election-related websites are, first of all, since I'll only have internet access this evening, no television.

Liz

P.S. I'll make it unsticky tomorrow.

edit: I'm retracting that statement. I want it sticky.

Re: Election Watch

I tend to use MSNBC, not from loving Microsoft mind you!, but since I think they have pretty good coverage and… I'm Magenta enough to support them since my baby sister is an Associate Editor for the NBC Newsdesk in London. Well, not so baby anymore I guess.

Re: Election Watch

Thanks, Pelle, I'll have a look.

So I went to vote today, and the polling place is a church on the other side of the park from me, about a 3 block walk. I stopped by a couple of neighbor's houses and brought them with me. Julie, who is perhaps a bit unclear on the concept, brought her absentee ballot to turn in, and my friend Glenn, who is campaigning for Obama and is a true believer. He had also already voted, so I was the only one doing any actual marking of my ballot. It's very Califonian to vote absentee. I like to vote in person. It's like the difference between sending a letter and email. Feels much better with real paper.

So, I take my ballot over to the box, which is black and has a slot much like a paper shredder we just got as a wedding present. I say to the election workers, “So, I just put my ballot in this paper shredder here, right?” And they all cracked up. Satisfying, yet a sad state of affairs for Americans, who have to wonder if their vote is even counted.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Okay, I'm putting on my boots to walk over to the polling station on foot cuz  there won't be a parking space available anywhere near that place.
And I'll generate a lot of “I am accessible” vibes in case there are long lines, so we can chat a little with whoever else wants some connection, some sense of community in this class-conscious town.

And then I'll vote for Obama, even though I understand it's a charade organized by the corporate Kleptocracy to keep up appearances. Yes, that dampens my spirit, but not enough to stop doing what I would do in an ideal world.

Hope… it's not entirely useless, no matter what those Zen guys say.  Just visualizing that half-black, half-white man sitting in the Oval Office, picking up the phone to apologize to the Palestinians (for starters) gives me a big-grin smiley face.

Re: Election Watch

Mascha: Hope… it's not entirely useless, no matter what those Zen guys say.  Just visualizing that half-black, half-white man sitting in the Oval Office, picking up the phone to apologize to the Palestinians (for starters) gives me a big-grin smiley face.

~~~

I'd love to see him use the campaign slogan “Hope - it's not entirely useless!”  It appeals to my sense of irony, or something, heehee.  :P

As for the half-black, half-white guy…wouldn't it be cool if it was like that old Star Trek episode?



spiral out where no one has gone before,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

Prescient, Arthur!

If Obama wins and becomes President, lots of people will want to look that way. Hair-and-make-up industries thus see a boom which helps lift the economy out of a recession as a new era begins where there will be restitutions made to every country the US has ever illegally…

Yeah, hope – it could cut new grooves into the fabric of our reality if we all lean into the curves with enough conviction to really get some upward spiralling action in the collective resonance field.

Just think how groovy we can be,

oh man, it's awesome how imagination moves energy.

m

Re: Election Watch

Happy voting you guys….

Mavericks, or whoever gets your vote – because you can bet your bottom dollar
that when the two lucky feet finally walk the plank into the Whitehouse at a later date, our big family - oh yeah, the rest of us out here, will be with reaping what you sow!

Be careful now!

It does seem somewhat exciting from afar….

Lisa :)

Re: Election Watch

A number of us, Lisa, feel pretty bad about the “impact” a bad president can have on the rest of the world.  I for one want to help rectify that.

For this time around, Obama gets my vote.

Re: Election Watch

As important as this day is, not everyone may know that the way the Democrats run their primary make it unlikely that either candidate will come away with a decisive “win.” On the Republican side, it is “winner take all,” like the general election in November, meaning if John McCain wins California, he will win all of California's 440 delegates. So McCain could more or less lock up the Republican nomination today, even though he won't do it officially. But on the Democratic side it is not winner take all; it is divided up into districts. So the delegates will be split, making it much more difficult to accumulate a majority (as far as I know, the formulas are different in each state; in some states it is possible for one candidate to win all of the delegates). One candidate could come away with a big lead, but probably we will have a close race for some time.

This is a great website to follow the election. It gives you all the latest polls, head-to-head polls between Republicans and Democrats, and other good stuff.

David

Re: Election Watch

Yeah, it's really a horrible mess, our national elections. Someday it would be great to just have a system where each person gets, you know, a vote. Then the person with the most votes wins. I've heard it actually works in other countries…

Here is a current tally.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Looks like Clinton is winning in California. Ugh.

A Clinton/Obama ticket might be enough to unite the needed vote…or alienate pretty much everybody.

Is there somewhere we can hide for the next few months?

Honey, have my beer ready when I get home!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

I think I know what is going to happen. Clinton will win the election. Obama, if he gets too close, will be scammed out of the election with black box tampering to make sure Clinton gets in. Shes got too much money at stake for the big boy corporations. Haven't you seen her tight lipped when Obama talks about cutting back on lobbiest influences…she just doesn't have anything to say about that one. (I could be wrong, but I think I see the writing on the wall).  

Who am I voting for? Ken Wilber with Oprah as Vice President!

Dan

Re: Election Watch

I just keep telling myself that it's important to have a woman president someday. Or a black person. So…I'll vote for either one. But I really don't like the idea of Clinton in office.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Liz: I just keep telling myself that it's important to have a woman president someday. Or a black person. So…I'll vote for either one. But I really don't like the idea of Clinton in office.

~~~

Don't worry - if she gets the nomination Republicans will likely come out in droves to prevent her from being elected; plus that side appears to be way ahead of the curve in election fraud.

I guess I'm having a cynical moment…<sigh>

By the way, glad you liked the black/white Star Trek picture, Mascha - after I posted it another interpretation occured to me: the two figures could represent the Republican and Democratic parties…two sides of the same team?   >:0

Oh well…may the somewhat less psychotic candidate/party win…

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

“Don't worry - if she gets the nomination Republicans will likely come out in droves to prevent her from being elected; plus that side appears to be way ahead of the curve in election fraud.”

Arthur are you sure? And they won't as much if Obama gets the nomination? There's a question as to how much Obama could really accomplish in office and how much cooperation he will get if he sits in the Oval Office. I am not saying he isn't capable, I am asking how much will he be “stone-walled” (old civil war term) from what he wishes to accomplish. If he makes it, it will be very interesting to see what happens.

I will not vote race or gender. The best needs to be elected. What the integral choice is for the greatest good is the question.

From a friend:

“The powers-that-be will do everything they can for a Hillary presidency.   She and Bill are SO DIRTY, deep in bed, with Bush and Gang – and yet they can make it “look like” a change has occurred!”

I'm wondering if the powers behind the power has plan “B” ready with those tricky memory cards that leave no paper trail at the voting booth.

Link to “Hacking Democracy” and “Black Box Voting”


http://drs1958.gaia.com/blog/2008/1/hacking_democracy_-_its_election_year_2008

Re: Election Watch

“The powers-that-be will do everything they can for a Hillary presidency.   She and Bill are SO DIRTY, deep in bed, with Bush and Gang - and yet they can make it “look like” a change has occurred!”

This looks like the pluralistic perspective to me rather than the integral one. Hillary takes a lot of flak from pluralists for being a corporate democrat, but that's what an integral democrat will look like: pro environment, pro labor, and pro business.

I had thought Obama might be better on the ethics in government question, but I have doubts about that after reading this story. The story has circulated pretty widely, but the author of this article has an excellent point when she says it would have been blaring out of every outlet if it had been Hillary.

David

Re: Election Watch

>>”I had thought Obama might be better on the ethics in government question, but I have doubts about that after reading this story. The story has circulated pretty widely, but the author of this article has an excellent point when she says it would have been blaring out of every outlet if it had been Hillary.”


“A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.”
~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–




A person can only do so much as a senator.  Here I see a person sincerely trying to do something good (fighting to advance bill), failing, and pursuing an alternative long-term strategy. 

