In something of a coincidence, on the same day when I spent some time speaking to a coworker, trying to dispel some of the smears that are going around about Senator Barack Obama, I received this email, forwarded by Jerry Gettinger, president of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC).
It is reprinted with permission. I've made a few formatting corrections to improve readability (for some reason, most apostrophes and hyphens came through as some weird symbol - ý.)
____________________________________________________________________
Dear Jerry:
They are at it again. You may have already received a few bogus emails making false claims about Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The Right Wing Smear Machine is back, and they are starting early, hoping to use the Big Lie to undermine the eventual Democratic nominee.
In 2004, as you will recall, right wingers spread lies about Democratic nominee John Kerry. They lied about his outstanding service in Vietnam and started a word-of-mouth campaign in the Jewish community with a lie about his wife supporting Hamas. Likewise, the amount of misinformation the Right Wing spread about President Clinton and Vice President Gore is almost too numerous to recount.
This year, NJDC is determined to give our activists the tools to fight back ý and to fight back early. In this email, I have enclosed information that counters some specific charges that have been levied against Senators Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Please help us make it "viral" by forwarding it to friends, family, neighbors and colleagues.
In the coming days, NJDC will send around a printable fact-sheet [Note: that fact sheet is here.] on where the major Democratic candidates stand on Middle East issues.
***
Senator Obama
We have received several reports about dishonest emails circulating about Senator Obama, aimed at Jewish voters. The fact of the matter is, Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish Community. He is very popular in the Chicago Jewish Community (one of the most vibrant centers of Jewish life in the nation) and has made courting Jewish votes a priority in his presidential campaign. A recent profile about Senator Obama in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency explained: "What you might not hear is that the Illinois senator, who made history Thursday by winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa, has made Jewish leaders an early stop at every stage in his political career." (Click here for the full article.)
Some of the viral emails sent out about Obama claim that the Senator is anti-Israel. Such charges are off-base. Like the other Democratic candidates, Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has never cast a vote against the position of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Shmuel Rosner, the U.S. correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes that Senator Obama "is pro-Israel. Period." (Click here to read his entire blog post about Obama.)
Senator Obama told the audience at NJDC's 2007 Washington Conference, "When I am President, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in search of this peace, and in defense against those who seek its destruction." (Click here for a transcript and here for video.) Likewise, in March 2007, Senator Obama told an AIPAC audience in Chicago that he believes the U.S. must have "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point" in approaching Middle East policy. Continued Obama: "And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security."
Senator Obama has been endorsed by several prominent supporters of Israel, including Jewish Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, who wrote: "What has always struck me about Senator Obama - and this is one of the reasons I have endorsed his candidacy for the United States Presidency - is that a love for Israel and a desire to keep the Jewish people secure is evident not just in his work, but also in his heart." Another prominent supporter of Israel, distinguished financier Lester Crown, wrote: "As president, [Obama] will be the friend to Israel that we all want to see in the White House - stalwart in his defense of Israel's security, and committed to helping Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." (More coverage of Crown's endorsement and support for Obama in the Jewish community is available on the Haaretz blog, here.)
The New York Sun - hardly a bastion of support for Democrats - editorialized: "We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans [who questioned the Senatorýs support for Israel] haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America."
It is also worth noting that Senator Obama is an outspoken critic of Iran, who wrote legislation to make it easier for states to divest from Iranian holdings. (The legislation is being blocked by a Republican Senator.)
Another Republican smear campaign falsely claims Senator Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa - a blatant lie. While Senator Obama's religion - he is Christian - should not matter in the Presidential election, setting the facts straight is important. We've seen terrible fear mongering by the right wing in the form of baseless attacks against Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, a good public servant and a friend of Israel and the Jewish Community. Similar attacks seem to be sprouting up against Senator Obama although he is Christian.
If a friend or neighbor asks you about an email or internet rumor regarding Senator Obamaýs religious upbringing, here are some important things to tell him/her:
(1) CNN reports "Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ýmadrassaý are not accurate, according to CNN reporting." The complete report is available online here in a report entitled "CNN debunks false report about Obama."
(2) The false "madrassa" rumors were published in a right wing smear magazine owned by the same company that owns the ultra-conservative Washington Times. These are the same people who have printed numerous falsehoods about the Clintons through the years.
(3) The Obama campaign has a fact sheet on its website which serves as an excellent resource about his background and sets the record straight about his religion. While Obama's religion should not be a political issue, lying about a candidate's religion is noteworthy. The fact sheet explains that, despite lies saying otherwise, Obama "is not and has never been a Muslim." The fact sheet is available here.
Scurrilous emails have also been circulating which attempt to smear Senator Obama because a magazine associated with his church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. In the response to inquiries about Farrakhan, Obama repudiated and decried Farrakhan and his anti-Semitism. He was praised by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for so-doing.
ADL National Director Abraham Foxman released a statement saying: "We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan. Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."
Newsweek debunked other falsehoods about Senator Obamaýs church, in an article posted at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424/output/print
The rhetoric in some of these viral emails about Obama is so over the top, that yesterday several leaders of national Jewish organizations signed on to a letter condemning the smear campaign being run against him. The signatories represent non-partisan organizations which do not endorse political candidates. In the letter, they wrote: "Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama's religious beliefs and who he is as a person" and "These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates."
The signatories include William Daroff of United Jewish Communities, Nathan J. Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Abraham Foxman of Anti-Defamation League, Richard S. Gordon of the American Jewish Congress, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Phyllis Snyder of the National Council of Jewish Women and Hadar Susskind of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
The letter can be viewed here.
Senator Clinton
Senator Hillary Clinton has long been a target for distortion, despite her outstanding record on issues ranging from education, to health care, to support for Israel. Despite her strong commitment to Israel and close kinship with the Jewish Community (a key reason she is tremendously popular with her New York constituents), right wing smears against her leadership continue.
Giuliani advisor Martin Kramer, for instance, wrote a disingenuous piece in the Jerusalem Post claiming that Senator Clinton's rhetoric on Israel contains code words hinting that she is not really a true friend of Israel. Of course there was no logic to anything he wrote, not a surprise given that Senator Clinton has worked overtime in support of Israel in the Senate.
I wrote an op-ed responding to Mr. Kramer, which is available on our blog, here. I would recommend sending these paragraphs to anyone who is tempted to believe a right wing smear of the Senator and her support for the Jewish state:
Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel's strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.
If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one's support for Israel.
Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: "As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel's cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues - and we include ourselves in that category - Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise."
At NJDC's Washington Conference, Senator Clinton strongly affirmed that that the U.S. stands "with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in a neighborhood that is shadowed by radicalism, extremism, despotism and terrorism," and that Israel's very existence is "a defiant rebuke to anti-Semitism." Her remarks were particularly well received by our members. (Click here for a transcript and here for video.)
The Senator's Israel position paper states, "from her first trip to Israel on New Year's Day in 1982 through her years as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has a long history of strong and steadfast leadership for the US-Israel relationship. Her connection to the State of Israel, which began when as the First Lady of Arkansas, she brought an innovative Israeli preschool education program to her state, has grown." It goes on to say that "Hillary recognizes that Israel is a most important strategic ally against the scourge of terrorism and radicalism. 'Israel,' she said, ýis not only a friend and ally for us; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should be."
Time and again, Senator Clinton comes forward to stand with Israel. In September, for instance, Senator Clinton voiced strong and eloquent support of Israel's decision to take out a Syrian weapons facility in September, asserting that "the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out," adding, "I strongly support that."
In a further example, Senator Clinton's office teamed with Palestinian Media Watch in February 2007 to release a study of anti-Israel language in Palestinian textbooks. Bold actions in support of Israel are the rule from Senator Clinton's office, not the exception.
