Clinton says she has the popular vote lead.
First, the popular vote doesn't matter. The party uses delegates. This is another clear attempt to change the rules not even mid game, but in the closing seconds. It's like if a losing basketball team says seconds before the buzzer, "Wait! we shouldn't count points, but number of baskets."
Second, the so-called popular vote win includes Florida and Michigan (where her opponent wasn't even on the ballot), and it excludes Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington! Because caucuses don't count! (See the breakdown here.)
So when Clinton recently said that the nomination shouldn't be determined by 48 states, what she secretly meant is that it should be determined (with new rules) by 46 states.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Waiting for Clinton
On March 3rd, I predicted the imminent end of the Clinton campaign. I asserted that "at the very latest" Clinton could hold out long enough for a unlikely win in Pennsylvania.
Shows what I know.
Still, after yesterday's results in Indiana and North Carolina, it's hard to see how Clinton could stay in. Clinton has begun to argue more forcefully for the inclusion of Michigan and Florida delegates from their unauthorized primaries. Looking at the Slate's Delegate Calculator, even with the inclusion of Florida, Clinton would have to have substantial wins in the remaining primaries and pick-up a bunch more superdelegates than Obama.
Members of the media have essentially declared her candidacy over. One doesn't want to put too much stock into what Tim Russert says, but in this case he might be right.
I say even odds, Clinton will be out by the end of the week. If she doesn't withdraw by next Monday, I don't know what the heck to expect. Most likely scenario is that we'll get an announcement late Wednesday or on Thursday.
Slate also doesn't have a lot of faith in Clinton's ability to pull anything off:
Shows what I know.
Still, after yesterday's results in Indiana and North Carolina, it's hard to see how Clinton could stay in. Clinton has begun to argue more forcefully for the inclusion of Michigan and Florida delegates from their unauthorized primaries. Looking at the Slate's Delegate Calculator, even with the inclusion of Florida, Clinton would have to have substantial wins in the remaining primaries and pick-up a bunch more superdelegates than Obama.
Members of the media have essentially declared her candidacy over. One doesn't want to put too much stock into what Tim Russert says, but in this case he might be right.
I say even odds, Clinton will be out by the end of the week. If she doesn't withdraw by next Monday, I don't know what the heck to expect. Most likely scenario is that we'll get an announcement late Wednesday or on Thursday.
Slate also doesn't have a lot of faith in Clinton's ability to pull anything off:
Monday, April 7, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Quote: Crowds are fickle!
My freshman high school English teacher taught me two things that I remember to this day. The first was the basic formula to write a paper: Intro paragraph with thesis, three body paragraphs each supporting the thesis, conclusion paragraph repeating thesis and summarized version of the body in three sentences.
The second thing was the theme of Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. She kept on repeating it over and over through each of the five acts of the long play: "Crowds are fickle."
Mark Mellman, who was the lead pollster for Kerry for President way back when, reminds us how fickle the public at large can be. Mellman (who is not connected to either the Obama or Clinton campaign) dismisses the head-to-head polls of McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama.
A helpful reminder indeed. I remember reading in 2002 when Bush's popularity was through the roof. Pollsters asked respondents not only did they approve of the job the president was doing, but who they voted for in 2000. One would assume that about 50% of the people would say they voted for Bush. But in poll after poll 60% or 70% of people said they voted for Bush. The most obvious conclusion is that a large number of people remembered voting for someone they didn't actually vote for. If people are that bad at honestly remembering the past, can we truly expect them to give us a useful picture of how they're going to act eight months down the road?
(In fairness, there were probably some afraid in those months after September 11, 2001 to give an answer that could be construed by some stranger as being unpatriotic. The caller could really by John Ashcroft.)
We also don't know what will happen in the world during the next several months that will undoubtedly shape the election.
Frankly, I don't think the argument of electability illuminates an obvious choice for Democrats. I've argued before that I believe Obama is more electable. I still believe that, but not overwhelmingly more electable. The same goes in the reverse. At most, one can credibly argue that Clinton has a slight, but not overwhelming, edge. The real question for the lucky, remaining Democrat primary voters is which candidate do you trust and will better promote your ideals in the White House?
Remember Mellman's words as you see the results of a new poll about next November. I wouldn't take any general election poll at much value until mid-September, a week or two after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention.