As a president I think it's a reflection of how he may handle himself in compromising situations( and who wouldn't? ).  To say it's a reflection of his general drive and moral standing would be ignoring his apparently sincere desire and capacity to bring good to the country.

Re: Election Watch

“pro environment, pro labor, and pro business.”

Agreed David, but there is a big difference between good healthy thriving business and pathological corporate behavior. Check out “Grunch of the Giants” by Buckminster Fuller
G.R.U.N.C.H “Gross Universal Cash Heist”

He predicted that not only would corporations grow bigger than giants, but that “predatory transnational capitalism would lead us to a very bad end. i.e. An interlocking corporate/government structure.”

This country had a very bad time in the past with transnational corporations before it was even a country. That namely being the East Indian Trading Company. We dumped their product into the Boston Harbor (1 million dollars worth by todays standards) and brought on the Revolutionary war over it.

I've got nothing against good old fasion business, in its healthy state. I like making money just as much as the next guy. But look at it Globally. Is that 20 cents a day to make this shirt I am wearing? Thats not a wage, thats slavery. But this is another topic to chew on another time and place.

If Obama is going to kick some of the lobbiests off the gravy train along with the corporate influences it buys, then this could spell trouble for him…especailly with the medical industry and drug companies. And Iraq, those military deep pockets might get rather shallow and empty and there will be a lot of grumbling with that. National Security always hits us below the belt at the bottom of Maslows Hierarchy, hits us low, keeps us down (when it takes trillions of dollars to do the job…supposedly). Can't have too many self actualized people like those hippies in the 60s cropping up again by God! Scare the crap out of them and keep them working hard to survive (the middle class that is).

Re: Election Watch

A person can only do so much as a senator.  Here I see a person sincerely trying to do something good (fighting to advance bill), failing, and pursuing an alternative long-term strategy. 

As a president I think it's a reflection of how he may handle himself in compromising situations( and who wouldn't? ).  To say it's a reflection of his general drive and moral standing would be ignoring his apparently sincere desire and capacity to bring good to the country.


I think you have a point there about a Senator only having so much power, and I also wouldn't write him off for one mistake. But portraits of Obama as the man of change and Hilllary as a part of the old network do look a little unjustified in light of this story.

It's one thing to come up against a more powerful interest and having to give in, but in this case Exelon was a big contributor of his and his chief campaign advisor a former consultant of Exelon. I am just saying that if Hillary had done something like this, the media, Obama, and his supporters would be telling the story constantly as if Hillary had murdered 300 defensless babies–there is a real double standard here. 
 
I can't blame Obama for not having the power to push it through, though it does cast doubts on his ability to work the system in Washington and come clean on what happened. Was it an aberration, or is he always like that? We don't really know. We would have a better idea if we gave him more time in the senate before electing him president. I really am a big fan of his, but I think people are elevating him and devaluing Hillary in a way that isn't really justified, much in the same way conservatives don't like Hillary.
 

Agreed David, but there is a big difference between good healthy thriving business and pathological corporate behavior.

I agree Daniel.

Hillary could be more reformist, I think, but I think that often integral is mistaken for conservatism and “reform” a regressive attack on a lower value sphere.


~ ~ ~

My bet is that Obama will win the next few primaries and either be tied or in the lead by the end of February but that Hillary could have the advantage in March.

David


 

Re: Election Watch

>>I think you have a point there about a Senator only having so much power, and I also wouldn't write him off for one mistake. But portraits of Obama as the man of change and Hilllary as a part of the old network do look a little unjustified in light of this story.

I assume you're talking about his portrayal in media.  My main introduction to Obama wasn't through the images of primary elections marketing, it was through what his writing and early interviews.  He is the only candidate I know of that has given rational breakdowns of where he stands, how the world works, and how the world should work.  I remember watching him explain the process by which black students gradually get left behind.  There was some serious multi-faceted thinking going on in that head of his.  As election time got closer he has since dumbed down his message.  Unfortunately repeating vague general statements wins elections.  It's not about track record either.  What about the associated shift of the American identity?  Certainly either candidate is going to have that effect.  But which one has a more positive image?  Which one will be able to leverage their image more effectively in politics?





>>I can't blame Obama for not having the power to push it through, though it does cast doubts on his ability to work the system in Washington and come clean on what happened. Was it an aberration, or is he always like that? We don't really know. We would have a better idea if we gave him more time in the senate before electing him president.

You say that as if you'd follow what he does in the senate.  : )  I think you can have a pretty good idea of who he is in different ways.

Re: Election Watch

Yes, it is really difficult to know how someone will lead judging by their campaign. You really don't know until they get into office and begin acting and responding. Each one makes him- or herself more conservative or more liberal depending on the situation. What concerns me about Obama–in addition to the experience issue and what appears to be too much focus on American social issues–is that he may not be integrating enough conservatism. We can't really afford to have a leader too far on either extreme right now. It's time for a Teal president!

As for following him as a senator, yes I would, to the extent that I was able. Living in Illinois I would tend to see better coverage of him than in other parts of the country, and I always scan the New York Times and Washington Post for articles. But it is still difficult to get information.

David

Re: Election Watch

David.

Honestly.

Don't you think we've had enough “conservatism?” Conservatives don't even know what they stand for, anyway. Less government? We have the heaviest-handed government ever under conservative rule. Less spending? I don't think I need to remind anyone what we're spending on this war and various corporate welfare programs.

Personally, I'd love a wild-ass liberal president. We haven't had one in, um, ever, that I can think of. Maybe Carter, but he wasn't even that liberal. Todays' standards have gone so far to the right that we don't even remember what liberals do in office.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Thank you very much, Liz. I think that gets to the heart of the matter.

 

Don't you think we've had enough “conservatism?”

Well, for one thing, the Bush administration are not conservatives, they're neocons! They're radical conservatives; they're conservatives with Red, conservatives with impatience, conservatives who don't give a damn about the constitution, the environment, people, especially other ethnicities, non Christians–they're ideologues. A lot of conservatives–meaning the Orange brand, not Amber–are very unhappy with them for a number of reasons, the budget deficits for one thing: they have lowered taxes and raised spending, and they can't blame it all on the war. They're irresponsible.

But generally, with the budget deficits we have, we need more real conservatism, the kind of integral or near-integral conservatism we got from Clinton-Gore. They corrected the huge deficits left to them by Reagan-Bush. We need something similar now. Also, we could use a certain amount of certain types of those family values–things are a little crazy, a little Red. We need a refurbishing of Amber values like service, loyalty, fidelity, honor, honesty, etc. That would be a part of governement reform and corporate reform as well as social reform.

Of course in some respects I think conservatives simply need to be stood up to–on women's rights, birth control, abortion rights, etc., for example. A lot of the corruption, though, is really Red, in some cases aggravated by Green, and would benefit by a refurbishing of conservative values, though it would have to be done in an integral rather than a fundamentalist tone.

I am looking forward to a more liberal sense of fairness with regard to the tax code, corporate welfare, corporate regulation in general, etc. On the war on terrorism we need to stick with a few of the tough stances the Bush administration has put in place, though of course not all. It would be a disasterous time to have a weak and wobbly liberal who's more concerned about being liked and not offending anyone.

A very liberal president now could be a disaster for the deficits, for the war on terrorism, immigration, issues regarding China, Korea, Russia, Pakistan, South America, etc. And they can also make an enemy out of business, which of course is a part of the foundation of the whole show. I am definitely looking forward to more liberal values being worked in (an end to the war on drugs, for example, which we need a 60% liberal or integral congress for), but unless the president is integral and can see where liberalism goes wrong, we're headed for trouble, just a different kind of trouble than we've had in the past 8 years.


David

Re: Election Watch

Sure. We agree. But I think Kucinich has shown that a real liberal can't get elected anymore. and I think all the real conservatives are now Libertarians.

