The Democrats Cannot Be Like the Other Party... They Must Be Smarter in Order to Save Our Democracy.

I'm tired of the arrogance of anyone who thinks of themselves as more important than the values they represent, especially when they can do the right thing and exit the stage before the events overtake them and their legacy is destroyed. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Joe Biden, Sonya Sotomayor come to my mind today.

Well, if they were listening to me... First, the Dem players who can force Biden out have to agree he should go. However, the timing and the how could play out indirectly. After polls show Biden's appeal with the persuadable voters is abysmal (which is the case now), the would-be successors pledge support for Biden as they have done after his terrible show.  But in private, they'd tell him otherwise. No one wants to appear as a backstabber publicly. Why? Because it may make JB less likely to bow out, and they'd also want to be in prime position for the 2028 election--if it happens! So, Biden will decide "on his own" sometime this month (July) to pass the torch to a new gen of Dems after having saved our democracy! The convention can pick the nominee, preferably by ranked choice ballot.

It's a ridiculous argument some Dems are making now that Biden rebounded... that it was just a bad night for him... that he's raised tens of millions $ after the "debate". That money came from people who will vote for Biden and the party's candidates. But, BUT, this is not how the election will be decided. It's a small minority of voters (the vast majority of voters are already committed and won't change) who do not think Biden deserves another term. When it mattered (June debate) he couldn't deliver. When Obama lost his first debate nobody was questioning his cognitive ability or his age! Joe had only one task: to convince the voters he could be president, now and in the future. Optics matter more than citing some numbers and esoteric policies (he fumbled those too). Bernie Sanders is one year older than Biden but have you seen him recently? He's feisty and a very clear communicator. All of us we'd be talking about different topics today had Bernie faced Trump in the debate!

 

In the best case scenario the few voters who are up for grabs and don't like both candidates may not vote for Drumpf but they can also stay home, which would be bad for Dems. TURNOUT is the key in this election as it was in 2020...   Oh, and Biden took those 3-4 must-win states by a few thousands of votes! He cannot afford to lose any votes this year! Not showing up because they don't like Biden will also mean all Dems down ballot will suffer. Control of Congress is at stake too in addition to a myriad of other state and local races.

 

If they were still listening.... Biden can perform another great act: convince Justice Sotomayor (age 70 and not in good health) to retire now! The Dems can replace her before they lose the Senate--as this is likely given the map this year for them. If the Repubs win the Senate, the Dems can forget about getting anyone to the SCOTUS. In an ingenious twist, Biden nominates Kamala Harris to the SCOTUS.   This would be a masterful move imho.

Biden's VP Choice Won't Change the Dynamics of the 2020 Election. Any Sensible Adult is Preferrable to the Dangerous, Incompetent, Most-Indecent Current President

 

Biden will announce his VP choice this week, after months of speculation and "advice", which advice is mostly what the "adviser" wants but not based on any evidence that such choice is a "must" or "will bring more votes to the ticket." There's no evidence to suggest that VPs bring any significant boost. They're part of the narrative about the main actor, and even that it's mostly discussed among the elites.

I'm mostly annoyed by those people who proclaim they won't vote for Biden because their preference (Sanders, Warren, or whomever else) didn't get the nomination. Above all, if they are not sufficiently motivated to vote to remove the most dangerous and unqualified president, then they're part of the problem, every problem they want to solve through politics. I question the judgment of such people, especially when they want to talk politics or analyze a situation.

If you're not motivated enough to vote this vile president out of office, along with his kakistocracy regime, then I don't care about your concerns. This is not normal times, and we shouldn't normalize Trump's behavior as another flavor of politics; he's so far out. And, to those who argued, in 2016, the DJT and HRC were more or less the same, you should refrain from making important political decisions. Also, if you don't vote to throw this spoiled child out, then you are NOT a progressive, for you're setting the country to continue sliding backward.

 

Now, I don't think there are many people who will not vote because of a VP choice, as they aren't that many who do vote for a ticket because someone is the VP-designee. I'm talking about significant numbers who can swing a national election, or even a state. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there isn't evidence that this has happened in the last 100 years.

For me, Biden's VP will be the next president, and therefore I want to see a competent person, who has political experience, preferably executive, someone who has won a serious election. My first choice would be Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, and, secondly, Kamala Harris.  But, the bottom line is that I'd vote for Biden, even if he was in a comma, and his VP choice was any sensible adult.

Sanders to Run for Prez in 2020

A socialist from Vermont

I am a Bernie fan. I think he has almost single-handedly moved the Democratic party to the left and made certain topics part of the mainstream, like higher taxes for the rich, pro-environment, universal health care, etc. Of course the conservatives and the advocates of the "donor class" don't like this kind of socialistic talk, but there are now majorities in America that support, well, socialism!

The word socialism may have a negative connotation but mostly with older Americans who experienced the Cold War and communist/socialist dictatorships in the second half of the 20th century. But the world and our country have changed. 