The second thing was the theme of Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. She kept on repeating it over and over through each of the five acts of the long play: "Crowds are fickle."Mark Mellman, who was the lead pollster for Kerry for President way back when, reminds us how fickle the public at large can be. Mellman (who is not connected to either the Obama or Clinton campaign) dismisses the head-to-head polls of McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama.
"People are very mediocre predictors of their own future behavior."
A helpful reminder indeed. I remember reading in 2002 when Bush's popularity was through the roof. Pollsters asked respondents not only did they approve of the job the president was doing, but who they voted for in 2000. One would assume that about 50% of the people would say they voted for Bush. But in poll after poll 60% or 70% of people said they voted for Bush. The most obvious conclusion is that a large number of people remembered voting for someone they didn't actually vote for. If people are that bad at honestly remembering the past, can we truly expect them to give us a useful picture of how they're going to act eight months down the road?
(In fairness, there were probably some afraid in those months after September 11, 2001 to give an answer that could be construed by some stranger as being unpatriotic. The caller could really by John Ashcroft.)
We also don't know what will happen in the world during the next several months that will undoubtedly shape the election.
Frankly, I don't think the argument of electability illuminates an obvious choice for Democrats. I've argued before that I believe Obama is more electable. I still believe that, but not overwhelmingly more electable. The same goes in the reverse. At most, one can credibly argue that Clinton has a slight, but not overwhelming, edge. The real question for the lucky, remaining Democrat primary voters is which candidate do you trust and will better promote your ideals in the White House?
Remember Mellman's words as you see the results of a new poll about next November. I wouldn't take any general election poll at much value until mid-September, a week or two after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Pelosi dismisses Obama and Clinton shared ticket
Here's the end of a recent interview with Nancy Pelosi. When she pauses it's clear she is wishing she didn't go there, but then decides to finish her thought anyways. I think it is safe to say that Pelosi is a bit irritated with the Clinton campaign. Earlier in the interview (shown in full here) she discusses the need for both campaigns to realize the Democrats have to be able to win in November and to cool down. She says in the middle: "There's a lot at stake; the presidency for sure. We must have a Democratic president, but how these races proceed can have an impact as to whether we will carry the Congress of the United States for the Democrats as well. And so that is my responsibility as Speaker of the House."
But the best part is the last 25 seconds:
But the best part is the last 25 seconds:
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Experience, what experience?
I don't know why Clinton keeps on bringing up experience. First, experience means nothing if you still make bad decisions (see John McCain). But what is all this experience she claims? She saw some stuff in the White House while Bill was president? She's been in the Senate slightly longer than Obama. I guess that's something.
One claim is that she participated in ensuring the Northern Ireland peace process. Nobel Laureate David Trimble dismisses her supposed contribution, saying Clinton was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played. Though, his harsh words don't really help his point:
Co-winner of the Nobel prize with Trimble, John Hume, has more positive things to say about Clinton. The difference between them may be more of a reflection of Clinton's perceived pro-Catholic position in the conflict.
One claim is that she participated in ensuring the Northern Ireland peace process. Nobel Laureate David Trimble dismisses her supposed contribution, saying Clinton was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played. Though, his harsh words don't really help his point:
"So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active...She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not." [emphasis mine]
Co-winner of the Nobel prize with Trimble, John Hume, has more positive things to say about Clinton. The difference between them may be more of a reflection of Clinton's perceived pro-Catholic position in the conflict.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Eh, predictions, shmedictions?
So, I asserted a couple times that the days were numbered for Clinton. Whoops. She still has quite an uphill battle though. The media, loving the back and forth drama, again exaggerated the meaning the the results by implying a 180 degree turn-around for Clinton. It was a victory for Clinton. The race truly could have been over for her Tuesday night. But Obama is still in the lead in terms of delegates and raw primary votes. Pennsylvania is the next big prize. Here we go!
I've also pooh-poohed the notion that an Obama-Clinton ticket is feasible or desirable. What do I know? As the race goes further along and as the Democrat Party becomes further fractured, that may very well be seen as necessary. This morning, Clinton gently suggested that possibility. I agree with an NPR commentator I heard today who theorized that may have done more to create a tone of conciliation from Clinton rather than a bona fide commitment to that idea. Still, the more that is put out there, the more the supporters of whoever is not on the top of the ticket will expect it.
Most Obama or Clinton supporters who say that they'll vote or stay home on election day if the other becomes the nominee are full of it, whether they know it or not. Still, division and nastiness within the party close to the election will not help the Democrat nominee against McCain.