Re: Election Watch

Yes, Dennis proved that, but Ralph proved that they can still mess things up if they want to.

As for the Libertarians, I think we can be grateful that Ron Paul has faded away. That was regressive stuff. Look for the anarchist candidate to get a boost if he drops out.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be great. That would be unbeatable. For awhile I thought it was impossible, but now I'm thinking it's possible again.

David

Re: Election Watch

I would MUCH prefer Obama-Clinton. Bill is a huge liability, and she could lose the election, she's so despised. There are republicans who would vote for Obama; there are none who would vote for Clinton.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Hillary's 14 years older than he is and has more experience. It wouldn't make sense for her to take the job as vice president; I can't see her doing it. It would make sense for Obama, though. He would also get the experience he needs to become president. I say forget about the people who despise her; they're crazy. Bill would be helpful in the general election. The reason he was trouble here was because he was creating a split among democrats, or more of one. The two of them–Bill and Hillary–would be terrific going after the Republican in the general election. They would rip him to shreds, and then Bill would do go to work in the White House and become friends with Obama and get him ready to be president.  :)

Re: Election Watch

This sounds really optimistic to me, David, but I'd love it if you were right!!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Obama as president with Hillary as vice-president?  Hey, she'd be better than a bullet-proof vest, hehehe. 

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

Holy, shit, you're right. I hadn't thought of that. Someone needs to talk to the Clinton and Obama campaigns to protect both candidate's health!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

…better than a vest…

That's exactly what I used to say about Dan Quail  (sp?).

K

Re: Election Watch

Article from the Los Angeles Times today – made me laugh at myself ….
(And 20 years ago I really did have a boyfriend who looks quite a bit like Obama …)

—————————————————————————————————————

Joel Stein:
“He's got Obamaphilia”

It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a
relatively mainstream presidential candidate.
February 8, 2008

You are embarrassing yourselves. With your “Yes We
Can” music video, your “Fired Up, Ready to Go” song,
your endless chatter about how he's the first one to
inspire you, to make you really feel something – it's
as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your
locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read,
“Do you like me? Check yes or no.” Some of you even
cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted
for me, I would so never call you again.

Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out
if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had
taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama
presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me.
Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote
for him. She'd never even called me once about
anything else. Not even to see “The Island.”


What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a
politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions
like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream
one. He has not been firing up the Senate with
stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war.
He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him.
There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I
know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a
better tailor.

All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen
victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last
month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold
night desert air, just to see him up close, to make
sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so
bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy
“scapegoating” and “demagoguery.” I'd never had even a
history teacher argue that our nation's history is a
series of brave people changing others' minds when
things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man
to hope all over me.

Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed
about my feelings. In the “Yes We Can” music video
that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I
spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I
know. (His line is “Yes we can.”) I called to see if
he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was
just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped
his Q rating.

Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he
volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds
of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his
friends that contained these lines: “Nothing is more
fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him.
I stood, my hand embraced in his, and … I felt
something … something that I can only describe as an
overpowering sense of Hope.” That's the gayest e-mail
I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen
me on E!

When I started to make fun of Olsen, he said: “I get
that it's a movement. But it's not like a movement for
Nickelback. For the first time, we should feel
justified in our passion. You don't have to feel
embarrassed about it, buddy.” It was a convincing
argument until he told me he cried during an Obama
speech. That did not help me feel less lame.

So to de-Romeo-ize, I called someone immune to Obama's
hottie dreaminess: a white suburban feminist baby
boomer. To get two things done at once, I called my
mother.

My mom, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter,
immediately attacked Obamamania. “Some part of me
wants to say, 'People wake up. He has no plans.' I get
frustrated listening to his speeches after awhile,”
she said. She also said that the new vacation house in
Key West is really great and her vertigo hasn't been
acting up.

I started to feel a little more grounded again. Did I
want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who
understands that change emerges from hard work and
conflict? “People are projecting an awful lot onto
him,” Mom said. “Almost like what was that movie with,
oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he
practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler
and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and
feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You
don't.” Hers, of course, is the demographic most
likely to vote.

But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in “Being
There.” As a therapist, she's seen the danger of
ungrounded expectations. “You feel young again. You
feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel
that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great
marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very
quickly.” Mom is the kind of realistic tough-talker
who isn't afraid to make divorce analogies to a child
of divorce.

“We want what he represents,” she said. “A young,
idealistic person who really believes it. And he
believes it. He believes he can change the world. I
just don't think he can.”

Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too
many novels; I can't root against a person who
believes he can change the world. The best we
Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing
ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making
more “We Are the World”-type videos. We can resist
crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument
and every e-mail, the word “inspiration.” Yes, we can.

Re: Election Watch

That is frickin' hilarious, Mary.  :)

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

I like what David has been saying about Clinton being the better choice to clean up the mess Bush will leave behind and having Bill groom Obama for the next round if he turns out to be Vice President.

Looks like Hillary fired her campaign manager and got a new one…Obama is kicking her ass in winning delegates. I hear he said he'll give Oprah a position in his cabinet if he gets in.

Re: Election Watch

Here's Keith Olberman on Hillary's “assassination” comment.

Phew!

Re: Election Watch

Wow, great stuff - thanks for posting the link, Mary.

Once again I find myself asking, in dumbfounded nonplussitude, “yeah…but….what does Keith Olberman really think?”

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

I was not listening, just overhearing it from the next room, and I said, “Who is that? It sounds like Rush Limbaugh.” Olberman is bad for everyone, with all the hatred he's spewing. The left should not be trying to out-hate the right. This is a holdover from the 2000 election, when the left was in complete shck and disarraye and trying to figure out how to get back in poweer. They completely bungled it, as we know, but part of it was trying to fight by the neo-con rules. Doomed to failure.

While I agree with you, David, that Senator Clinton has shown amazing strength and poise, it's not at all surprising or even untoward that Obama should want her out of the race. Don't forget he's actually trying to win. And not just against her, but against a formidable opponent who's had months to rest without spending any money, McCain.

I do think it's because she's a woman, and also the wife of someone the right really despised. Not least because they are rational and reasonable and showed them all how politics should be done. Clinton and Obama both threaten the right in ways that the amber/orange folks can't even understand.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

This is the latest in the smear campaign against Hillary Clinton. There hasn't been anything like this in American politics, at least in recent American history, that a candidate has been smeared like this by the media (taking its cues from the Obama campaign) and attempting again and again to force a candidate out of the race. It's incredibly anti-democratic to have the media behaving this way. For years Fox News has been every bit as bad on the conservative side, and liberals have lambasted Fox News for years for the their media bias. But this election year, the liberal media, particuarlly MSNBC, have been every bit as bad and quite possibly worse. Of them, Olberman has clearly led the path. We find in him a pluralist infected by narcissistic rage and—most troubling for a journalist—a lack of concern for the facts. This is not the first time we have seen an outburst like this from Olberman. There was another one here when Olberman took the opportunity of Geraldine Ferraro's poorly chosen words to lambast Hillary, as if she were the one who spoke them when she denounced Ferraro for it.

At any rate, when I first heard of the RFK remarks I thought, “Oh, that's bad. This really is bad.” Then I heard the clip, and I thought, “That really is bad. What was she thinking there? Is it just because she speaks a million words a week and people are attacking her from all sides, saying the most insulting things they can think of and many things that simply aren't true?” She has, by the way, shown incredible strength. James Carville, who is a Clinton supporter and a little biased, said that he couldn't defend her campaign but said it was one of the greatest performances in any campaign. Really, no man has had to put up with what she has had to put up with. I'm not saying it is necessarily to do with gender, but she's been attacked from the left and from the right, and that leaves just about nobody in the media who will like her, as she all the while tries to express Teal.