And, as was previously alluded to, Senator Clinton was a leader in the successful efforts to push for recognition of Magen David Adom (Israel's Red Cross) into the International Red Cross movement, leading American Red Cross Chairwoman Bonnie McElveen-Hunter to comment: "In partnership with the American Red Cross, Senator Clinton has been a strong and engaged leader in support of Magen David Adom's acceptance into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."
Of course, it is important to remind anyone tempted to believe the right wing's rhetoric about Senator Clinton that her husband's administration was strongly supportive of Israel. To this day, former President Clinton continues to speak out on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship, notably taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for falsehoods in his book about the Middle East.
Senator Edwards
Right wingers have long sought to distort Senator Edwards' record. Last year, the right wing smear machine tried to spread a myth - strongly denied by the Edwards campaign - that claimed the Senator considered Israel the greatest threat to world peace. The Edwards campaign struck back hard, issuing a statement which NJDC blogged about in February. (Click here to view.) The statement said:
"Senator Edwards did not say nor does he believe that the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Senator Edwards said, as he has in the past, that Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace."
Edwards spoke eloquently about the Iranian threat to the Herzliya conference in Israel. During the conference he remarked that "for years, the U.S. hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran" and that "to ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."
Addressing Herzliya, Edwards said that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a "bond that can never be broken." He also spoke about his dedication to Israel at NJDCýs Washington Conference. (Click here for video and here for a transcript.) One need just read this portion of his remarks to understand that this man loves Israel, understands her challenges and stands firmly with her people:
I know how important our relationship with Israel is.
I have been on extraordinarily emotional trips to Israel myself which have been very important to me. Tonight as many of you know in Israel a flag will be raised on Mt. Herzl to commemorate what happened in 1948 when members of Israel's provisional government signed a declaration of independence in Tel Aviv and celebrating Israel's independence is a wonderful historic moment for Israel. The nation is flourishing, the economy is doing very well. Israel continues to face, as many of you know very well, extraordinary threats to her people and security every single day.
I think there is a renewed need for vigilance. I was in Israel last summer --- in fact a few of the people who I was in Israel with are here tonight. We met with the Prime Minister, other Israeli leaders, and the Cabinet. We travelled to the northern border with Lebanon. This was about a month before the fighting broke out. This was one of my visits to Israel, all of which have had independent meaning for me.
On my first trip, we left the King David Hotel and left for Tel Aviv, and a few hours later the Sbarro Pizza bombing took place, which many of you will remember. Many died, including children.
On the campaign trail, Senator Edwards has sharply criticized the Bush Administration for proposing a $20 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and has pledged to take a tougher stance toward the Saudis than President Bush in the White House. He was a sharp critic of the Saudi government on the 2004 campaign trail as well, remarking, "Whether it's Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing." (More info is available in a USA Today article, which is available here.)
Senator Edwards was very clear about his commitment to Israel during his 2004 debate with Vice President Cheney, declaring, "the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves." He also reiterated his support for a tougher policy on Saudi Arabia and tough efforts to hold Iran accountable: "And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people."
***
Attacks against our Democratic candidates must be countered with the facts. The earlier we start, the more powerful our pushback. I urge you to forward this message along to voters of all parties and political persuasions so we can stop the saliency of right wing attacks before it is too late. And, please send us any smear emails aimed at Jewish voters you receive so we can help debunk them.
Sincerely,
Ira N. Forman
Executive Director
National Jewish Democratic Council
PS. Please consider making a financial contribution to NJDC. Click here to contribute. And, click here to visit our blog!
____________________________________________________________________
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Here and there - elections notes
...The numbers are incomplete because not every county has posted early voting (EV) results on their websites (or, in Navajo County's case, the results are given in an almost unreadable format), but the pattern is clear - Hillary Clinton won in Arizona because of early votes.
In the five counties for which I could find clear data (Cochise, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma), Clinton had a clear advantage in early votes over Barack Obama. In fact, her EV advantage in Maricopa County, 20,790, exceeded her total advantage in the county, 18,170.
Not sure what it means, other than that every campaign involved in the fall elections is paying attention.
...Early votes helped Clinton/hurt Obama in another way - John Edwards received over 21,000 votes, the vast majority of them early votes. Most of the Edwards supporters that I know switched their support to Obama when Edwards dropped out. Most of those that didn't were like me in that they couldn't switch because they had already voted.
Depending on where they came from, the 21,000 votes that Edwards received might have garnered Obama one or two more delegates. In a race this close, that might make the difference.
...Barack Obama won two counties (Coconino and Yavapai) and one Congressional District (CD5),
...Note that I haven't used the word "lose" when describing the results, because neither one lost anything in Arizona. According to the Arizona Democratic Party, Clinton won 26 Arizona delegates on Tuesday; Obama won 20.
...However, the MSM hasn't been so picky about using the word "loser" in relation to Tuesday's results. It's a strong word that attracts eyes, but considering that most of the Democratic primaries/caucuses award delegates on a proportional basis, it's also a lazy word.
...In addition to the usual descriptions of one or another candidate "winning" or "losing" a state, the word "loser" has been used to describe various endorsers of Senator Obama, such as Arizona's own Governor Janet Napolitano.
From the Washington Post's The Fix (thanks to the AZ Rep's Political Insider for pointing this out) -
Janet Napolitano: The Arizona governor went out on a limb to back Obama and was featured in the Illinois senator's closing ads in the state. In the end, however, Napolitano wasn't able to deliver her state for Obama, a high-profile setback for a politician with clear aspirations for a spot on the national ticket.
She may not have "delivered" the state, but even if the Obama had received the most votes ("winning" the state), Arizona's delegates are awarded proportionally. Winning the state only means a couple of additional delegates.
Of more significance is the fact that Obama went from 14% support in November (according to this Rocky Mountain Poll) to over 41% in February 5th's election.
That change probably doubled, possibly tripled, Obama's Arizona delegate count.
Governor Napolitano may not have "delivered" the state, but states don't matter in this race, delegates do.
...While the MSM tries to spin Tuesday's results as a win for Clinton, it seems that many people disagree - for week's the Obama campaigning has been receiving more donations than the Clinton campaign, including *after* Tuesday. Of course, no matter what the various spin doctors have to say, Clinton realizes how tight the race really is - she's loaned her campaign over $5 million dollars.
Stay tuned...
...On a more local note, the AZ Republic has endorsed Corey Woods, Rhett Wilson, and Julie Jakubek in the race for Tempe City Council. Congrats to all three on the endorsements.
Note - early voting in Tempe's election started today.
Later!
In the five counties for which I could find clear data (Cochise, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai, and Yuma), Clinton had a clear advantage in early votes over Barack Obama. In fact, her EV advantage in Maricopa County, 20,790, exceeded her total advantage in the county, 18,170.
Not sure what it means, other than that every campaign involved in the fall elections is paying attention.
...Early votes helped Clinton/hurt Obama in another way - John Edwards received over 21,000 votes, the vast majority of them early votes. Most of the Edwards supporters that I know switched their support to Obama when Edwards dropped out. Most of those that didn't were like me in that they couldn't switch because they had already voted.
Depending on where they came from, the 21,000 votes that Edwards received might have garnered Obama one or two more delegates. In a race this close, that might make the difference.
...Barack Obama won two counties (Coconino and Yavapai) and one Congressional District (CD5),
...Note that I haven't used the word "lose" when describing the results, because neither one lost anything in Arizona. According to the Arizona Democratic Party, Clinton won 26 Arizona delegates on Tuesday; Obama won 20.
...However, the MSM hasn't been so picky about using the word "loser" in relation to Tuesday's results. It's a strong word that attracts eyes, but considering that most of the Democratic primaries/caucuses award delegates on a proportional basis, it's also a lazy word.