I've also pooh-poohed the notion that an Obama-Clinton ticket is feasible or desirable. What do I know? As the race goes further along and as the Democrat Party becomes further fractured, that may very well be seen as necessary. This morning, Clinton gently suggested that possibility. I agree with an NPR commentator I heard today who theorized that may have done more to create a tone of conciliation from Clinton rather than a bona fide commitment to that idea. Still, the more that is put out there, the more the supporters of whoever is not on the top of the ticket will expect it.
Most Obama or Clinton supporters who say that they'll vote or stay home on election day if the other becomes the nominee are full of it, whether they know it or not. Still, division and nastiness within the party close to the election will not help the Democrat nominee against McCain.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Clinton says she's going nowhere
I suggested recently that Clinton will be out of the presidential contest within a week of tomorrow's primaries/caucuses. She has suggested that she's going nowhere, regardless of Tuesday's results.
Even with her fighting words, I still don't see Clinton in the race for very much longer. April at the longest, hoping for a win in Pennsylvania.
Talk of a brokered convention is heating up, but I still don't see it as being at all likely. Unless Clinton defies expectations tomorrow, we're going to see more headlines like this one:
Pressure raised on Clinton to bow out
It will get to a point where she won't be able to ignore it. Supporters will continue to peel off and it will become inevitable before the convention is here.
If she stays in past March, I'll be wondering about her motivation. Despite my belief that she wouldn't want or accept a running mate spot with Obama, maybe that is what she is angling for?
Or, what is probably beyond even the Clintons, one might think that her drawing this out might weaken Obama enough to lose the general election, enabling Clinton to be the nominee to challenge a President McCain in 2012.
Even with her fighting words, I still don't see Clinton in the race for very much longer. April at the longest, hoping for a win in Pennsylvania.
Talk of a brokered convention is heating up, but I still don't see it as being at all likely. Unless Clinton defies expectations tomorrow, we're going to see more headlines like this one:
Pressure raised on Clinton to bow out
It will get to a point where she won't be able to ignore it. Supporters will continue to peel off and it will become inevitable before the convention is here.
If she stays in past March, I'll be wondering about her motivation. Despite my belief that she wouldn't want or accept a running mate spot with Obama, maybe that is what she is angling for?
Or, what is probably beyond even the Clintons, one might think that her drawing this out might weaken Obama enough to lose the general election, enabling Clinton to be the nominee to challenge a President McCain in 2012.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Clinton drop-out countdown
When will it happen? It could be after next Tuesday's contests. Or she might consider going for a long-shot win in Pennsylvania in a April. My guess is that it will be in the days following next week's primaries, even if she does a little better than expected. There are rumors of Gore and Pelosi and others working behind the scenes to secure a nominee soon. I predict they will be successful and Clinton will withdraw within a week of next Tuesday. My current guess, Thursday, March 6. Or it's possible she'll wait until Sunday.
Who can best wake up at 3 AM?
Everyone has probably heard about the latest Clinton-Obama ad war. Here is Clinton's original "3 AM" commercial followed by Obama's response. I think that the Obama campaign effectively pulled out the rug from under the Clinton folks.
The third ad is another humorous take.
Showing us how silly this all is...
The third ad is another humorous take.
Showing us how silly this all is...
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Today's Quote: Getting things done
From last Saturday, Tina Fey tells us in a humorous commentary on SNL in regards to Senator Clinton:
"You know what, bitches get stuff done."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Today's Quote: Divisive politics
Clinton campaign staffers have apparently distributed a 2006 photo of Barack Obama in traditional Somali clothes when he was on a trip in northern Kenya. (Available here) Of course, we know photos like this feed into the racist misconceptions about Obama's background. Via Politico, here is the response from Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe:
It does indicate how low the Clinton campaign may go this next week as we approach the Texas and Ohio contests on March 4. Clearly, the Clinton campaign is no longer worried about damaging Obama in such a way that may dramatically hinder him in the general election.
This latest controversy started when someone form the Clinton campaign emailed the photo to the Drudge Report. The fact that the Clinton people are using Drudge as a dissemination tool may further irritate Democrats who often see the website as the lowest of the lows. Ironically, it was Drudge who broke some of the initial allegations of the Lewinsky scandal.
“On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Plouffe.
It does indicate how low the Clinton campaign may go this next week as we approach the Texas and Ohio contests on March 4. Clearly, the Clinton campaign is no longer worried about damaging Obama in such a way that may dramatically hinder him in the general election.