The RFC remarks—well, it took a little digging, but I found the entire interview. The only one I could find is little cut up by written remarks by the video blogger in which he tries to help her make her case. The remarks aren't bad and kind of interesting—did you know that Woodrow Wilson didn't win the nomination until the 146 ballot at the convention?—but it's a little distracting (some of his written comments on the side are also good). At any rate, what of these remarks? Is Hillary really the devil that Olberman and all the liberals think she is or try to paint her as? Well, it sure looks like it doesn't it? Until, of course, you see the entire interview.

When you see the entire interview you see that the discussion about whether she should get out of the race—again, a question no other candidate has ever had to deal with; the Obama campaign and their friends in the media have because they felt she might win—you see that the discussion about why Hillary should get out of the race had been going on for no less than 3 and 1/2 minutes before she made the RFK remarks. And in that time the reporter asked her 4 additional questions about it. To hear it told from Olberman and the rest and to see the short clip they show you you'd think she was asked about it and the very first thing that popped out of her mouth was , “Well, they shot RFK in June and it's not even June yet.” She had alreadly spoken at length about the whole thing and the reporter kept asking her about it. She had mentioned that the 80, 84, 88, and 92 campaigns had all gone on longer than this, and no one had grudged the candidates the right even if they wanted to take it all the way to the convention, as Teddy Kennedy did, for example.

And then–and here's the most important point—she mentions her husband's campaign in 92 that was still going on in June and in the same breath she mentioned Bobby Kennedy's assasination during the 68 primary, which also happened in June. The connection was the month of June, which had occured to her when talking about Bill's 92 campaign. Ask a political professional about primaries for long enough and eventually you are going to make it back to the 68 campaign. She had already mentioned 4 other primary campaigns and one of them twice and, again, had been answering repeated questions on the subject for 3 and 1/2 minutes before she mentioned the 68 campaign. If you see the whole video I think you will see that she wasn't trying to put assassination on people's minds, but Olberman and the rest were more than happy to spin it that way, weren't they?

But the larger question is, why does the Obama campaign want Hillary out of the race and urge her to get out, a rallying cry the liberal media is all too happy to pick up even though it is historically unprecedented to force a candidate out of the race like this? The short answer is because without Hillary, Obama is the winner, but the long answer is, this is the Obama way! This is Obama poltics—he doesn't want to run against anyone; he doesn't want any other candidates in the race who voters might vote for. Have you heard the story of his first political race in Illinois?

Here is what happened: A popular Illinois state senator named Alice Palmer (serving in Springfield, Illinois) decided to make a run for the U.S. Congress (in Washington D.C.). Upon announcing this, she promoted a young politcian she liked, a man named Barack Obama, as her successor. It was a special election—another Democrat had slept with an employee (a 16-year-old volunteer) and was forced out of office. She lost the election—and then decided to run again for her old seat in the Illinois Senate. She and her supporters asked Barack to step out of the race. He refused. Fair enough. Some might have, and some were angry at him for not stepping out, but once he had things going it was fair enough to go ahead with the race. So the two were running against eachother.

Here's where it gets ugly. Obama hires a lawyer and challenges Palmer's petitions, which she had filed hurriedly since she got into the race so late, on technicalities. He hired a Harvard lawyer who was a specialist in local election law, and she didn't have the time or resources to fight it. At any rate, he was able to knock her, the incumbent, out of the race. Petitions are to keep non-serious candidates out of the race. They're to make it so not just anyone can jump into a race and muck up the debates and the whole process. But they're not for knocking out a popular incumbent who was many times better known than he was in their district, so popular she ran for congress.

But it didn't stop there—Obama went ahead and knocked the other three candidates off the ballot on technicalities as well! Challenging all their petitions! He didn't run against anyone! It's the Obama way! He knocked all four other candidates off the ballot on technicalities using his lawyer! And he considered doing the same thing in his senate race, but he figured—here was the reason he didn't do it—it might look bad because he had done it before. The reason wasn't because it was undemocratic, but because it might hurt him, might make him look bad. Here's what one of the candidates he had knocked off the ballot had to say about it (I'll give you the first few paragraphs of the article, and then a link to the whole article if you're interested):

“The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

“Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

From this article.


Yes, why not let the voters decide? In this election the Obama lawyers have prevented revotes in Michigan and Florida. There have also been reports of strong-arm tactics and intimidation in some of the caucuses, where people vote publicly rather than in a closed voting booth. It was largely because of those caucus wins that gave Obama his delegate lead, and caucus votes are anything but accurate relfections of voter preferences (Hillary won the Texas primary, where people vote in private voting booths, by 4 points and lost the caucus by 12 points—a 16-point differential! But the media has been all too happy to echo the Obama party line of Obama being the people's choice even when they blocked the revote attempts in Florida and Michigan, even when Clinton supporters were willing to pay for the revote in Michigan. They block people from voting and they want to claim that Obama is the people's choice, all the while trying to force the opposing candidate out of the race.

I still think he's a great guy, though, and may make a great president one day. What I don't like is the incredible elevation of Obama and the simultaneous devaluation of Hillary Clinton. This is what makes the whole thing so narcissistic. Here is the first paragraph of chapter 2 of A Theory of Everything:

“The dictionary definition of narcissism is “excessive interest in one's one self, importance, abilities, etc.; egocentrism.” Yet narcissism is not simply the overvaluing of the self and its abilities, but a concomitant undervaluing of others and their contribution. It is not simply possessing a large amount of self-esteem; it is the simultaneous devaluation of others that is crucial.”

Why is there such an onslaught against Hillary Clinton? Gender? Value-sphere conflict? Race? One guy on a different website was telling me she is a compulsive liar—I asked him to give me one, just one example of her lying, and he couldn't, not even a single example. I wouldn't count Tuzla because she had written about it without the snipers in one of her books, and only an idiot would lie about it after having written it without the snipers, something the other poster agreed with. It's clear she just misremembered that.


David

Re: Election Watch

Hey, thanks for the compliment on February 11, Daniel.  :)

David

Re: Election Watch

At any rate, when I first heard of the RFK remarks I thought, “Oh, that's bad. This really is bad.” Then I heard the clip, and I thought, “That really is bad. What was she thinking there?

Sometimes when the ship is sinking and you are in a panic you will do just about anything, even push others down, in order to stay afloat.

Re: Election Watch

You know, I just don't know.

I actually quite enjoyed Olberman's rant. (An old embattled leftie never dies, lol!) I was upset that Hillary had referenced RFK's assassination in this way, and I'm unable to believe her when she says she was using it to make a point about how long primary seasons last. For one thing: this particular primary season has been longer than ever – whereas in 1968, it didn't get going until March or so. (So of course it would still be happening in June …) For another thing, I simply believe she is too smart and calculating to NOT know the effects her comments could have.

And yet today I'm relooking at my reaction – why am I really so upset that Hillary referenced assassination? Because I'm worried about it actually happening, of course. But who DOESN'T have this worry lingering in their minds already? Hasn't it been here in this history-making Democratic campaign all along? I have a few friends who didn't want Obama (or Hillary!) to run in the first place solely because of this anxiety about assassination.

Are we supposed to “censor” this anxiety now, not allow it into public or political discourse? Olberman seems to think so. I get his point about the lowness of using assassination anxiety as a political tool, but it seems to me he goes further, suggesting that it is morally wrong and dangerous to publically mention or ponder this possibility – even though it's already there in our minds, our hearts, and our history. This troubles me…

Re: Election Watch

I'd rather have it out in the open, Mary. I wonder if he could rent the Popemobile…

Re: Election Watch

e:  Sometimes when the ship is sinking and you are in a panic you will do just about anything, even push others down, in order to stay afloat.

