Now that we have our nominees, I'm going to take a month off from politics online and in real life to get a bit of a breather. I'm hoping that by the time I start following again, Obama is up 10 points.
Amy Poehler does an awful Hillary Clinton (not surprising as Saturday Night Live has been terrible for going on fifteen years), but she manages to sum up Clinton's arguments pretty succinctly.
By the way I'm down in DC for the next couple of days, home on Tuesday, and in NYC on Wednesday.
Obama defeated Hillary handily in NC, and still stands a chance of pulling off an upset in Indiana. If he wins that, I think she'll concede tomorrow. I want to see what happens, but I need to get up early in the morning for a meeting in Midtown. Dilemmas, dilemmas...
Video #2 from the McCain Girls... it's been tough to find because YouTube took it down, but I dug it up again for the time being.
Are they for real? I still don't know. My guess is now probably not, but either way, they're a political phenomenon. Either they think they're doing something to help their candidate and are so unbelievably mistaken, or it's an incredible piece of subversive reverse psychology, demonstrating just how square John McCain is -- it really fits in with his geezerness.
One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in "boutique" caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: "Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling."
She sounds just like a Republican. She's doing it over and over again.
I just wish Obama would do a better job of fighting back, which is what I was worrying about in the first place with him. We'll see!
Why Don't You Give a F**k? -- Don Siegelman Is In Prison
A must-watch:
The former governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, is sitting in jail because of a Republican vendetta. The judge, who has a personal rivalry with Siegelman, is keeping him from appealing. The U.S. Department of Justice is complicit.
Up until now, the story hadn't gotten a lot of play. But 60 Minutes just aired the sordid story in all of its sordid glory... but I haven't seen or heard much outside of the blogosphere.
But the fact of the matter is that Horatio Alger stories are rare, and stories of people trapped by their parents' poverty are all too common. According to one recent estimate, American children born to parents in the bottom fourth of the income distribution have almost a 50 percent chance of staying there -- and almost a two-thirds chance of remaining stuck if they're black.
That's not surprising. Growing up in poverty puts you at a disadvantage at every step.
I'd bracket those new studies on brain development in early childhood with a study from the National Center for Education Statistics, which tracked a group of students who were in eighth grade in 1988. The study found, roughly speaking, that in modern America parental status trumps ability: students who did very well on a standardized test but came from low-status families were slightly less likely to get through college than students who tested poorly but had well-off parents.
John McCain seems to be the inevitable nominee in the Republican Party, and anyone who knows anything knows that despite his reputation in the press, McCain is very conservative. So why do many Republicans claim he isn't? John Cole has a theory that I agree with:
So here is why they are sabotaging McCain- they want him to lose, or at the very least are hedging their bets. They want and need to paint him as not conservative, not pure enough to really represent the wildly successful (in their minds) conservatism that makes up the Bush dead-enders. That way, when they are blown out of the water in 2008, they don't have to do any reflection, they don't have to assess, re-prioritize, or re-think their policies. They can simply pin it all on McCain, claim he lost because he didn't offer the voters a "real" conservative alternative, and get back to championing the end of the "death tax" and other important issues without skipping a beat.
Ted sent me a report from the Democratic caucuses in Washington:
Well, we're done caucusing.......at least my precinct is. It was an interesting process. First it was amazing to see people streaming towards the school on foot, by car, by bike. It was like something out of a movie.....people coming from all directions, converging on this school. They clearly got more people than they expected.....not enough forms, not enough seats. They had to send someone to Kinko's to make more copies.
The crowd was fairly diverse.....old, young, white, black, purple; in fact, there were some teenagers and tweenies observing. As far as income, I could see no difference.....mostly middle class, probably white collar but that's a guess.
The caucus started promptly at 1:30 PM. We were separated into rooms by precinct. My room had 64 people of which 5 were undecided. My neighbors from across the street were there. We chatted it up.......we hadn't talked in a while. Unfortunately, I realized as I took our signup sheet to the front of the room that they were for Clinton. I guess there won't be too many summer barbeques this year. hehehehehe! (Jason's Note: "Ted" is actually Beavis)
Then we separated into three groups: Obama, Clinton and Undecideds. I know, I know.....you want the break out for Obama and Clinton but you ain't getting it til the end and no fair cheating. We started out by making a list of resolutions we wanted presented to the county wide delegate meeting to be held in April. Then each candidate group picked three delegates for a total of six.
Finally, the actual caucus began. The Undecideds told us their doubts about each candidate. Then 5 speakers were picked from Obama's group and 5 from Clinton's group. I was one of the 5 for Obama. They were asked to address the concerns and questions of the Undecideds. Did I mention that my neighbor was one of the speakers for the Clintons and that stupidly my comments piggy backed off what he said, and in the process, turned his argument around to the detriment of Clinton? Politically savvy like Obama I am not. Forget the "no barbeque problem"...I am hiring a security guard for my house. ;-((
After the speakers were done, the Undecideds were asked to go up to the precinct captain and indicate if they had changed their position. We started out with 5 Undecideds and ended up with one. In fact, one woman came up to me and told me what I said had turned her around for Obama. Yay! One for the Obama gipper! In fact, Obama got all but one of the Undecideds.