This latest controversy started when someone form the Clinton campaign emailed the photo to the Drudge Report. The fact that the Clinton people are using Drudge as a dissemination tool may further irritate Democrats who often see the website as the lowest of the lows. Ironically, it was Drudge who broke some of the initial allegations of the Lewinsky scandal.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Election day in Wisconsin and Hawaii
Today on the Democratic side of the presidential run features Wisconsin and Hawaii. Expectations are that it will be close, although Obama is favored in both states. One article I read from the AP notes that Obama is from Wisconsin's neighboring state of Illinois, implying that gave him an advantage. It fails to note that Clinton is a native Chicagoan herself, or that being from Chicago is not necessarily an advantage with Wisconsin voters.
Each summer, thousands of tourists from Illinois flood over the border to Wisconsin. They practically take the state over. They do much for the Wisconsin economy, and probably wouldn't offend the natives too much if it weren't for their overwhelmingly aggressive driving. If it's summer and someone cuts you off on the highway in Wisconsin, chances are they have an Illinois license plate. The decal in the back window for the Chicago Bears just adds insult to injury.
I'm looking curiously to how the media will spin the results of today's primaries. They've been kind of ignoring them, looking more at the March 4 primary contests in Ohio and Texas, which are more advantageous to Clinton. One kind of thinks that there must be a media conspiracy to keep the nomination contest alive by downplaying Obama's recent and anticipated successes and passing on Clinton's flimsy attacks on Obama without any critical investigation. I say "almost." I don't really believe in media conspiracies, or most other conspiracies for that matter. I do wonder if the conventional wisdom of media professionals is to handle Clinton with more kid gloves after their New Hampshire embarrassment. Of course, there are some notable exceptions to that trend.
Each summer, thousands of tourists from Illinois flood over the border to Wisconsin. They practically take the state over. They do much for the Wisconsin economy, and probably wouldn't offend the natives too much if it weren't for their overwhelmingly aggressive driving. If it's summer and someone cuts you off on the highway in Wisconsin, chances are they have an Illinois license plate. The decal in the back window for the Chicago Bears just adds insult to injury.
I'm looking curiously to how the media will spin the results of today's primaries. They've been kind of ignoring them, looking more at the March 4 primary contests in Ohio and Texas, which are more advantageous to Clinton. One kind of thinks that there must be a media conspiracy to keep the nomination contest alive by downplaying Obama's recent and anticipated successes and passing on Clinton's flimsy attacks on Obama without any critical investigation. I say "almost." I don't really believe in media conspiracies, or most other conspiracies for that matter. I do wonder if the conventional wisdom of media professionals is to handle Clinton with more kid gloves after their New Hampshire embarrassment. Of course, there are some notable exceptions to that trend.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Who can beat McCain?
MORE PREDICTIONS! Yes! So, the debate is now who can better beat John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? The Republicans appear to be doing what I didn't think they could do this year: choose the most electable candidate. Despite this, I'm going with conventional wisdom and saying the Democrats still go into this election with an advantage. That being said, it's no done deal. This will likely be a competitive election.
I've never been of the camp that holds Clinton is not electable or that the Democrats shouldn't nominate her because of her electability. I do, however, believe Obama is more likely to prevail against McCain. That just adds to the many reasons I voted for him on Super Tuesday.
A few head-to-head polls show Obama doing better against McCain. That is part of the picture, but we should go straight to the Electoral College to investigate true competitiveness.
Below I've made my own assessment of the competitiveness of each state in the two match-ups. In both, Clinton and Obama are likely to prevail in the same states. Obama's advantage, in part because he isn't as devisive of a candidate as Clinton, is where he can make traditionally Republican leaning states competitive.
The winner needs 270 electoral votes to win. Both Democrats start with an advantage. But Obama is going to be able to go after some additional states. Just by picking up one or two of these Republican leaning states he can increase his margin substantially. What's more, this will allow the financially-advantaged Obama to make McCain spread his resources wider as he will have to shore up states like North Carolina and Virginia.
Some of my designations would probably spark some disagreement, which is fair. This is all highly speculative. My main point is that Obama is competitive in more states than Clinton in a match-up with McCain. I think it is difficult to assert the opposite.