...In addition to the usual descriptions of one or another candidate "winning" or "losing" a state, the word "loser" has been used to describe various endorsers of Senator Obama, such as Arizona's own Governor Janet Napolitano.
From the Washington Post's The Fix (thanks to the AZ Rep's Political Insider for pointing this out) -
Janet Napolitano: The Arizona governor went out on a limb to back Obama and was featured in the Illinois senator's closing ads in the state. In the end, however, Napolitano wasn't able to deliver her state for Obama, a high-profile setback for a politician with clear aspirations for a spot on the national ticket.
She may not have "delivered" the state, but even if the Obama had received the most votes ("winning" the state), Arizona's delegates are awarded proportionally. Winning the state only means a couple of additional delegates.
Of more significance is the fact that Obama went from 14% support in November (according to this Rocky Mountain Poll) to over 41% in February 5th's election.
That change probably doubled, possibly tripled, Obama's Arizona delegate count.
Governor Napolitano may not have "delivered" the state, but states don't matter in this race, delegates do.
...While the MSM tries to spin Tuesday's results as a win for Clinton, it seems that many people disagree - for week's the Obama campaigning has been receiving more donations than the Clinton campaign, including *after* Tuesday. Of course, no matter what the various spin doctors have to say, Clinton realizes how tight the race really is - she's loaned her campaign over $5 million dollars.
Stay tuned...
...On a more local note, the AZ Republic has endorsed Corey Woods, Rhett Wilson, and Julie Jakubek in the race for Tempe City Council. Congrats to all three on the endorsements.
Note - early voting in Tempe's election started today.
Later!
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Two facts becoming clear...
1. Mike Huckabee won the Republican Vice-Presidential nomination tonight - whoever wins the Rep nomination for President (and more and more, that's looking like McCain), they're going to need Huckabee's ability to deliver in the southern states.
2. Hillary Clinton can spin this as a big victory for her, but "it could have been worse" isn't really a "victory." Barack Obama has more momentum, and even if he doesn't win in California (it's too early to call as I'm writing this), he's walking away from Super Tuesday with a significant amount of delegates. Depending on super delegates, he may have the lead in delegate count.
This race is still so close that we could end up a convention that means something...
More after actual delegate counts are in....
2. Hillary Clinton can spin this as a big victory for her, but "it could have been worse" isn't really a "victory." Barack Obama has more momentum, and even if he doesn't win in California (it's too early to call as I'm writing this), he's walking away from Super Tuesday with a significant amount of delegates. Depending on super delegates, he may have the lead in delegate count.
This race is still so close that we could end up a convention that means something...
More after actual delegate counts are in....
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bill Clinton in Tempe on Thursday
Following up on his wife's AZ visit last week, and perhaps hoping to counteract the effects of Senator Obama's visit later today, former President Bill Clinton is visiting Tempe on Thursday, January 31.
From an email from the Maricopa County Democratic Party -
Later!
From an email from the Maricopa County Democratic Party -
Former President Bill Clinton to visit Phoenix Thursday 31 January 2008
Former U.S. President William Clinton will speak on behalf of his wife Hillary's campaign at ASU's Grady Gammage Auditorium on the main ASU Campus in Tempe this Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 8:30PM. The auditorium seats only 3,000 people, so anyone wishing to attend should arrive -early- to get in line. Doors will open approximately at 6:30PM.
ASU Grady Gammage Auditorium
1200 S Forest Ave [Click for Map]
Tempe, AZ 85281
The ASU event is free and open to the public subject to available seating. There will also be a private fundraising reception that evening. For more information on that event, please contact Senator Hillary Clinton's local campaign office by calling (602) 279-8030, or stop by their office at 2845 N. Central Ave. (southeast corner of Thomas and Central Ave.).
Later!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sometimes hardball is the wrong game to play...
Whatthehell are they thinking?
In a move that I sort of predicted a couple of weeks ago, the Clinton campaign has requested that the DNC change the nomination rules.
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
Is the Clinton campaign deliberately trying to alienate the grassroots of the party? Do they really believe they can win the general election (presuming that she wins the nomination, a possibility that stunts like this could jeopardize) without the votes of the supporters of the other primary candidates? Do they even care about the damage such a move could do to the party's (and the eventual nominee's) image?
Are they supremely arrogant, or just supremely foolish?
For the sake of the party, Governor Dean and the DNC should respond to the request with a firm and final
"No."
More coverage -
Rolling Stone (critical)
New York Times (critical)
Palm Beach Post (not so critical)
Detroit News (not so critical)
Later!
In a move that I sort of predicted a couple of weeks ago, the Clinton campaign has requested that the DNC change the nomination rules.
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party's U.S. presidential nominee.
In those states, Michigan and Florida, Clinton could stake claim to nearly all the delegates to the nominating convention in question -- more than 350.
Is the Clinton campaign deliberately trying to alienate the grassroots of the party? Do they really believe they can win the general election (presuming that she wins the nomination, a possibility that stunts like this could jeopardize) without the votes of the supporters of the other primary candidates? Do they even care about the damage such a move could do to the party's (and the eventual nominee's) image?
Are they supremely arrogant, or just supremely foolish?
For the sake of the party, Governor Dean and the DNC should respond to the request with a firm and final
"No."
More coverage -
Rolling Stone (critical)
New York Times (critical)
Palm Beach Post (not so critical)
Detroit News (not so critical)
Later!
Monday, January 21, 2008
HRC visit and other pres campaign info...
From an email courtesy of Doug Mings, chair of the LD17 Democrats -
Barack Obama for President
LD 17 (Tempe) For Obama Organizational Meeting
Where: ASU, Coor Hall, Room 195
When: Tuesday, January 22 at 7pm
What: With 2 weeks left, join Obama supporters, staff, and volunteers tohelp with the crucial final push and sign up for phone banks and canvassing to help organize Tempe for Senator Obama!
Contact: Greg Whitten, Obama Field Organizer Gwhitten@Obamaaz.com
Cell: 602-616-9017;
Office: 602-297-2008
Phoenix Headquarters
22 East Mitchell (between 3rd St and Central, just north of Osborn and southof Indian School)
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-297-2008
Hillary Clinton for President
Hillary Clinton will visit Phoenix tomorrow, Tuesday, January 22.
She will speak at Caesar Chavez High School, which is 3921 W. Baseline in Phoenix. Doors open at 6:00 P.M. The event starts at 7:00 P.M.
Phoenix Headquarters-2845 N. Central Ave (SE Corner of Central and Thomas)
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-279-8030 (o);
602-277-5042 (f)
Contact: Tony Wagner, Arizona Field Director
602-279-8030 (o);
602-277-5042 (f)
twagner@HillaryClinton.com www.HillaryClinton.com
John Edwards for President
http://johnedwards.com
East Valley For Edwards
Come out to an event and regardless of your age, background or experience,find out how you can get involved and make a difference.
602-705-7773;
EastValleyforEdwards@gmail.com
Dennis Kucinich for President
www.dennis4president.com/home
Local CoordinatorRick Romero:
602.515.9844;
romero85008@yahoo.com
Barack Obama for President
LD 17 (Tempe) For Obama Organizational Meeting
Where: ASU, Coor Hall, Room 195
When: Tuesday, January 22 at 7pm
What: With 2 weeks left, join Obama supporters, staff, and volunteers tohelp with the crucial final push and sign up for phone banks and canvassing to help organize Tempe for Senator Obama!
Contact: Greg Whitten, Obama Field Organizer Gwhitten@Obamaaz.com
Cell: 602-616-9017;
Office: 602-297-2008
Phoenix Headquarters
22 East Mitchell (between 3rd St and Central, just north of Osborn and southof Indian School)
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-297-2008
Hillary Clinton for President
Hillary Clinton will visit Phoenix tomorrow, Tuesday, January 22.