Did you look at the entire interview that I linked? It was in the context of a several-minute discussion about the subject with the editors of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, and they had asked her and continued to ask her about it. She has hundreds of conversations like this, and the media pulls one sentence out of the several-minute discussion and decided to spin it as if Hillary is trying to get Obama assassinated. I can understand people buying the spin only having  seen the 30-second clip, but I think if people see the whole clip and still think she was trying to get Obama assassinated they are either a part of the smear campaign that Obama himself began in the summer of 2007—calling Hillary “dishonest and untrustworthy” in a front-page New York Times interview, without offering any evidence to back it up—easily manipulated, or a little delusional. She didn't put that clip out there—the media decided to extract that one sentence and make a big deal out of it.

She was speaking with the editors of this small paper in South Dakota—the media made it into a national story; Hillary did not. If it had been the first thing out of her mouth, if she had repeated it, perhaps they would have been justified in making a story out of it, but as it is I think it's one of the lowest things that has happened in this campaign that someone decided to extract it and spin it that way. They have no idea what's going on in her head, and considering the circumstances—the location, the small group of editors, that they were asking her about it—I don't see any justification for spinning it that way or even making an issue about it. If people want to take things out of context like that—and there could hardly be a better example of people taking something unfairly out of context and distorting it—they have the right to, but it is not a sign of a healthy, evolved democracy.


David

Re: Election Watch

My general sense is that the media spin is not “Hillary is trying to get Obama assassinated,” but rather: “Hillary is stirring up assassination anxiety in hopes that it will take votes away from Obama and give them to her.”

Re: Election Watch

Hi Mary,

Could you say what sorts of things have informed your impression of that situation? What evidence is there that Hillary is doing this? Do you think Hillary pre-meditated this, or do you think it is a case of shadow surfacing or the like? In either event, what is it that makes you think that she is trying to stir up assassination anxiety? It wasn't her, after all, who made it a story. She said lots of other things in that interview. It wasn't her choice at all to put it in the news—also, the editors there at the table didn't seem surprised by it, did they? Don't you think they might have questioned her if it had seemed to them that she was stirring up assassination anxiety? She had also been asked repeatedly about that issue and was giving the historical context. The 1968 campaign was also the last one she mentioned. Do you think it's possible that  upon remembering the Democratic primary in June 92 it was quite natural of her to remember what must have been an extremely traumatic and memorable Democratic primary of June 1968?

David

Re: Election Watch

David, for me this whole Hillary thing is mostly a gut-level and emotional reaction, and it's of course possible that I'm wrong about her conscious or unconscious motives. Who can really know what another is thinking? And even if she hopes that assassination anxiety will be to her benefit, I didn't think her comment was as calculatingly pre-meditated as “let's see, I'll start mentioning RFK's death at such-and-so point and that should garner me a few more delegates by such-and-so time …”

She hasn't said the word “assassination” more than once in this context, but she has referenced the event itself more than once. If she really only wanted to make a point about how long primary seasons can last, she has her own husband's example that she could (and did) use…

She's been in politics for a long time – and I can't help but think that she has to know by now that anything she says anywhere is grist for the media mill. I can recall how she clearly avoided giving her opinion on Obama's pastor, even when she was asked about it several times – until the whole pastor controversy looked like it might derail Obama's campaign. Only then did she say, “well, I wouldn't have had him as my pastor.” She avoided giving her opinion when doing so might have worked against her, and then she gave it when it looked like it might help her.

That's the type of thing I'm talking about – i.e., more or less spontaneous and play-by-play choices a politician makes rooted in their desire to win and their perception of where they are in the game. And don't most politicians do this – those who go far, at least? Moment by moment they say things, or avoid saying things, with the hopes of creating a certain effect. Sometimes things do backfire, and many times the media do make mountains out of molehills. Hillary apparently didn't anticipate this kind of media response, but I suspect she wanted to create a certain effect by recalling RFK's death. Even if that's not the case, I guess it's the kind of public-relations gaffe that I'd prefer a potential president not make.  

Re: Election Watch

Here is an interesting and mostly great write up about the RFK flap. There's even a response from an Argus Leader editor who was there when she said it. The only thing I can't agree with is the idea that the story was ever newsworthy. I think the media should take some responsibility in situations like this and not always jump for the senstational. It could be harmful. With something like this, they should check first and post later. They posted first and checked later.

May 28, 2008 Politico.com: How Clinton's Sioux Falls comment became big news John F. Harris Politico.com The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality. Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper. Trivial stories - the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top - can dominate the campaign narrative for days. Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets? Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives. This weekend's uproar over Hillary Rodham Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child - overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience. The truth about what Clinton said - and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant - was entirely beside the point. Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of The New York Times, was the lead story of The Washington Post and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. What gives? I should say at the outset that I have a pretty good vantage point on this particular case - both as witness of and participant in the echo chamber. On Friday afternoon, I heard my colleague, Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, bellow in excitement as he called me over to his desk. Martin was furiously typing away, not looking up as he told me the latest: Clinton had given an interview to the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota in which she answered inquiries into why she is staying in the race by citing the fact that it's only May, and RFK had been shot and killed in June. Here is what I was thinking: Wow. Maybe she has come unhinged? It's not as though such macabre thoughts have never occurred to me, but for Clinton to give public voice to such a scenario is bizarre. This is going to be a big story and is almost certainly going to shadow and quite likely accelerate the final chapter of her presidential campaign. Here is what I said: Martin, quick get that item up! He needed no prompting. As leaders of a new publication, Politico's senior editors and I are relentlessly focused on audience traffic. The way to build traffic on the Web is to get links from other websites. The way to get links is to be first with news - sometimes big news, sometimes small - that drives that day's conversation. We are unapologetic in our premium on high velocity. In this focus on links and traffic we are not different from nearly all news sites these days, not just new publications but established ones like The New York Times. There are probably a dozen websites with a heavy political emphasis whose links are sought by all for the traffic those links drive. Martin was quick getting the item about Clinton's Argus Leader comment up on his Politico blog. But not as quick as The New York Post, which was the first outside South Dakota to notice Clinton's inflammatory remarks (Martin himself knew about Clinton's remarks from the New York tabloid's story). The Associated Press, in what looked at first blush like a classic example of what reporters call “burying the lead,” had no mention of Clinton's RFK remarks in its original dispatch on the interview. I urged Martin to keep his foot on the gas: Be the first to post reaction from the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly obliged, denouncing Clinton's comments and saying such sentiments have “no place in this campaign.” Burton's comments quickly went into Martin's blog post. Soon enough, several websites and cable news outlets were giving the story trumpet-blaring treatment. Perhaps half an hour after the story broke Martin called me back over to his desk. It turned out the Argus Leader had video of its big interview. I huddled over Martin's computer as we watched. It was a deflating experience. The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment. Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: “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.” Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton's facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb. Whether she recognized it or not, she had. But it was also clear that Clinton's error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale. It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I'd get to be the nominee after all.” It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.” It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader's executive editor, Randell Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.” Make no mistake. Clinton stepped on a rake with her comment and got bopped in the face. This was entertaining political slapstick, for those of us who like that kind of thing. Little wonder she apologized. But Clinton's clumsiness does not excuse news media clumsiness in making a minor story seem like a major one. A note on the randomness of the news: If this really was a big story, then the media has blown it for months. Clinton made similar remarks to Time magazine back in March. (The Wall Street Journal reporter with Clinton has an entertaining look at how the pack traveling with the candidate initially missed the story.) Keeping one's journalistic bearings amid a hype storm is a challenge for every publication, this one included. In the early months of this publication (we launched in January 2007), a short news item broken by Ben Smith about John Edwards' $400 haircut became one of our most-trafficked stories. I thought we handled that news nugget with a decent sense of proportion. The item, for instance, never led our site. But it's true I was not exactly despairing when other websites and cable TV networks went way overboard on the story, with citations to Politico. Nor is this column intended as a mea culpa for Hillary Hype. Velocity is a virtue in the Web world, and we are not going to stop trying to be fast off the mark - for relevant and fairly reported stories. What Clinton said about Robert Kennedy, whether it was cold or just a bit clueless, was newsworthy, and Martin's original blog post was responsible in framing the context of her remark. He was equally quick to post her clarification and apology. The uproar was never the lead of our site. But it was striking to see the broadcast networks and big papers, which were still going at full boil that evening and the next morning even though they had plenty of time to assess the (dwindling) significance of the story as the day wore on. (Meanwhile Friday, Obama was giving a major foreign-policy speech in Miami to unveil his plan for Latin America.) In an earlier era, these establishment outlets prized their role in promoting and preserving high standards of relevance. In this era, with their business model challenged by the Web and other forces, and in the same scramble for audience as everyone else, these fabled elite media organs are if anything more buffeted by sensationalism and whimsy than their new media counterparts. Once, the elite papers and network news set the agenda, and others followed suit, following up on what these establishment pillars deemed important. Now it's just the opposite. The conservative old voices increasingly take their cues from the newer, more daring ones. The distinguishing feature of most political hype storms is that they pass quickly. Who the hell can remember what we were up in arms about last month? Wasn't it something about Sinbad and a telecom lobbyist who was bitter about being a Muslim? In that sense, a news culture in which - like the amplifiers for “Spinal Tap” that go up to 11 - everything is exaggerated may not seem like a big deal. But the consequences are more serious than meets the eye. The uproar du jour mentality in the media can be a hassle for public officials, but it can also be their friend. Hillary Clinton, for instance, can be glad that a serious look by The New York Times about Bill Clinton's dealings with a Canadian tycoon trying to curry favor with a dictatorship never generated much interest from other media. Politicians know that as long as they have a base of support they can probably ride out any story confident that the pack will soon move on. Only a news media with the focus and discipline to distinguish a big story from a small one can hold politicians accountable - and produce the work that deserves an audience.