CLINTON v. MCCAIN
OBAMA v. MCCAIN
I've never been of the camp that holds Clinton is not electable or that the Democrats shouldn't nominate her because of her electability. I do, however, believe Obama is more likely to prevail against McCain. That just adds to the many reasons I voted for him on Super Tuesday.
A few head-to-head polls show Obama doing better against McCain. That is part of the picture, but we should go straight to the Electoral College to investigate true competitiveness.
Below I've made my own assessment of the competitiveness of each state in the two match-ups. In both, Clinton and Obama are likely to prevail in the same states. Obama's advantage, in part because he isn't as devisive of a candidate as Clinton, is where he can make traditionally Republican leaning states competitive.
The winner needs 270 electoral votes to win. Both Democrats start with an advantage. But Obama is going to be able to go after some additional states. Just by picking up one or two of these Republican leaning states he can increase his margin substantially. What's more, this will allow the financially-advantaged Obama to make McCain spread his resources wider as he will have to shore up states like North Carolina and Virginia.
Some of my designations would probably spark some disagreement, which is fair. This is all highly speculative. My main point is that Obama is competitive in more states than Clinton in a match-up with McCain. I think it is difficult to assert the opposite.
| STATE | Electoral College Votes | MCCAIN V. CLINTON PREDICTION | MCCAIN V. OBAMA PREDICTION | |
| California | 55 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Connecticut | 7 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| DC | 3 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Delaware | 3 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Hawaii | 4 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Illinois | 21 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Massachusetts | 12 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| New York | 31 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Rhode Island | 4 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Vermont | 3 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Washington | 11 | SOLID CLINTON | SOLID OBAMA | |
| Iowa | 7 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Maine | 4 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Maryland | 10 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Michigan | 17 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Minnesota | 10 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| New Jersey | 15 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Oregon | 7 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Pennsylvania | 21 | LEAN CLINTON | LEAN OBAMA | |
| Colorado | 9 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Florida | 27 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Missouri | 11 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Nevada | 5 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| New Hampshire | 4 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| New Mexico | 5 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Ohio | 20 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Tennessee | 11 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| West Virginia | 5 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Wisconsin | 10 | TOSS-UP | TOSS-UP | |
| Arkansas | 6 | TOSS-UP | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Kansas | 6 | LEAN MCCAIN | TOSS-UP | |
| North Carolina | 15 | LEAN MCCAIN | TOSS-UP | |
| Alaska | 3 | LEAN MCCAIN | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Montana | 3 | LEAN MCCAIN | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Georgia | 15 | SOLID MCCAIN | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Louisiana | 9 | SOLID MCCAIN | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Virginia | 13 | SOLID MCCAIN | LEAN MCCAIN | |
| Alabama | 9 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Arizona | 10 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Idaho | 4 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Indiana | 11 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Kentucky | 8 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Mississippi | 6 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Nebraska | 5 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| North Dakota | 3 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Oklahoma | 7 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| South Carolina | 8 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| South Dakota | 3 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Texas | 34 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Utah | 5 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| Wyoming | 3 | SOLID MCCAIN | SOLID MCCAIN | |
| SOLID CLINTON: 154 | ALL CLINTON: 245 |
| LEAN CLINTON: 91 | |
| TOSS-UP: 113 | TOSS-UP: 113 |
| LEAN MCCAIN: 27 | ALL MCCAIN: 180 |
| SOLID MCCAIN: 153 |
OBAMA v. MCCAIN
| SOLID OBAMA: 154 | ALL OBAMA: 245 |
| LEAN OBAMA: 91 | |
| TOSS-UP: 128 | TOSS-UP: 128 |
| LEAN MCCAIN: 49 | ALL MCCAIN: 175 |
| SOLID MCCAIN: 116 |
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Today's featured article: Clinton's experience
This week Newseek carries a piece by Fareed Zakaria that discusses Senator Clinton's "experience" as it relates to her presidential bid. Entitled, The Wrong Experience, Zakaria makes the case that Clinton's background and experience lend her to be too cautious.
Zakaria identifies some of my concerns with both of the Clintons. They too readily sell-out their position or co-opt their allies in the name of political pragmatism.
Zakaria identifies some of my concerns with both of the Clintons. They too readily sell-out their position or co-opt their allies in the name of political pragmatism.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Hillary and Tracy Flick
Okay, this might be a little unfair to Senator Clinton; but I really like the movie Election. It's from Slate.com.