She will speak at Caesar Chavez High School, which is 3921 W. Baseline in Phoenix. Doors open at 6:00 P.M. The event starts at 7:00 P.M.
Phoenix Headquarters-2845 N. Central Ave (SE Corner of Central and Thomas)
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-279-8030 (o);
602-277-5042 (f)
Contact: Tony Wagner, Arizona Field Director
602-279-8030 (o);
602-277-5042 (f)
twagner@HillaryClinton.com www.HillaryClinton.com
John Edwards for President
http://johnedwards.com
East Valley For Edwards
Come out to an event and regardless of your age, background or experience,find out how you can get involved and make a difference.
602-705-7773;
EastValleyforEdwards@gmail.com
Dennis Kucinich for President
www.dennis4president.com/home
Local CoordinatorRick Romero:
602.515.9844;
romero85008@yahoo.com
Short Attention Span Musing - Primaries Edition
...The MSM and Clinton camp are painting the results of Saturday's Nevada caucuses as a huge victory for Clinton. However, the numbers that count, the number of delegates allocated, show that the results were almost dead even. Clinton received 13 delegates; Obama 12. (MSNBC) Other say that the numbers are still 13 - 12, but favoring Obama.
Either way, not exactly an overwhelming victory.
With previously pledged superdelegates, Clinton *does* have a significant lead in delegate totals. (CNN) On the other hand, though, superdelegates are notorious front-runners. If one of the other candidates starts pulling away in the primaries, a lot of those superdelegates will throw their support to the candidate that they believe is the popular choice.
...John Edwards is easily the candidate most in need of a victory in South Carolina. He has yet to win an event, and was completely shut out of the delegate allocation in Nevada. Another showing of 3rd or worse, especially one in his home state, may just end his candidacy.
...On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's camp is painting him as the frontrunner, but he may be the weakest "frontrunner" in primary history. He has yet to win a seriously contested primary and the next major GOP test is in Florida, a state where Rudy "noun, verb, 9/11' Giuliani has been campaigning for years.
McCain has the momentum heading into Florida, Huckabee has the hardcore religious conservative vote there, Romney has the personal fortune to spend there, and it's practically a 2nd home state for Giuliani.
One of the top 4 GOP candidates will tank in Florida, and his candidacy will be history.
...A suggestion for volunteers and staffers that will be representing Democratic candidates at LD and other local groups' forums before the primary: Know your candidates' health care positions.
I've been to the LD17 and LD8 forums over the last couple of weeks, and health care was the issue that most inspired 'spirited' discussion. Expect to be grilled on this issue like no other at events like this week's forum held by the Arizona chapter of the NJDC (Tuesday at 7:00 p.m., Country Inn and Suites, 10801 89th Place, Scottsdale)
...Not that I'm one given to defending John McCain (I leave that to Politico Mafioso), but when Chuck Norris criticized McCain as too old to be president, I had to laugh. Norris is almost 68 years old and is washed up as an actor (hasn't appeared in anything other than an infomercial or a Huckabee video since 2005). McCain is a few years older but is hardly washed-up. McCain's campaign schedule alone gives lie to Norris' assertion.
John McCain may not be doing his job of representing Arizona, but that's because he has chosen not to do so, not because he is incapable of doing so.
There are many things to criticize about John McCain (remember the Chelsea Clinton joke in 1998? That kind of casual meanness alone disqualifies McCain from the presidency), but his age isn't one of them.
Give it up Chuck.
...And the best news of the day, non-primary related -
We are officially in the last year of the Bush presidency.
Later!
Either way, not exactly an overwhelming victory.
With previously pledged superdelegates, Clinton *does* have a significant lead in delegate totals. (CNN) On the other hand, though, superdelegates are notorious front-runners. If one of the other candidates starts pulling away in the primaries, a lot of those superdelegates will throw their support to the candidate that they believe is the popular choice.
...John Edwards is easily the candidate most in need of a victory in South Carolina. He has yet to win an event, and was completely shut out of the delegate allocation in Nevada. Another showing of 3rd or worse, especially one in his home state, may just end his candidacy.
...On the Republican side, Mitt Romney's camp is painting him as the frontrunner, but he may be the weakest "frontrunner" in primary history. He has yet to win a seriously contested primary and the next major GOP test is in Florida, a state where Rudy "noun, verb, 9/11' Giuliani has been campaigning for years.
McCain has the momentum heading into Florida, Huckabee has the hardcore religious conservative vote there, Romney has the personal fortune to spend there, and it's practically a 2nd home state for Giuliani.
One of the top 4 GOP candidates will tank in Florida, and his candidacy will be history.
...A suggestion for volunteers and staffers that will be representing Democratic candidates at LD and other local groups' forums before the primary: Know your candidates' health care positions.
I've been to the LD17 and LD8 forums over the last couple of weeks, and health care was the issue that most inspired 'spirited' discussion. Expect to be grilled on this issue like no other at events like this week's forum held by the Arizona chapter of the NJDC (Tuesday at 7:00 p.m., Country Inn and Suites, 10801 89th Place, Scottsdale)
...Not that I'm one given to defending John McCain (I leave that to Politico Mafioso), but when Chuck Norris criticized McCain as too old to be president, I had to laugh. Norris is almost 68 years old and is washed up as an actor (hasn't appeared in anything other than an infomercial or a Huckabee video since 2005). McCain is a few years older but is hardly washed-up. McCain's campaign schedule alone gives lie to Norris' assertion.
John McCain may not be doing his job of representing Arizona, but that's because he has chosen not to do so, not because he is incapable of doing so.
There are many things to criticize about John McCain (remember the Chelsea Clinton joke in 1998? That kind of casual meanness alone disqualifies McCain from the presidency), but his age isn't one of them.
Give it up Chuck.
...And the best news of the day, non-primary related -
We are officially in the last year of the Bush presidency.
Later!
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing - campaigns edition
...Well, in a shock to the MSM, but not to anyone else, both parties' races for the Presidential nomination are wide open right now. Pundits are trying to spin Tuesday's results from New Hampshire as a "major" Clinton victory and a serious blow to Obama's White House aspirations.
Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.
Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.
Of course, he won in NH in 2000.
In other words - it's not over.
...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.
He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.
His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.
Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.
...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.
...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.
In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.
There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.
If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.
It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.
Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.
I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.
Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.
...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.
Our loss.
Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.
...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.
She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.
Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.
CD5 race news -
...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.
Her stated reason for waiting?
Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.
Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.
...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.
He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.
Later!
Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.
Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.
Of course, he won in NH in 2000.
In other words - it's not over.
...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.
He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.
His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.
Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.
...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.
...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.
In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.
There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.
If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.
It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.
Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.
I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.
Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.
...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.
Our loss.
Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.
...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.
She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.
Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.
CD5 race news -
...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.
Her stated reason for waiting?
Bitter Smith, the Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Television Communications Association, says that her decision depends on what happens on February 5 – the day Arizonans go to the polls to participate in the state’s presidential primary. She said that a strong Republican turnout would be encouraging.Not really news that; rumors about a possible run have been swirling for months. What is interesting is the rest of the quote from the article -
Bitter Smith also said she was looking for a “strong Republican” to head up the Party ticket in November.
When asked which candidate she preferred, she laughed. “McCain, Rudy (Giuliani), Romney,” she said.
Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.
Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.
...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.
He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.
Later!
Monday, January 07, 2008
I know that Ron Paul is a "non-traditional" candidate...
...but his supporters have to learn that sometimes things become "traditional" because they work...
On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.
The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.
But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.
It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.
They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.
I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.
If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.
Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).
Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.
And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -
After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.
In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.
Just something to think about...
On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.
The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.
But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.
It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.
They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.
I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.
If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.
Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).
Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.
And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -
After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.
In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.
Just something to think about...