And now for the final tally: 46 for Obama, 17 for Clinton and 1 Undecided. From what I understand, the majority of the 6 delegates go to him but they weren't sure exactly how many he would get. I am unclear why anyone would think this process favors Obama. Whatever the reasons might be, it was not obvious to me.
Oh yeah, my neighbor......he looked at me strangely as I left and was not nearly as friendly as when we first saw each other. Oh well............
Right now, the whackosphere is behaving like you did when you wanted ice cream when your mommy or daddy told you that you were getting a cookie. You jumped up and down on the floor. You screamed. You held your breath till you were almost blue in the face. Eventually though, you took the cookie.
Rush Limbaugh will vote for John McCain. Sean Hannity will vote for John McCain. Laura Ingraham will vote for John McCain. James Dobson will vote for John McCain.
Conservatives won't sit out the election in 2008. They will vote for John McCain. Sean Hannity will eventualy have McCain on his radio show telling him he's a "Great American and patriot." Right now, they're just having a little temper tantrum. In time, you they'll be talking about John McCain as though they were with him all along. You know it. I know it. I don't listen to any of these shows, but I am sure it's gonna make for great radio over the next few months.
While I LOVE the metaphor, somehow, I'm not so sure. I think some of these guys are really looking at 2012 already. Conservatives have been really good at taking the long view in the past. And why not? They've spent so much time looking back decades, if not centuries, to before The Beatles, before the New Deal, before trustbusting, before the Magna Carta... what's a few years to wait going forward?
I didn't make my vote based on who I thought was "more electable." I thought that was a fool's game four years ago, and I think it's even more foolish this year. I'm picking for myself, not for you. Heck, I have a lot of political positions in common with most people on this community, and many of you would strongly disagree with how I cast my vote. If I can't figure out how you're going to vote, I'm not about to start puzzling what a truck driver in Portland, a single mother in Boise, or a middle manager in Cleveland is looking for in a president.
I didn't make my vote based on how I thought some other part of the world would react to a President Obama. I didn't consider whether some despot at the head of a failing state would think the new president too weak to thwart some scheme. I didn't ponder what they'd think in the cave. I didn't consider whether some faction of the populace in the Middle East, or China, or some other place look on black people as "weak" or "inferior." I didn't consider how Obama would get on with Putin or how he'd handle Chavez. You only have to look at George W. Bush and Tony Blair to know that predicting how world leaders will hit it off is tougher than lining up blind dates for your friends. Anyone making guesses about this is doing just that -- making guesses.
And above all, I didn't make my vote based on some assumption of racism or sexism on another part of the electorate. Not that I didn't have plenty of chances. At some point, it seemed like everyone I know brought up some variant of the Wilder Effect. They usually expressed it as something close to "I know what people tell the pollsters, but I'm really worried in November when it comes down to a woman/black man against a candidate like people have always known..." A relative put it a lot more bluntly in saying "It doesn't bother me that Obama slept with all those white women, but it'll bother other people."
"I don't how much attention you've been paying to the GOP side of things, but Romney (speaking at CPAC right now) just said that if "we" don't change the course of things in our country, the US will become "the France of the 21st Century."
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror"
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the Tennessee Republican primary on Tuesday, beating rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney in the conservative Southern state to keep alive his shoestring bid for the party's presidential nomination, U.S. media projected.
Well, what defines a shoestring campaign? Lack of resources? McCain's been almost broke for six months. Lack of ideas? McCain's pretty devoid of 'em -- check out his website.
So why is Huckabee considered the only candidate running a "shoestring bid?"
From CNN: "72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party's nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama."
Not exactly a divided party.
I spoke to a friend tonight, who told me that he and his wife spent the weekend weighing Hillary vs. Obama, and decided not to vote because they couldn't make a decision. They both decided they'd be happy with either, and that was that.
Seems a lot of America feels that way. But after tonight's primaries, it looks like we're going to need some more time before we have one candidate to agree upon. But agree we will, and we're going to kick some pachyderm in November!
So, I did vote for Obama (though I flirted briefly with casting my vote for Edwards). It was easy, of course -- two minutes, in and out.
Not as much luck for K-hole, who had to deal with his first caucus, having recently moved to Colorado. He texted me: "This is the dumbest worst thought out process ever."
Here's a little detail you might be interested in. As you know, the Albany City Democratic Committee, which is Jerry Jennings's breakaway from the Albany County Democratic Party, has been ordering all of us City committee persons to campaign exclusively for Hillary. All of us were handed a list of female names in our respective election districts. This turned out to be a list of women 55 years of age or over whom we were supposed to target.
My Wife was on that list, erroneously. She's not yet 55. "That's it, I'm voting for Obama," she told the City Party Chairman.