Voice of feminism
Having worked in the advocacy non-profit community, I've seen a wide spectrum in sophistication from advocacy organizations. There are some small, grassroots organizations out there with just a couple staff that are incredibly effective at what they do. Then there are the groups, big and small, which simply take donations and make lots of noise, and often cause trouble for the other groups who are actually making a difference. It can be distressing sometimes.
I suspect that the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women falls into the ineffective category. It's hard to have a favorable impression of them when their president releases this statement:
One wonders why many women are hesitant to embrace the term "feminist" even when they seem to hold such viewpoints. Who wants to be in company with people like the author of the above missive?
I suspect that the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women falls into the ineffective category. It's hard to have a favorable impression of them when their president releases this statement:
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.It goes on from there. Thanks to Feministing.com for flagging this
And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
One wonders why many women are hesitant to embrace the term "feminist" even when they seem to hold such viewpoints. Who wants to be in company with people like the author of the above missive?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tired of Clinton
No, I'm not talking about Senator Hillary Clinton. I'm talking about the ex-president himself. Maybe it's just me, but is anyone else following the presidential primaries getting fed-up from hearing from Bill Clinton all the time? Every time he opens his mouth to distort Senator Obama's positions or say Hillary will solve the health care mess, my response is, "Who cares what you think?"
Honestly, I want this election to be about the future, not the 1990s. And while I don't think that argument should be what disqualifies Hillary Clinton from consideration, it doesn't make me want to go out and vote for her. I don't want to relive the '90s. The former president's constant presence in the campaign seems to be making the argument that they are simply going for a 3rd Clinton term.
According to the Washington Post, however, it seems many people disagree, Democrats in particular. Chris Cillizza convincingly argues that Bill Clinton overwhelmingly remains the most popular Democrat. This makes sense; what other high profile Democrat has been able to spend any where near as much time in the national spotlight for the last twenty years? Many people, me included, look back wistfully to the Clinton years when we reflect on the last 7 years of the Bush administration.
But was Bill Clinton really the knight in shining armor? Yes, by comparison, he was a world of difference from what we have now. Still, for argument's sake, let's consider the following from Clinton's presidency:
I've never understood why many Republicans so strongly detest Bill Clinton. I've never really understood why many Democrats so strongly worship Bill Clinton. We shouldn't look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Bill Clinton was an incredibly gifted and slick politician from the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council. He frequently "triangulated" and abandoned his own party. He was ineffective in important areas. He has and continues to show a propensity to bend the truth.
I wish he would go back to taking a back seat. I won't hold my breath.
Honestly, I want this election to be about the future, not the 1990s. And while I don't think that argument should be what disqualifies Hillary Clinton from consideration, it doesn't make me want to go out and vote for her. I don't want to relive the '90s. The former president's constant presence in the campaign seems to be making the argument that they are simply going for a 3rd Clinton term.
According to the Washington Post, however, it seems many people disagree, Democrats in particular. Chris Cillizza convincingly argues that Bill Clinton overwhelmingly remains the most popular Democrat. This makes sense; what other high profile Democrat has been able to spend any where near as much time in the national spotlight for the last twenty years? Many people, me included, look back wistfully to the Clinton years when we reflect on the last 7 years of the Bush administration.
But was Bill Clinton really the knight in shining armor? Yes, by comparison, he was a world of difference from what we have now. Still, for argument's sake, let's consider the following from Clinton's presidency:
- He did raise taxes slightly on the rich early in his term. Later, he apologized for that and said he regretted it.
- He signed the so-called "welfare reform" act simply to position himself well for the 1996 reelection campaign.
- His environmental policy was a do-nothing approach for most of his 8 years, except for signing a bunch of executive orders in his final days. Many of these were simply and quickly reversed by the Bush administration.
- He opposed the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
- He signed the Defense of Marriage Act, putting discrimination into federal law.
- He was wishy washy and allowed millions to be sunk into the development of the National Missile Defense program.
- While he didn't invade Iraq, he did oversee nearly a decade of inhuman sanctions on Iraqis that destroyed it's economy and prevented things like medicines, textbooks, and water filters into the country. His administration also did a lot of bombing of Iraq.
- He bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that, despite arguments at the time, had no link to terrorist activity. The bombing occurred at a suspicious time during the Lewinsky scandal.
- And no, this did not merit an impeachment, but one may consider the guy as a bit slimy. He has an inappropriate relationship with a young employee and then lies to his family and the nation about it.