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Where do they go from here?
My quick take on the Iowa caucus results -
Democratic side...
Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.
Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)
Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.
Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.
Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.
If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.
Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.
Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.
Republican side...
Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.
Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.
And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.
Lots more.
Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.
McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.
Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.
Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?
Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.
Later!
Democratic side...
Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.
Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)
Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.
Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.
Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.
If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.
Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.
Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.
Republican side...
Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.
Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.
And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.
Lots more.
Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.
McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.
Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.
Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?
Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.
Later!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Events calendar
edit on 1/5 to add COGS event...
Saturday, January 5 - The Clinton for President campaign is holding a grand opening/open house at its Arizona office from noon until 2:00 p.m.
Location: 2845 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Thomas and Central)
Info page here.
Starting Monday, January 7 - The Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives will begin holding meetings to come up with budget cuts to close the $970 million state budget deficit. The meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Contact the House at (602) 926-4221 or 1-800-352-8404 for more information. AZ Republic coverage here.
Tuesday, January 8 - The District 17 Democrats will feature a presidential candidate forum at its January meeting. Representatives from the campaigns of each Democratic candidate have been invited to talk about their candidates and, time permitting, answer a few questions from the audience.
The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Pyle Center in Tempe (Southern and Rural)
The meeting is open to the public. If you need any information, contact me via this blog or at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Tuesday, January 8 - The Scottsdale City Council holds its first meeting of 2008. On the agenda: discussion and possible action concerning the Transportation Master Plan, a possible referendum question regarding fixed rail and fixed route transit along Scottsdale Road, and discussion of exempting "food for home consumption" from the City's 1% General Fund privilege sales tax.
Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m., City Hall Kiva, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale.
Should be an interesting meeting, but go to the D17 meeting - it will be more interesting, and Scottsdale City Council meetings are recorded anyway. Video archive page here. :)
Thursday, January 10 - The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) will hold its January meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Senior Center is located at 1700 N. Granite Reef (northwest corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Thursday, January 17 - The D8 Democrats will feature speakers from the various Democratic campaigns at their monthly meeting.
7:00 p.m. at the Mustang Library, 10101 N 90th St, Scottsdale (90th St., south of Shea)
Tuesday, January 22 - A forum/overview of current First Amendment issues with
Bill Straus and David Bodney of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the Mustang Library in Scottdale at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council NJDC) is holding its monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m., location TBA. Info at njdcphx[at]cox.net.
Later!
Saturday, January 5 - The Clinton for President campaign is holding a grand opening/open house at its Arizona office from noon until 2:00 p.m.
Location: 2845 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Thomas and Central)
Info page here.
Starting Monday, January 7 - The Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives will begin holding meetings to come up with budget cuts to close the $970 million state budget deficit. The meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Contact the House at (602) 926-4221 or 1-800-352-8404 for more information. AZ Republic coverage here.
Tuesday, January 8 - The District 17 Democrats will feature a presidential candidate forum at its January meeting. Representatives from the campaigns of each Democratic candidate have been invited to talk about their candidates and, time permitting, answer a few questions from the audience.
The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Pyle Center in Tempe (Southern and Rural)
The meeting is open to the public. If you need any information, contact me via this blog or at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Tuesday, January 8 - The Scottsdale City Council holds its first meeting of 2008. On the agenda: discussion and possible action concerning the Transportation Master Plan, a possible referendum question regarding fixed rail and fixed route transit along Scottsdale Road, and discussion of exempting "food for home consumption" from the City's 1% General Fund privilege sales tax.
Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m., City Hall Kiva, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale.
Should be an interesting meeting, but go to the D17 meeting - it will be more interesting, and Scottsdale City Council meetings are recorded anyway. Video archive page here. :)
Thursday, January 10 - The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) will hold its January meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Senior Center is located at 1700 N. Granite Reef (northwest corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Thursday, January 17 - The D8 Democrats will feature speakers from the various Democratic campaigns at their monthly meeting.
7:00 p.m. at the Mustang Library, 10101 N 90th St, Scottsdale (90th St., south of Shea)
Tuesday, January 22 - A forum/overview of current First Amendment issues with
Bill Straus and David Bodney of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the Mustang Library in Scottdale at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council NJDC) is holding its monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m., location TBA. Info at njdcphx[at]cox.net.
Later!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Why requiring that people buy health insurance is the wrong approach
Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney offer similar plans to address health care in America. Both plans mandate that people purchase health insurance.
Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...
From AP via Businessweek -
To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.
Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."
Hillary Clinton's health plan here.
Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")
Other candidates:
Edwards' plan
Giuliani's plan
Richardson's plan
McCain's plan
Obama's plan
Huckabee's plan
Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)
Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)
Biden's plan
Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.
Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.
One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?
They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.
If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?
Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...
From AP via Businessweek -
No health care? Higher fines in Mass.
BOSTON
The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.
Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."
Hillary Clinton's health plan here.
Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")
Other candidates:
Edwards' plan
Giuliani's plan
Richardson's plan
McCain's plan
Obama's plan
Huckabee's plan
Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)
Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)
Biden's plan
Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.
Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.
One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?
They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.
If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Democratic Ballot for AZ's Presidential Preference Primary
Edit to add - OK, so I was a little bored on Christmas Day, and decided to do a little research on the *ahem* 'lesser-known' candidates on the ballot. Some of the names were all but useless as search parameters and I couldn't find any information that was clearly pertinent to the presidential candidates. Others, however, were useful. A number of the candidates are participants in the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies' Project White House. One candidate has even announced that he is on the presidential primary ballot by mistake; he's actually running in CD6 against Jeff Flake (or Russell Pearce, if Pearce can actually pull of the political upset of the century.) Information at the links; however, given that few of the candidates have actual campaign websites, some of the info could be inaccurate.
End edit.
DSW at Sonoran Alliance put up a post detailing the Republican ballot; here's the listing of the Democratic one.
The list of candidates on the ballot for Arizona's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary taking place February 5, 2008 (courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website) (major candidates in bold; Arizona-based candidates noted with an 'AZ') -
WHITEHOUSE, SANDY (AZ) - president of the Santa Rita Foothills Community Association.
RICHARDSON, BILL
LYNCH, FRANK
KRUEGER, KARL - truck driver/radio personality
OBAMA, BARACK
EDWARDS, JOHN
BOLLANDER, PETER "SIMON" (AZ)
MONTELL, LELAND (AZ) - real estate agent
SEE, CHUCK (AZ) - ran for President as a Republican in 2000
HUBBARD, LIBBY (AZ) - artist
GEST, LOTI (AZ) - counselor at an addiction recovery center
DALEY, ORION - author
CAMPBELL, WILLIAM (AZ) - this is a lousy name for web searches.
TANNER, PHILIP (AZ)
KUCINICH, DENNIS J.
CLINTON, HILLARY
DOBSON, EDWARD (AZ)
HAYMER, TISH (AZ) - The Abbess of Costello?
LEE, RICH - another name provides lousy internet search terms
OATMAN, MICHAEL (AZ) - IT Guru
GRAVEL, MIKE
VITULLO, EVELYN L. (AZ) - a Democratic candidate for President in 2004
DODD, CHRISTOPHER J.
GRAYSON, RICHARD (AZ)
Notes:
The biggest surprise? No Joe Biden on the ballot.
Worst draw for a 'top-tier' candidate? Hillary Clinton; 15 candidates, including Richardson, Obama, and Edwards are listed higher on the ballot.
Is there something in Tucson's water? Of the 17 'anybody can run for President' candidates, 12 list a Tucson address. Maybe somebody should tell them that they are more likely to win a Powerball jackpot than the President's job.
Later!
End edit.
DSW at Sonoran Alliance put up a post detailing the Republican ballot; here's the listing of the Democratic one.