Re: Election Watch

Hi Mary, I think Hillary's response about the Rev. Wright deal is even worse than you say. At first she was pleased as punch it came along, then pleased as punch that everyone made a big deal over it, but then she made her sniper remarks and all the attention turned to her. This she didn't like, and that's when she, at a press conference, said that she wouldn't have chosen Rev. Wright as a minister. She was happily silent before that. She wanted to turn the attention back on Barack and Rev. Wright, but it didn't work. It looked inauthentic, and people mocked her for it. There have been a few times she hasn't played things well like that, but I think the same could be said of Barack.

At any rate, I think you're right: It's hard to know what's in a person's mind. It may well have been some unfair remark she made or some deep, dark wish rising to the surface, but it's also possible it was an innocent remark but people wanted to spin it that way. It looked to me like it was innocent when I watched the tape, but when I think about it without looking at the tape it's harder to tell. Of course, whether it was innocent or not, a lot of Obama fans used it to their advantage, as the Obama campaign did initially, when perhaps they knew it could have been innocent or perhaps didn't really care whether it was or wasn't.

The divisions are pretty deep right now with the Democrats. I wonder what they can do to heal it. It won't be a simple matter, especially with McCain, the one Republican Democrats would consider voting for, running on the other side. If Hillary's fans feel that she was forced out before she wanted to leave, I think many just might vote for John McCain. I think the best thing Democrats could do might be to let it go all the way to the convention and let Hillary fight it to the bitter end if she wants to. If they feel she's been given a fair shake, which many believe she hasn't, they will be much more likely to vote for Obama.

Blessings,

David

Re: Election Watch

If I recall correctly, in Olberman's “rant,” he played a handful of clips of her repeatedly making this remark, or actually making something close to it, but not quite so clear in its implications.  So, it seems at least it has been a theme she has been returning to over awhile now.

Re: Election Watch

Good grief, I just watched that Olberman video again. Rant indeed. This is tabloid journalism on camera, and oh, so postmodern, so void of any helpful information. One of the things that stands out—he forgave Hillary for complaining about calls for her to drop out of the race, or something along those lines, “while such calls have been few.” Have been few? Trying to get her to drop out of the race has been as staple of the Obama campaign and its surrogates for months. There has simply been an endless, unbroken call for her to step out of the race, and then Obama gets up says, “I think she has every right to run as long as she wants”—a fine example of him saying one thing and instructing his campaign to do another. It works for many, apparently, but many also see the hypocrisy in it.

At any rate, these candidates repeat themselves again and again throughout the country. You will hear the same answer to the same question a thousand times if you follow them around. In an off-camera interview she used the word “assassination” in reference to the 68 campaign in March, and a few other times she simply referenced the 68 campaign, at various stops around the country since she has to repeat the answer in each media area each time she is asked the question. Everywhere Obama supporters in the media and in the crowds ask her why she doesn't drop out of the race, and she gives the historical context, which includes the 68 campaign. But she's not making an issue out of it; the Obama campaign and their supporters in the media and elswhere are making an issue out of it. If people stopped asking her why she won't drop out of the race, she could stop saying that candidates don't have to drop out of the race if they don't want to and have never been expected to in any previous campaign.

Also, I think it's understandable especially a day or two after Kennedy's stroke. I took a little stroll into Kennedy history myself at that point. I am sure Hillary, who lived through both assassinations, did the same. It's just opportunism on the part of Obama's supporters, and ironically, it is their making an issue out of it that would increase the chances of it doing any sort of harm, if it had the potential to do any harm, which is questionable. But the real reason that they have been asking her to get out of the race and have been taking her words out of context and distorting them like this is that they still feel threatened by her. They are shooting themselves in the foot. James Carville made the point months ago that the way to unify the party behind Barack Obama is not to villify Hillary and try to drive her out of the race, and this is quite true.

If Barack loses to McCain, all of Barack's supporters will say it's because of racism or because of Hillary, but the real truth is that he was never as strong politically as the delegate count and MSNBC made him out to be—Hillary would be winning if the delegates were awarded on a winner-take-all basis as they are in the general election and many of Obama's delegates were won in caucuses—and he has done an awful lot to alienate Amber, Orange, and Hillary Clinton fans (particularly the women)  who might have voted for him.


David

Re: Election Watch

At the same time, a number of polls show that states or voter-blocks that had been more heavily in favor of Clinton are now in favor of Obama.

But I'm not going to debate these issues with you.  You appear to have some very strong opinions on these issues – stronger than mine.

I used to more strongly support Obama than I do now.  I've moved closer to the position I've inhabited in previous elections: not really “sold” on any of the candidates, but making a choice anyway … halfway simply to oppose options that seem worse.

Whoever inherits the mantle is going to have a very large mess to clean up, and I don't envy them.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Election Watch

I'm not aware of any polls taken of states after their primaries. Could you show me one?

I'm not strongly against Obama; I'm just strongly against things that aren't fair or aren't true. I'll probably vote for Obama, but I'm waiting to see who they choose as their running mates.


David

Re: Election Watch

Speaking of running mates, McCain's is going to be important. He's had cancer three times already, right? And he's old. If he got a really great running mate, he could be a big threat. OTOH, maybe he won't even make it through the election. What would happen then???

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Yes, I think McCain's running mate will be really important, but I think Obama's will too. I bet McCain will either pick Romney or Florida Governor Crist, though I think Lieberman would be the best choice and the only choice that would really make it a moderate ticket.

I predict that Obama will either pick Hillary or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. He must win Ohio, and I don't think he can do it without Hillary or Strickland. I think they might be beginning to see that they can't do it without Hillary though, that the party would be too divided if that didn't happen.

The polls really haven't been looking great for Obama in the general election, not in the electoral college. Lanny Davis, who is a Clinton supporter, gives us a rundown that is a little biased of course but still accurate:

“According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation's voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup's state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points - a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states - constituting 105 electoral votes - are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses - Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half - 54 - of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup's findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

- Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

- Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

- Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

- North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

- Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin - one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.”

From this article.

He ends the article this way:

“But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008:

A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Stay tuned.”

Republicans are actually feeling good about their chances in light of the electoral college dynamics, but I think those hopes would be dashed if these two came together.