I've never understood why many Republicans so strongly detest Bill Clinton. I've never really understood why many Democrats so strongly worship Bill Clinton. We shouldn't look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Bill Clinton was an incredibly gifted and slick politician from the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council. He frequently "triangulated" and abandoned his own party. He was ineffective in important areas. He has and continues to show a propensity to bend the truth.
I wish he would go back to taking a back seat. I won't hold my breath.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Column of the day: The witch ain't dead
My favorite piece today is written by Salon.com's Rebecca Traister. She eloquently mirrors some of my thoughts the past couple of months. I'm not a Clinton fan. I hope she is not the nominee. I don't have a lot of trust for her. But I have been amazed at how poorly she has been treated by the talking heads. There has been a definite double-standard, and I suspect it is gender-based.
Traister opens with the following:
Traister opens with the following:
"I'm not a Hillary supporter, but ... " has been an oft-heard preamble in the five days since the New York senator's Iowa defeat, usually followed by a description of how aghast the speaker is at the treatment Clinton received from a media anxious to throw a hoe-down on her political coffin. To my surprise, it's a phrase I've heard myself uttering, before launching a tirade about the premature death certificate signed by pundits for a candidate I have never really wanted to win.
- The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong, Salon.com, Jan 9, 2007
New Hampshire: Wrong again
So, I, like the majority of the pollsters and political reporters, called New Hampshire's primary wrong. The story now is the big boost Clinton's and McCain's respective wins give them. I had predicted, like some polls, Obama winning the Democratic primary by at least five points. Instead, with 95% of precincts reporting, Clinton won 39% to Obama's 36%. Edwards and Richardson got 17% and 5% respectively. I had also said that Edwards would be lucky to break 10%.
The Democratic side
What bothers me is the inflated media response. To be sure, Clinton's victory is a surprise and a boost to her. But the language out there is a bit much. Washington Post reporter Chris Cizzela described Clinton's win as "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" in his Tuesday night blog post.
Clinton had been leading in the polls in New Hampshire by double digits for months. Her defeat in Iowa brought her numbers down drastically and over the weekend many New Hampshire polls had Obama with a good lead. The fact she bounced back for Tuesday with a slim, but real win, isn't the most stunning comeback victories. It is simply a surprise.
I would argue that McCain's win, although predicted by the polls, represents a more stunning turn around when you consider where his campaign was a couple months ago. John Kerry's resurrected campaign in 2004 was also more stunning than Clinton's victory.
Still, even without the media's self-fulfilling prediction of this lifting Clinton from the brink, it's clear the New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of faith in her. The Democrat side is now a 2.5 person race. It will be interesting to see how the half, Mr. Edwards, will impact the other two in South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even on Super Tuesday.
The Republican side
If the Democrat nomination contest is now a 2.5 person race, the Republican one is a 3.5 person race. It's McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, with Giuliani as the half. I still don't see Giuliani getting the nomination. In New Hampshire, he came in fourth, narrowly avoiding embarrassment by beating Paul by one point. He's not completely out yet, and can make some interesting things happen, particularly in Florida. Romney has been badly hurt by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with his skill, funds, and ambition, I wouldn't count him out yet.
If it comes down to McCain versus Huckabee, which looks most likely, I think McCain will be the nominee. It is strange to think, as political analysts and commentators have pointed out in recent days, that the Republican establishment could quickly find themselves rallying around McCain because they are worried about Huckabee, both for his economic populisms and presumed unelectability. The irony that McCain, who used to have his name always preceded with the word "maverick," would be an establishment Republican would have been difficult to foresee a short couple of years ago.
Pluses and Minuses of a McCain nomination
I have mixed feelings about McCain. His newfound ability to pander isn't endearing. He is even more of a hawk than George W Bush (but at least probably would expect competency). He's a true social conservative despite conservatives' long-held distrust of him. He is also an angry, unstable person. Even so, due to his stature and reputation and political profile, he is probably the most electable of the GOP candidates. I once thought that of slippery Mitt Romney, but his recent failures to run a primary campaign make me fear him less in a general election.
Another McCain irony would be that a general election with him as the nominee wouldn't be all about trumped up, imminent threat of immigrants. McCain is the lead proponent in the Senate on immigration reform, but does not approach it like the Republican base. To listen to the other Republican candidates, immigration is not only the defining issue of the race, it's the only issue.