The list of candidates on the ballot for Arizona's Democratic Presidential Preference Primary taking place February 5, 2008 (courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website) (major candidates in bold; Arizona-based candidates noted with an 'AZ') -
WHITEHOUSE, SANDY (AZ) - president of the Santa Rita Foothills Community Association.
RICHARDSON, BILL
LYNCH, FRANK
KRUEGER, KARL - truck driver/radio personality
OBAMA, BARACK
EDWARDS, JOHN
BOLLANDER, PETER "SIMON" (AZ)
MONTELL, LELAND (AZ) - real estate agent
SEE, CHUCK (AZ) - ran for President as a Republican in 2000
HUBBARD, LIBBY (AZ) - artist
GEST, LOTI (AZ) - counselor at an addiction recovery center
DALEY, ORION - author
CAMPBELL, WILLIAM (AZ) - this is a lousy name for web searches.
TANNER, PHILIP (AZ)
KUCINICH, DENNIS J.
CLINTON, HILLARY
DOBSON, EDWARD (AZ)
HAYMER, TISH (AZ) - The Abbess of Costello?
LEE, RICH - another name provides lousy internet search terms
OATMAN, MICHAEL (AZ) - IT Guru
GRAVEL, MIKE
VITULLO, EVELYN L. (AZ) - a Democratic candidate for President in 2004
DODD, CHRISTOPHER J.
GRAYSON, RICHARD (AZ)
Notes:
The biggest surprise? No Joe Biden on the ballot.
Worst draw for a 'top-tier' candidate? Hillary Clinton; 15 candidates, including Richardson, Obama, and Edwards are listed higher on the ballot.
Is there something in Tucson's water? Of the 17 'anybody can run for President' candidates, 12 list a Tucson address. Maybe somebody should tell them that they are more likely to win a Powerball jackpot than the President's job.
Later!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Breaking: Hostages taken at Clinton campaign office in New Hampshire
Edit to add:
It's over, and thankfully, it appears that no one was hurt.
End edit.
From WMUR-TV -
As of right now, no injuries have been reported and the NH campaign offices of Barack Obama and John Edwards have been evacuated.
Today's a work day, so I won't be able to update this, but it should be all over the news shortly.
Later!
It's over, and thankfully, it appears that no one was hurt.
End edit.
From WMUR-TV -
Man Takes Hostages At Clinton Campaign Office
Witnesses Say Man Has Bomb-Like Device Strapped To Chest
ROCHESTER, N.H. -- An armed man has taken two campaign workers hostage at the Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, police said.
Officials with the campaign confirmed that there were two workers taken hostage in the office on 28 North Main St., and NBC News reported that the man demanded to speak to Clinton.
Clinton, who is not in New Hampshire, canceled a National Democratic Committee meeting in Virginia.
As of right now, no injuries have been reported and the NH campaign offices of Barack Obama and John Edwards have been evacuated.
Today's a work day, so I won't be able to update this, but it should be all over the news shortly.
Later!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
A quick post about the presidential campaigns
I realized this weekend that while many of my posts have concerned presidential campaign events, few, if any, have concerned the presidential campaigns themselves.
Time to correct that oversight. :)
Think of this as "Short Attention Span Musing - Campaigns Edition."
Some of these topics are few weeks old, but they're still worth covering.
Note - while I haven't firmly decided who I'm voting for in February's primary, I am strongly leaning toward Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (and former Congressman, ambassador, Cabinet secretary, and multiple-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize). A more in-depth post on that topic will be forthcoming shortly.
...Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been sniping at each other over who is the most qualified in the area of foreign affairs.
See the above summary of Bill Richardson's resume to understand why that discussion is so laughable.
...The Clinton campaign has been playing the "oh...the big, bad, boys are ganging up on poor, little ol' me" card as the primaries draw near and the trailing candidates sharpen their criticisms of the leader of the pack.
A leader of the pack named "Hillary Clinton."
To anyone who buys into the "ganging up" card - criticizing the leader in a campaign race is the job of those chasing that leader. Casting that as a the "boy's club" picking on a woman who's encroaching on territory that heretofore was strictly the domain of the "boy's club" is a shamelessly cynical ploy.
And the fact that the tactic probably helped doesn't mitigate that shamelessness..
...A couple of weeks ago, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote a column stating that the Clinton campaign has some damaging information about Barack Obama. The rancor between the two campaigns immediately escalated.
How can the presumably experienced professional operatives of both campaigns place any stock in the scribblings of a Bush/Cheney shill like Darth Novak? This is a guy who publicly outed CIA agent Valerie Plame as retaliation against her husband for criticizing the President.
A little partisan mudslinging is nothing for someone who's soulless enough to do that.
...My information is a couple of weeks old, so things may have changed for the better, but Clinton's Arizona campaign seems to be disorganized at best and practically nonexistent at worst. Reports from both highly involved activists and casual, first-time volunteers are consistent - phone calls and emails aren't returned, information requests go unanswered (I can speak to that one directly :) ), and other signs of a campaign in disarray.
I hope that the Clinton campaign hasn't written off AZ - she doesn't have AZ's primary locked up yet, and if she wins the nomination, she'll need every electoral vote she can get in the general.
And if John McCain isn't at the top of the Republican ticket (something that is looking more likely every day), AZ's 10 electoral votes will be in play.
The Obama, Richardson, and Kucinich campaigns have active organizations in AZ that are not only trying to help their candidates win the nomination but are laying the groundwork for the general election.
The other campaigns, including Sen. Clinton's, should take note of that.
Later!
Time to correct that oversight. :)
Think of this as "Short Attention Span Musing - Campaigns Edition."
Some of these topics are few weeks old, but they're still worth covering.
Note - while I haven't firmly decided who I'm voting for in February's primary, I am strongly leaning toward Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico (and former Congressman, ambassador, Cabinet secretary, and multiple-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize). A more in-depth post on that topic will be forthcoming shortly.
...Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been sniping at each other over who is the most qualified in the area of foreign affairs.
See the above summary of Bill Richardson's resume to understand why that discussion is so laughable.
...The Clinton campaign has been playing the "oh...the big, bad, boys are ganging up on poor, little ol' me" card as the primaries draw near and the trailing candidates sharpen their criticisms of the leader of the pack.
A leader of the pack named "Hillary Clinton."
To anyone who buys into the "ganging up" card - criticizing the leader in a campaign race is the job of those chasing that leader. Casting that as a the "boy's club" picking on a woman who's encroaching on territory that heretofore was strictly the domain of the "boy's club" is a shamelessly cynical ploy.
And the fact that the tactic probably helped doesn't mitigate that shamelessness..
...A couple of weeks ago, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote a column stating that the Clinton campaign has some damaging information about Barack Obama. The rancor between the two campaigns immediately escalated.
How can the presumably experienced professional operatives of both campaigns place any stock in the scribblings of a Bush/Cheney shill like Darth Novak? This is a guy who publicly outed CIA agent Valerie Plame as retaliation against her husband for criticizing the President.
A little partisan mudslinging is nothing for someone who's soulless enough to do that.
...My information is a couple of weeks old, so things may have changed for the better, but Clinton's Arizona campaign seems to be disorganized at best and practically nonexistent at worst. Reports from both highly involved activists and casual, first-time volunteers are consistent - phone calls and emails aren't returned, information requests go unanswered (I can speak to that one directly :) ), and other signs of a campaign in disarray.
I hope that the Clinton campaign hasn't written off AZ - she doesn't have AZ's primary locked up yet, and if she wins the nomination, she'll need every electoral vote she can get in the general.
And if John McCain isn't at the top of the Republican ticket (something that is looking more likely every day), AZ's 10 electoral votes will be in play.
The Obama, Richardson, and Kucinich campaigns have active organizations in AZ that are not only trying to help their candidates win the nomination but are laying the groundwork for the general election.