One of my biggest problems with Hillary has been the people she associates with, from anti-union types like Chris Lehane and Mark Penn to establishment slimeballs like James Carville.
But if Jerry Jennings is going to push so strongly for her, then that does it for me. I'm voting Barack Obama tomorrow.
Who am I gonna vote for? Out of the myriad of choices? I'll be voting for the Democrat in November, even if Ralph Nader runs, and especially if Billionaire Michael Bloomberg runs.
I'm angry at Clinton for A) voting for and supporting the War Against Iraq, and B) voting for and supporting the so-called "Patriot" Act and related legislation. I mean, c'mon lady.
Concerning B), when we were trying to get the City of Albany to pass a resolution opposing the "Patriot" Act (which was ultimately successful, by the way) Melanie Trimble of the NYCLU tried to get an audience with her. She refused to even respond to our request, let alone meet with Melanie. (McNulty met with her, and literally laughed in her face.) As a result, our opponents on the Albany Common Council kept tossing us this line about "undermining Senator Clinton." You think I'm going to forget something like that?
So I guess I'm going to vote for Obama because I'm not as disgusted with him. But I'll tell you, I have serious doubts that a black person can win a national election in white America.
I like both Clinton and Obama, but if I had to pick one as the Democratic nominee right now and offer a single justification for my selection, I'd choose Clinton, and for the same reason that so many people regard her as unelectable: she's gone through a never-ending storm of shit with her head held high. I'm thinking that's the best practice anyone could have for making it to November in one piece. Obama has acknowledged that she has that much of an edge by saying that beating off her attacks have made him a stronger, better-tested candidate, but I hope he isn't really silly enough to think that bitch-slapping Bob Johnson is remotely equivalent to taking on the whole Fox News and right-wing radio manure machine. The people who are attracted to Obama because he's so "inspiring" don't seem to think this ought to be a factor in their decision. It's as if they think that his new-morning aura is so effective that it'll deflect any slander and inspire the other side to behave itself and play on a high ground, especially if the other candidate is the saintly and principled John McCain. They must be out of their motherfucking minds.
Poverty Rising: There are nearly 37 million poor Americans. Most Americans living in poverty work, but still cannot afford to make ends meet.
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
Yes folks, sprawl makes our taxes go up. This is not rocket science. Automobiles not only allow us to use more land than ever before. Autos demand that we use more land, to drive and park the damn things.
Global warming is not the only price we pay for our gas guzzling pollution machines. The more we drive our automobiles, the more land we need to use and pay for. Driving your car raises your taxes.
. . .
May I make a modest suggestion? To stop property taxes from increasing, we need a crash program to reduce dependence on automobiles. Not to eliminate automobiles, mind you. To reduce dependence.
Wouldn't it be nice to have choice? Imagine how delightful it would be to take a pleasant train ride to work, scanning your favorite electronic device or printed material, sipping your favorite coffee concoction and maybe even having a donut. I've lived in places where I could do that, why can't I do that in the Capital District?
Or imagine being able to hop a bus home at two o'clock in the morning after a raucous night out in a neighboring city. Don't we all want to reduce drunk driving? Again, I've lived in places where late night busses are expected and reliable.
I don't want to give up my pickup truck, nosiree. I need it to haul refrigerators and zip off to lumber yard when I want to. What I want is a choice, to not have to keep it full of expensive imported gasoline, to not be dependent on the damn thing. Is that too much to ask?
To reduce dependence on automobiles would require rebuilding our State. It would require transforming suburban sprawl hellholes into communities where it is easier to walk than to drive. It would be a massive job generator, very attractive to job-creating developers.
And while we're at it, why isn't New York State energy independent? We have wind, water and sunshine. We could cut loose from parasitic international energy corporations would make us a boom state. Our state could become virtually reccession-proof.
Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
Clinton:
End the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.
Advantage? Hillary. NCLB has to come off the table; like charter schools, it was molded by Republicans simply as an excuse to be able to weaken the teachers' lobby and to hurt the public school system.
Watch Season 4 of The Wire, and you'll get it...
Speaking of charter schools, neither candidate mentions them, nor private school vouchers at all, for that matter. Disappointing, as both are going to be major factors in inner-city education over the next decade.
Barack's a bit better than Hillary on the war; Barack's website says, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year." Meanwhile, Clinton's simply says her Cabinet would, "draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."
Unlike most people, I don't give Obama any extra points over Hillary for having opposed the war in 2002. Nearly all of the Democrats in the Senate supported the authorization of force against Iraq, and it was less because they believed in it and more because if they didn't, they would be branded as traitors, which was the kiss of death to any national politician that soon after 9/11. Edwards supported it too, and I can't really give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't have voted the same way had he actually been in the Senate at the time. Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't have had to vote for it at the time. I am a little uneasy, however, that unlike Edwards, Hillary hasn't really backed off that vote.
All three candidates rattled sabers towards Iran, which is just plain stupid. Iran's a toothless (like me!) third-world nation that bears no threat towards us, and it's time we ignored them.