David

PS. Hillary gave Obama a real thumping in Puerto Rico—by 36 points—but the turnout was lower than they had hoped, just under 400,000 when there was a possibility for 2 million. So she just picked up about 140,000 votes.

Re: Election Watch

If they can put the past behind them, and I think they're both smart enough to do so, an Obama/Clinton ticket would be ideal. His vision, her experience and connections. And you know, she would change the office of the Vice President forever. She could make it powerful and useful. She did it, after all, with the First Lady-ship!

Dear God, I hope neither of them is stupid enough to blow this election.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

I agree except for the vision part. I think Obama's vision is old hat to Hillary. He needs to see that her vision is more deeply integral in one or two areas, particularly with regard to foreign policy. That's not to say I think her vision is superior on all counts—I think Obama's is likely better in some areas. Having the two there together would be ideal because that they could balance eachother out. It would also be great if the Clinton's could get Obama into Ken Wilber. I know that Ken said Obama was aware of it, but he didn't offer evidence for it as he did with the others, so I wonder if he was just playing politics himself because it's such an emotional situation for many people.

But if Obama doesn't start looking better in the electoral college, the superdelegates should take over. That's what they are there for. Before 1972 the nomination was often decided in “smoke-filled rooms,” like in 1968 when they nominated Humphrey who barely participated in the primaries. In 1968, seeing this, the Red/Green faction of the party went nuts. So then the DNC gave the power to the people in 1972, and the people elected McGovern, who was trounced by Richard Nixon—Nixon won 49 states and the popular vote by 23 points.

The superdelegate system was put in place in 1982 to avoid such an outcome, to make sure they nominated someone who could win, but the Obama campaign and their supporters are saying it would be anti-democratic for the superdelegates to carry out this duty, and most superdelegates aren't showing any backbone about it either. I'm not saying that the superdelegates should act in this case—it's too early to tell—but to say categorically that they shouldn't is just a political position to back Obama. The same people would be arguing the other side if the situation were reversed.


David

Re: Election Watch

So Obama has chosen Joe Biden as VP.

How do you feel about that? Anyone want to share their impressions?

As for McCain… his camp is said to be in a panic regarding their options from what I hear. This account of McCain's running mate dilemma is the most thorough I've seen so far.

Cheers! cuz I'm cautiously hopeful with Biden backing my guy.

m

Re: Election Watch

Well, Biden looks like a solid choice – likely the best option. He's strong, has experience, and can be the seasoned “attack dog” during the rest of the campaign while Obama continues in his sincere, even-handed, unite-the-people-in-hope stride.  

And I just saw Michelle Obama's keynote convention speech, which was superb.

I can't help but fantasize about the great and small changes the world could be in for if Obama were U.S. president. Still and all, there's a little cynic in me who says it's not going to happen …. I saw poll results today showing Obama and McCain were neck-in-neck, which means that Obama has lost some ground. Maybe the convention will change that …. we'll see.  But I think we're stll in a situation where voting results in key areas could be manipulated in the same way they were in the last 2 elections. Thus: unless an unusually large number of folks turn out to vote, the election will be so close that it will be easy to tip the results in favor of the powers-that-be-and-that-have-been-for-too-damn-long …

Once again: we gotta encourage people to vote, and be on the look out for intimidation tactics that might keep people from voting.

I guess I haven't really recovered from the shock of the last 2 elections – esp. the shock of Bush becoming president again in 2004 ….. but who knows? Perhaps there's a pleasant surprise in store for the world.

No matter who wins, we'll certainly have our work cut out for us as we try to dig ourselves out from the damage that's been done this past 8 years.

Wanting Obama to win any ole way,
Mary

Re: Election Watch

I guess I haven't really recovered from the shock of the last 2 elections - esp. the shock of Bush becoming president again in 2004 ….. but who knows? Perhaps there's a pleasant surprise in store for the world.

Oh my, do I hope so.  Here's to surprises.  I've always been a fan of them myself.  I also saw Michelle Obama's speech, which moved me to tears.  Ted Kennedy was a wonderful surprise as well.

I don't know anything about Biden's political leanings.  But I do love that he seems accessible.  Open, friendly, down-to-earth.  It's refreshing.

Re: Election Watch

Yo Mary and Elizabeth,

you've got me mumbling “amen” under my breath to just about everything you wrote. After Cheney Inc & BushCo stole the elections a second time in 2004, I experienced what it's like to have some of the symptoms of actual clinical depression. That was a first. I tend to be an enthusiast, someone who likes to laugh a lot and see silver linings in just about everything.

Joe Biden… without knowing much more about the guy than his voting record in the Senate (not great, mixed bag at best), I looked at footage of him walking and talking to get a direct hit, an intuitive impression, to suss out who we're dealing with. My inner navigator reads volumes of info in seconds, layers upon layers of clues that the intellect by itself could never accumulate, let alone interpret even halfway correctly. So I get the sense that he's a genuine “civil servant” type - by no means immune to corruption, but not one of the predatory low-lives that populate the political scene either. Nor a snake-oil salesman or a bureaucratic parasite with no internal vision.

Good, so he's a good guy according to my visceral first reading. Not perfect by any means, (no one is). But there's a pretty solid mid-section (Hara, power center). Then I see a heart-center that is somewhat darkened with scars, old pain and suffering. But the Hara and heart are nicely connected to this guy's head, not cut off like in so many other politicians. So, Biden can speak what he knows in his guts, and he is still in touch with his heart's vision after all those years in the swamps of Washington. And he's bright and articulate to boot…

Yeah, he's probably the best choice Obama could make under the circumstances. At least I don't know of anyone better.  Do you?


As for those freakin' polls that come out every five minutes, I've learned that it's all about Buyer Beware and Consider The Source - as usual.

I've done some research into the hidden machinations that lead to these poll results.
 
1) You can't trust anything put out by the AP (Associated Press). They're not reporting the news, just disseminating talking points put out by the Propaganda Ministry, er, the White House. Same goes for CNN, ABC and, argh… the list is too long.

2) The corporate media need a horse race to boost their ratings and ad sales. Republicans need the race to look as close as possible so they can change the election results at the central tabulator level and elsewhere. That's why they've installed all those hackable voting machines without paper trails so fast, it made your head spin after the year 2000 (s)election.

3) Young people likely to vote Democratic use cell phones and aren't reached as often as older demographics in these telephone polls that target listed names via landlines.

4) Far more people have registered as Democrats and Independents this year than as Republicans. In fact, Republicans are bleeding registered voters by the millions. Corp-media polls don't reflect this simple fact. Why not? See above.

My favorite math wizard puts out a “Poll of Polls meta-calculation” bonanza once a week. He predicted the presidential nomination results correctly all along, months ahead of everyone else except for one other guy who posts on Daily Kos.

Check out

THE MATH Weekly – For the Week Ending Sunday, August 24 – Obama 314, McCain 224

by phrigndumass (yep, he's a very self-effacing wizard).

Phrig's numbers show the projected electoral college vote which decides a Presidential election in the US. Obama, with 314 likely votes at this time, is ahead of McCain by 90 votes. Does that make you feel better? I does me :)

Re: Election Watch

also…

It seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000. Obama's average lead of three to four points is marginally larger than both John Kerry's and Al Gore's leads then (each was winning by one point in Gallup surveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter's 46). At Pollster.com, which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election.

Yet surely, we keep hearing, Obama should be running away with the thing. Even Michael Dukakis was beating the first George Bush by 17 percentage points in the summer of 1988. Of course, were Obama ahead by 17 points today, the same prognosticators now fussing over his narrow lead would be predicting that the arrogant and presumptuous Obama was destined to squander that landslide on vacation and tank just like his hapless predecessor.