The other campaigns, including Sen. Clinton's, should take note of that.
Later!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Prominent Republicans endorse Hillary Clinton for President
Well, not directly, but certain Republican candidates spent most of their debate yesterday campaigning against her.
The Wall Street Journal transcript of the debate is here.
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination kept hitting her on health care, Iran, the economy, and more.
And if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the target was former President Bill Clinton.
Giuliani, from the transcript -
It should be noted here that Giuliani flip-flopped within a few moments -
...He was against it before he was in favor of it? Or does he only favor the line-item veto when Republicans wield it?
Anyway, back to the real focus of this post - the Republicans did Hillary Clinton a huge favor yesterday.
Her biggest weakness, current frontrunner status notwithstanding, is that her candidacy has *not* been warmly embraced by the grassroots of the Democratic Party; she comes across as too much the candidate of the corporate establishment, not the candidate of the average American.
However, the fact that the Republicans are ganging up on her already only shores up her credibility with the likely primary voters, active Democrats.
Now the question is did they do that because they think that because she is the Great Boogeywoman that Republican parents tell stories about to scare their children and attacking her will bring Republican votes to them in the primaries?
Or do they realize that they strengthen her candidacy when they attack her and just think that she is the most beatable in the general election?
One other note on the debate: while I didn't see the entire debate, from what I did see, whenever new entrant Fred Thompson flubbed his lines, he looked like someone who was used to hearing a director yell "Cut! Do it again!" and was a little lost when he didn't hear those words.
Later!
The Wall Street Journal transcript of the debate is here.
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination kept hitting her on health care, Iran, the economy, and more.
And if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the target was former President Bill Clinton.
Giuliani, from the transcript -
...The line item veto was unconstitutional. I took Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court and beat Bill Clinton...
It should be noted here that Giuliani flip-flopped within a few moments -
So you can bang your head up against the stone wall all you want. I am in favor of a line item veto...
...He was against it before he was in favor of it? Or does he only favor the line-item veto when Republicans wield it?
Anyway, back to the real focus of this post - the Republicans did Hillary Clinton a huge favor yesterday.
Her biggest weakness, current frontrunner status notwithstanding, is that her candidacy has *not* been warmly embraced by the grassroots of the Democratic Party; she comes across as too much the candidate of the corporate establishment, not the candidate of the average American.
However, the fact that the Republicans are ganging up on her already only shores up her credibility with the likely primary voters, active Democrats.
Now the question is did they do that because they think that because she is the Great Boogeywoman that Republican parents tell stories about to scare their children and attacking her will bring Republican votes to them in the primaries?
Or do they realize that they strengthen her candidacy when they attack her and just think that she is the most beatable in the general election?
One other note on the debate: while I didn't see the entire debate, from what I did see, whenever new entrant Fred Thompson flubbed his lines, he looked like someone who was used to hearing a director yell "Cut! Do it again!" and was a little lost when he didn't hear those words.
Later!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Some Democrats stepped up during Wednesday's debate...
...and others were eliminated from contention (with a couple of others treading water)...
All this happened on one question. :))
Warning: sarcasm ahead...
Governor Bill Richardson, former Sen. John Edwards, former Sen. Mike Gravel, and Sen. Chris Dodd showed that they are intelligent, wise, and undeniably classy; any would be fine choice for the Presidency.
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden showed that they are morally, intellectually, and mentally unfit for the Presidency.
Sen. Barack Obama and Rep. Dennis Kucinich showed that the jury is still out - they didn't show the wisdom of Richardson, Edwards, Gravel, and Dodd, but there were extenuating circumstances.
How can we arrive at these conclusions, with months of campaigning ahead before the first primaries and caucuses?
The candidates were asked if they rooted for the Red Sox or the Yankees.
Richardson, Edwards, Gravel, and Dodd expressed support for the beloved Olde Towne Teame. (Whooo hoooo!!)
Clinton and Biden professed fealty to The Evil Empire. (Hiss boooo!!!)
Obama (IL) and Kucinich (OH) proclaimed their loyalty for the respective hometown teams. Not as good as rooting for the Red Sox, but wayyyyy better than being a Yankee fan.
Oh, those poor poor Clinton and Biden supporters - the primaries are months away, and their candidates have already committed a candidacy-killing gaffe.
:))
All this happened on one question. :))
Warning: sarcasm ahead...
Governor Bill Richardson, former Sen. John Edwards, former Sen. Mike Gravel, and Sen. Chris Dodd showed that they are intelligent, wise, and undeniably classy; any would be fine choice for the Presidency.
Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden showed that they are morally, intellectually, and mentally unfit for the Presidency.
Sen. Barack Obama and Rep. Dennis Kucinich showed that the jury is still out - they didn't show the wisdom of Richardson, Edwards, Gravel, and Dodd, but there were extenuating circumstances.
How can we arrive at these conclusions, with months of campaigning ahead before the first primaries and caucuses?
The candidates were asked if they rooted for the Red Sox or the Yankees.
Richardson, Edwards, Gravel, and Dodd expressed support for the beloved Olde Towne Teame. (Whooo hoooo!!)
Clinton and Biden professed fealty to The Evil Empire. (Hiss boooo!!!)
Obama (IL) and Kucinich (OH) proclaimed their loyalty for the respective hometown teams. Not as good as rooting for the Red Sox, but wayyyyy better than being a Yankee fan.
Oh, those poor poor Clinton and Biden supporters - the primaries are months away, and their candidates have already committed a candidacy-killing gaffe.
:))
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Clinton goes for economic populist cred; Bush helps her out...
In her new Iowa TV spot, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton tries to carve out a little economic populist cred by talking about how if someone is poor or working class or even military, they are "invisible to this president."
Naturally, the White House objected to this characterization.
From AP via Yahoo! News-
In addition to describing the content of the spot as "outrageous", the White House also used words like "absurd" and "unconscionable."
The official transcript of the White House's press briefing is here.
The White House's indignation at Clinton's disparaging comments toward the President's concern for working and military families would have more credibility if he wasn't on vacation in Crawford, Texas yet again.
With almost 80 months in office, he has already taken 14 months off (422 days), a pace of approximately 17.5%. As for a worker who receives 2 weeks vacation per year? Less than 4%. (80 hours out of a 2080 hour work year)
Maybe we should demand a partial refund on the money that he's been paid to do his job.
On the other hand, imagine how bad things would be if he showed up for work all of the time that he is supposed to. :))
Later!
Naturally, the White House objected to this characterization.
From AP via Yahoo! News-
White House criticizes Clinton ad
CRAWFORD, Texas - The White House on Tuesday assailed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton for criticizing President Bush in her latest television ad, calling her statements "outrageous." The 60-second spot, which began running Tuesday in Iowa, intercuts scenes of the candidate interacting with voters and talking about challenges facing many working people.
In addition to describing the content of the spot as "outrageous", the White House also used words like "absurd" and "unconscionable."
The official transcript of the White House's press briefing is here.
The White House's indignation at Clinton's disparaging comments toward the President's concern for working and military families would have more credibility if he wasn't on vacation in Crawford, Texas yet again.
With almost 80 months in office, he has already taken 14 months off (422 days), a pace of approximately 17.5%. As for a worker who receives 2 weeks vacation per year? Less than 4%. (80 hours out of a 2080 hour work year)
Maybe we should demand a partial refund on the money that he's been paid to do his job.
On the other hand, imagine how bad things would be if he showed up for work all of the time that he is supposed to. :))
Later!
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing...
During the tumult of the last few days over the FISA bill and the number of Democrats that crossed over to support the imperial Presidency aspirations of Bush, a few things came up that deserve a little attention...
...Turns out that there are more-or-less matching bills in the House and Senate that clarify journalist shield laws.