I disagree with McCain on most of the major issues. I would still be delighted with some of the issues he'd bring to the campaign. I would love to hear him resurrect talk on a national service program and ethics reforms. He would talk about solutions to the economy and health care reform. He'd continue to be against torture and for a return to the rule of law. These would all be good things for a Democrat who fills the White House to be able to fulfill their own (better) solutions to these issues. If a Republican candidate succeeds in making the election all about immigration and taxes, there are no real issue-based mandates that the victor carries into the White House.
McCain would be a disaster in the White House. This is a guy who thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran. You would think a former POW would regard armed conflict as less than funny. But I've never been a POW in North Vietnam, so I can't rightly judge how any former POW should and shouldn't find something humorous. I think of all the candidates, McCain is the most likely to lead us into unnecessary armed conflict. Clinton might be second on that front. (Oh wait, there's Giuliani!)
The Democratic side
What bothers me is the inflated media response. To be sure, Clinton's victory is a surprise and a boost to her. But the language out there is a bit much. Washington Post reporter Chris Cizzela described Clinton's win as "one of the most stunning comeback victories in modern American politics" in his Tuesday night blog post.
Clinton had been leading in the polls in New Hampshire by double digits for months. Her defeat in Iowa brought her numbers down drastically and over the weekend many New Hampshire polls had Obama with a good lead. The fact she bounced back for Tuesday with a slim, but real win, isn't the most stunning comeback victories. It is simply a surprise.
I would argue that McCain's win, although predicted by the polls, represents a more stunning turn around when you consider where his campaign was a couple months ago. John Kerry's resurrected campaign in 2004 was also more stunning than Clinton's victory.
Still, even without the media's self-fulfilling prediction of this lifting Clinton from the brink, it's clear the New Hampshire Democrats have a lot of faith in her. The Democrat side is now a 2.5 person race. It will be interesting to see how the half, Mr. Edwards, will impact the other two in South Carolina and Nevada and maybe even on Super Tuesday.
The Republican side
If the Democrat nomination contest is now a 2.5 person race, the Republican one is a 3.5 person race. It's McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, with Giuliani as the half. I still don't see Giuliani getting the nomination. In New Hampshire, he came in fourth, narrowly avoiding embarrassment by beating Paul by one point. He's not completely out yet, and can make some interesting things happen, particularly in Florida. Romney has been badly hurt by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with his skill, funds, and ambition, I wouldn't count him out yet.
If it comes down to McCain versus Huckabee, which looks most likely, I think McCain will be the nominee. It is strange to think, as political analysts and commentators have pointed out in recent days, that the Republican establishment could quickly find themselves rallying around McCain because they are worried about Huckabee, both for his economic populisms and presumed unelectability. The irony that McCain, who used to have his name always preceded with the word "maverick," would be an establishment Republican would have been difficult to foresee a short couple of years ago.
Pluses and Minuses of a McCain nomination
I have mixed feelings about McCain. His newfound ability to pander isn't endearing. He is even more of a hawk than George W Bush (but at least probably would expect competency). He's a true social conservative despite conservatives' long-held distrust of him. He is also an angry, unstable person. Even so, due to his stature and reputation and political profile, he is probably the most electable of the GOP candidates. I once thought that of slippery Mitt Romney, but his recent failures to run a primary campaign make me fear him less in a general election.
Another McCain irony would be that a general election with him as the nominee wouldn't be all about trumped up, imminent threat of immigrants. McCain is the lead proponent in the Senate on immigration reform, but does not approach it like the Republican base. To listen to the other Republican candidates, immigration is not only the defining issue of the race, it's the only issue.
I disagree with McCain on most of the major issues. I would still be delighted with some of the issues he'd bring to the campaign. I would love to hear him resurrect talk on a national service program and ethics reforms. He would talk about solutions to the economy and health care reform. He'd continue to be against torture and for a return to the rule of law. These would all be good things for a Democrat who fills the White House to be able to fulfill their own (better) solutions to these issues. If a Republican candidate succeeds in making the election all about immigration and taxes, there are no real issue-based mandates that the victor carries into the White House.
McCain would be a disaster in the White House. This is a guy who thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran. You would think a former POW would regard armed conflict as less than funny. But I've never been a POW in North Vietnam, so I can't rightly judge how any former POW should and shouldn't find something humorous. I think of all the candidates, McCain is the most likely to lead us into unnecessary armed conflict. Clinton might be second on that front. (Oh wait, there's Giuliani!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