The truth is we have no idea what will happen in November…

Re: Election Watch

Mascha: Presidential election in the US. Obama, with 314 likely votes at this time, is ahead of McCain by 90 votes. Does that make you feel better? I does me :)

Yes, it does actually make me feel better, Mascha –  :-) and I know (or at least I fergodsake should know) better than to fall for some mainstream news station's blurb about unspecified “polls.” I mean – remember all those months that CNN and whatnot kept saying how far Hillary was ahead of Obama? (Hillary, BTW, gave a kick-ass “unite the party” speech tonight at the Dem convention …. and I don't know how long it's been that I truly enjoyed watching political convention coverage. This time feels special. Like something's really happening.)

I also recall a conversation on the Integral Naked forum a few years ago, when some folks had begun musing about who might run for pres in 08. Obama's name came up – and then it was brought to our attention that his middle name is Hussein. Surely, we figured, someone whose name rhymes with “Osama”  and whose middle name is Hussein could never be nominated, much less become president  … this country just wasn't ready for that…

Back then, even just two years ago, who even imagined a Democratic convention such as  this one's turning out to be?

And yet, as the article that Arthur cited mentions, the truth is we have no idea what will happen in November.

Or even tomorrow, for that matter. I heard a brief report around noon today about an assassination plot on Obama that was foiled – security found some racist meth-heads with rifles who allegedly were planning to aim for Obama during his nomination acceptance speech on Thursday. Although there's certainly tighter security these days, such threats are always out there. I'm quite in awe of the courage of the Obama family. And …. deeply proud of them. Afraid for them. Yet hopeful in spite of everything.

I – and several of my voting-for-Obama friends, are in this paradoxical place: hopeful within our cynicism, pessimistic within our idealistic yearning. I know that I can only embrace what is, yet I'm undeniably hungry – no, ravenous – for a sea-change, for winds blowing from a different direction, for some dream to come to fruition. 

Sometimes I wish I weren't such a fool for love. But that's just what I am!  

Mary

Re: Election Watch

Mary

I - and several of my voting-for-Obama friends, are in this paradoxical place: hopeful within our cynicism, pessimistic within our idealistic yearning. I know that I can only embrace what is, yet I'm undeniably hungry - no, ravenous - for a sea-change, for winds blowing from a different direction, for some dream to come to fruition. 

In another life, you could have been a Scottish Nationalist. I#ve spent all my adult life waiting and working for that change. Finally we are in control of the Scottish parliament, it's like a gift of trust won by long years of effort building credibility in local and regional elections. Sooner or later, people will be ready for change, its just a question of being willing to wait. But don't we live in interesting times?

I thought you might like this:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3xz3wYy9xo

hugs

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Aye, Tiki-Liz, thank you for your words and for that song, which brought tears to my eyes ….

You wrote: Sooner or later, people will be ready for change, its just a question of being willing to wait. But don't we live in interesting times?

Which reminds me of another song  , bittersweet and open-hearted, that also brings tears to my eyes ….

Hugs back, lassie  :-)

Mary

Re: Election Watch

Oh, the irony… A guy I know is reporting from the Denver Mile High stadium where Barack just gave his acceptance speech to a packed house of over 75,000 people. I haven't seen the speech cuz I had to work :(  

He writes: “On the drive back to the hotel, the BBC was reporting that Republicans seemed “hurt” that [Obama] was so mean to them tonight. That cracked me up…”

I've been waiting for almost 8 interminable years for the US to stand up to these bullies… Please tell me the backlash cometh.

Re: Election Watch

Just wait 'till you hear that speech! It was spectacular.

If you get a chance to see the C-SPAN footage of it, that will give you the best view. Seeing the delightful variety of people gathered there, and the expressions on their faces as Obama was hitting it home – it don't get much better than that.

I think some Republicans might feel “hurt” because Obama actually wasn't mean to McCain. If he had been, that would be easier fodder for attack. Instead, Obama spoke about McCain with respect, yet – with clarity, strength, and passion – pointed out how his policies and choices differ from McCain's, as well as how damaging the “leadership” of the last 8 years has been, contrasting that with the ideas he has for cleaning up this mess we're in. 

The speech is also full of some great rhetorical flourishes – and peppered with big dreams – meaning that critics will probably try to discredit it because of its “grandiosity.” But that will be difficult to do, I think. It's hard to tamp down hope and idealism when you see such an address, charged with appeals to unity-in-diversity, given on the 45th anniversary of MLK's “Dream” speech. At the end of the speech, when Biden's and Obama's families all gathered on the stage, the camera focused for a moment on Obama's youngest daughter and Biden's granddaughter, little girls about the same age, playing together and smiling. King's Dream has come true.

Re: Election Watch

“King's Dream has come true.”

Aahh, the chills it gives me to hear that.

I HAVE A DREAM…






Hey, MLK, are you watching too?

.

Re: Election Watch

Analysis: 'Born in the USA' returns to politics

By TED ANTHONY, AP National WriterThu Aug 28, 10:38 PM ET

A generation after Ronald Reagan famously mistook Bruce Springsteen's music for uncritical patriotism, Democrats claimed “Born in the USA” on Thursday for the theme it was meant to project - to describe a splintered country they say desperately needs new policies and new dreams.

Delegates danced, cheered and waved flags Thursday night as Springsteen's arena-rock anthem brought the final evening of the Democratic National Convention to life. It was a significant moment - and a sign that, unlike in Reagan's 1984 campaign, the Democrats are exhibiting savvy about their use of music in political settings.

Though he never actually used the music in his campaign as widely believed, Reagan famously interpreted Springsteen's music as a “message of hope” for the nation. The song and album “Born in the USA” were popular at the time, and most assumed Reagan was referring to them. Springsteen, a Democrat, bristled at his art being invoked for causes he opposed.

But using “Born in the USA” in the finale of this year's convention - and letting the entire song play through while cameras pan the crowd - fits the goals of Barack Obama, whom Springsteen has endorsed.

“Born in the USA” tells of a man who was “born down in a dead man's town,” got sent to fight in Vietnam and returned home to no job and few veterans' benefits. The song ends with little hope:

“Down in the shadow of the penitentiary

Out by the gas fires of the refinery

Ten years burnin' down the road

Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go.”

After eight years of the administration of George W. Bush, whose father was Reagan's vice president, Obama says major changes and an infusion of hope are needed to get America back on track.

His speech Thursday night hit some of those themes. It said America was locked in “one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil and the American promise has been threatened once more.”

While “Born in the USA” spoke of the effects of Vietnam, Obama's speech spoke of the effects of Iraq. While the song spoke of a man turned away from work at the town refinery, Obama bemoaned a government that he said “lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty.”

But while the song ends on a sour note, Obama's “everyday American” theme insists that a Democratic administration can restore the chances - and the future - of people like Springsteen's protagonist.

Whether that's the case or not, one thing is clear: In a political landscape where context is often in short supply, the Democrats' use of music Thursday night was right on the mark - a very rare event when songs and politics collide.


Bruce Springsteen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPudiBR15mk

Re: Election Watch

Dan –

I'm thinking that whoever “deejayed” the Dem convention really enjoyed themselves – I was paying attention to the way various songs, themes, tones were used …. Each speaker was introduced with a piece of music …. did anyone notice how Al Gore kinda danced/strutted out to the tune of “Let the Sunshine In?” (i.e., the last half of this song).

In other news: McCain has just selected Susan Palin, the 44-year-old-almost-new governor of Alaska, as his running mate. So there: the repubs can play the young, sexy, and inexperienced card too!

Re: Election Watch

Hey everyone,

I watched the speech live at work and I was enrapt (is that a word?).  Awesome.  And yes about time that we saw democrats get stark and tough.  He was tough about giving respect to McCain, and also about pushing back in the face of MCain's stale tactics.

I had a dream last night that in the debates Barack was asked:

If you did get a 3 am call, what would be your next steps? (who would you call, what would you prioritise whta questions would you ask and to whom).  Seems like a good job interview question to me! I hope someone is running through scenarios with him!

Gitanjali