From The Register (UK) -
However, there is a gap in the proposal that is far more relevant to most bloggers than those exceptions, exceptions that most of us will never have to worry about. More from the article -
Maybe this is my cynicism showing, but that 'modification' sounds an awful lot like something that a lobbyist for a corporate media conglomerate would have put in to reduce competition from independent amateur journalists such as bloggers.
Like yours truly, and most people who write blogs.
Note: the bills are HR2102 and S1267, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. Those numbers might be good to know if someone wanted to contact their Congresscritter and suggest broadening the protections to amateurs. {hint, hint :)) }
...California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowman, did something that warmed the hearts of everyone who loves democracy, and raised the hackles on Jan Brewer's neck. Secretary of State Bowman decertified the electronic voting machines made by some of the industry's biggest players...
Also from The Register -
There have been hundreds of articles on this topic, but none had quite so evocative a headline. :))
Wonder how AZ Secretary of State Brewer is going to defend her own approval of the same machines from the same vendors for use in Arizona's elections?
The announcement from Ms. Bowen is here.
...Hillary Clinton may not have lost the nomination over the weekend, but she made it clear that she's DLC to the core and not trying to appeal to the Party's grassroots.
A strong defense of big-money lobbyists will tend to do that.
From The Atlantic Online -
Her speech at YearlyKos may bring in more corporate and PAC donations for her campaign, but donations aren't votes and chasing corporate cash so blatantly will cost her more votes and support than the money she receives will buy.
...Wonder if Nissan had a certain Republican legislator from Lake Havasu in mind when they started development work on their latest car...
From BBC News (UK) -
If John Kavanagh (R-LD8) found ignition interlock devices so onerous that he proposed repealing the law making them mandatory even before it went into effect, what would the introduction of these cars into Arizona make him do, have a seizure??
Of course, perhaps a campaign contribution from a Valley Nissan dealer would soothe his nerves...
Later!
...Turns out that there are more-or-less matching bills in the House and Senate that clarify journalist shield laws.
From The Register (UK) -
US bloggers set for journalistic shield
A US bill that would shield journalists, including bloggers, from revealing their sources has cleared the House Judiciary Committee, an important stage in becoming law. There is already legislation in the UK which protects journalists and bloggers.
The US Free Flow of Information Act protects journalistic sources generally, but does include several exceptions regarding terrorism, national security, imminent death and trade secret leaks.
However, there is a gap in the proposal that is far more relevant to most bloggers than those exceptions, exceptions that most of us will never have to worry about. More from the article -
The modified bill which passed the committee on 2nd August included a provision that limits its protections to those who make "financial gain or livelihood" from their journalism.
This essentially means that most individual bloggers, who may make a small income from Google adverts, seem unlikely to get protection – though this will depend on how broadly the courts interpret "financial gain".
Maybe this is my cynicism showing, but that 'modification' sounds an awful lot like something that a lobbyist for a corporate media conglomerate would have put in to reduce competition from independent amateur journalists such as bloggers.
Like yours truly, and most people who write blogs.
Note: the bills are HR2102 and S1267, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. Those numbers might be good to know if someone wanted to contact their Congresscritter and suggest broadening the protections to amateurs. {hint, hint :)) }
...California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowman, did something that warmed the hearts of everyone who loves democracy, and raised the hackles on Jan Brewer's neck. Secretary of State Bowman decertified the electronic voting machines made by some of the industry's biggest players...
Also from The Register -
E-voting gets bitch-slapped in Calfornia
California's top election official has decertified electronic voting machines made by the industry's four biggest vendors, in response to a report that highlighted their potential for election tampering.
The move by California Secretary of State Debra Bowman effectively bars the machines of three of the manufacturers - Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic - unless new measures are implemented to safeguard against abuse.
Bowen also decertified e-voting machines sold by Election Systems and Software, which didn't turn over source code and other materials in time to be tested in in a "top-to-bottom" review designed to assess the security of all ballot machines. ES&S machines could be certified for use in the future.
There have been hundreds of articles on this topic, but none had quite so evocative a headline. :))
Wonder how AZ Secretary of State Brewer is going to defend her own approval of the same machines from the same vendors for use in Arizona's elections?
The announcement from Ms. Bowen is here.
...Hillary Clinton may not have lost the nomination over the weekend, but she made it clear that she's DLC to the core and not trying to appeal to the Party's grassroots.
A strong defense of big-money lobbyists will tend to do that.
From The Atlantic Online -
"A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers" -- here the audience began to boo -- "and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people." "I just... I just ask you to look at my record." Never, she said, in her 35 years of public service, had she bowed to the will of a lobbyist. But she would not change her mind.
Her speech at YearlyKos may bring in more corporate and PAC donations for her campaign, but donations aren't votes and chasing corporate cash so blatantly will cost her more votes and support than the money she receives will buy.
...Wonder if Nissan had a certain Republican legislator from Lake Havasu in mind when they started development work on their latest car...
From BBC News (UK) -
Nissan studies drink-proof cars
Japanese carmaker Nissan has unveiled new technology designed to detect whether a driver has been drinking.
It includes odour sensors that monitor breath, detectors which analyse perspiration of the palms, and a camera that checks alertness by eye scan.
If John Kavanagh (R-LD8) found ignition interlock devices so onerous that he proposed repealing the law making them mandatory even before it went into effect, what would the introduction of these cars into Arizona make him do, have a seizure??
Of course, perhaps a campaign contribution from a Valley Nissan dealer would soothe his nerves...
Later!
Monday, July 30, 2007
OK, gradual decline of perceptive MSM political analysis is no more...
because now it's in total free fall...
From TimesOnline (UK):
[Shakes head in befuddled wonderment]
Hmmm...a short list of the exciting yet utterly irrelevant topics covered by the MSM, instead of boring things like candidates' positions, background, and ideas, during this presidential campaign season includes (but certainly isn't limited to) -
Hillary Clinton's cleavage (She has some! OMG!)
John Edwards' haircuts ($400! Scandalous!)
Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein! Horrors!)
What's next? Dennis Kucinich's height (or lack thereof) or Bill Richardson's bolo ties?
Maybe we should start a whispering campaign about John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani.
What could those three have in common (besides running for President)? Hmmm....let me think about that...
:))
Enough already. With its persistent focus on image over substance, the MSM is only hastening its descent into the dustbin of cultural history.
It shouldn't matter whether a candidate is a woman (with all that entails), has a unique middle name, is short or tall, or is bald or well-coiffed -
These people are candidates for the highest office in the country - image doesn't matter as much as substance*.
* - Except if Salma Hayek runs for office. Then all bets are off.
What can I say? I'm a guy. :))
From TimesOnline (UK):
The US debates Hillary's cleavage
[Shakes head in befuddled wonderment]
Hmmm...a short list of the exciting yet utterly irrelevant topics covered by the MSM, instead of boring things like candidates' positions, background, and ideas, during this presidential campaign season includes (but certainly isn't limited to) -
Hillary Clinton's cleavage (She has some! OMG!)
John Edwards' haircuts ($400! Scandalous!)
Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein! Horrors!)
What's next? Dennis Kucinich's height (or lack thereof) or Bill Richardson's bolo ties?
Maybe we should start a whispering campaign about John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani.
What could those three have in common (besides running for President)? Hmmm....let me think about that...
:))
Enough already. With its persistent focus on image over substance, the MSM is only hastening its descent into the dustbin of cultural history.
It shouldn't matter whether a candidate is a woman (with all that entails), has a unique middle name, is short or tall, or is bald or well-coiffed -
These people are candidates for the highest office in the country - image doesn't matter as much as substance*.
* - Except if Salma Hayek runs for office. Then all bets are off.
What can I say? I'm a guy. :))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)