Younger people are more socially-minded. They do want to tax the super rich. They do want social services. They do care about the environment. They do want regulations in the marketplace, consumer protections, etc.

When the Cons point to Venezuela as a bad example of.. socialism, the reply should be, an authoritarian regime can be socialist, or fascist/Nazi (national socialism), or communist, or, capitalist.

Most people are already aware of Canada and ..Denmark and the rest of the Scandinavian countries who practice democratic socialism. These countries have some very desirable & enviable outcomes. They beat us in happiness, quality of life, health care, education, longevity, leisure, etc, so they must be doing something right.

We should be pointing out that all western type countries are liberal-social-democracies. Liberal, because they promote individual freedoms, social because of social safety net (i.e., Social Security), and democratic, because of free expression, etc. The basics are the same, the recipes vary. But, if we want better outcomes, it's time we try what other countries have done to surpass the US in many critical outcomes.

Bernie will be a good addition to the Dem class of presidential candidates, because he'll raise important issues and force the other candidates to respond. Primary voters of both parties are more to the left and right than the general population, so any serious candidate may have to steer to the more extreme wings of their party. However, I think Trump will be the nominee of the Repubs, unless he's indicted and resigns--which is a probability. I don't think he'll be impeached, nor would I advise the Dems to start such process unless they could secure the 67 votes in the Senate required for removal of a president.

On the other hand, the Democratic candidates will veer to the left during the primaries for sure, though I believe the eventual nominee will be the one mostly considered as the stronger candidate to defeat Trump. Who will be the one to cater to the left but also present themselves as one who could get the independent votes, plus excite people to actually get out and vote? Turnout is always the key to success. HRC could have won if more than 70,000 Dem voters in three states had done that. And, yes, Dems had millions more votes--their turnout was lower than four years earlier!

Perhaps, you noticed that I am not expecting Sanders to be the nominee. He is the most progressive, like Senator E. Warren, but I don't think the Dems will take a chance selecting the most progressive candidate, since the base and most independents find the current buffoon in the White House totally unacceptable, they'll opt for a safer choice. I don't think Warren will fare well in the contest. Sanders might, but not her; it just a hunch... they'll be appealing to same group of voters. 

There are two reasons for both of them not being the nominee. One, the Dems want someone who can beat DJT, so they'll go with the safer choice, and two, the age of Bernie (79 on election day), and Warren (71). Oh, Biden too (78). The presidency is very demanding, if, unlike Trump, the CEO of the USA actually works. 

I also think the Dems would like the next Dem prez to be a two-termer, so all three--Sanders, Warren, Biden--have a great disadvantage. It's not impossible but if you're pushing 90...

The Democratic parties have rules that are mostly proportional representation at the convention. It's much easier for someone with even 25% consistent support, in a field of dozens, to win the nomination in a winner-take-all system, like many Republican parties have. This system made it easier for Trump to win, whereas the PR% system allowed Obama to win in 2008. Hillary Clinton won all the big states but didn't win all their delegates.

We have an interesting system of selecting and electing presidents in the US. Until the 1970s and 1980s, the two major political parties decided their nominees mostly within a closed system of party bosses with the general public excluded. After the disaster of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, the Democrats opened up the primaries to regular voters. By the 1980s, the Republicans followed too. This democratic (small "d") development weakened the political parties further--their power had been declining since the 1960s with the emergence of media politics (TV). It also made the process messier and more expensive.  

Each state, plus DC and US territories, have their own parties with their own rules of voting for committed delegates to the national party convention. Most use simple straight voting (also called a primary). Some used a more complicated and time-consuming process, known as a caucus. The national party committees--the DNC and the RNC--control the conventions and decide on the role of the super-delegates, who are party stalwarts, and are not committed to any particular candidate (at least in theory). The Dems reduced their numbers and impact on selecting the nominee.

Anyway, it's going to be very interesting. I see it as the beginning of the end of a very bad choice the country made in 2016.

======
The Faux News network for a long while now is harping about the "coup d'etat" against Trump.... There was no coup. I wonder what the cons would say if Obama had a similar relationship with the Chinese leader, against the advice of his own security agencies, that he was being bribed by foreign countries & persons while running and after being elected president, when dozens of his top people in his campaign and in his close circle were indicted, under investigation, or plead guilty...   When his campaign colluded with the Russians...

Yes, it's reasonable to begin to discuss the possibility of removing a president who may be a foreign agent...

Today we found out that Trump wanted to give nuclear secrets to the Saudis against NSA advice!

The Democrats Make History But Most of the Work Begins Now Until the November Election. Oh, and Trump is a Man-child Loser.

Taking America back to greatness;
ah, the good 'ol times!

We're going to have a woman president for the first time in our nation's history, but this is not the most important reason to look forward to this election and beyond... It's the progressive direction--through executive action and per Supreme Court--that our country will take, and perhaps we may get a modern conservative party instead of this medieval GOP.

Young Trump at the Chipendale auditions.
He didn't make the cut,
because of his small hands.

Polls aren't accurate at this point, though based on several variables--like demographics, and economic indicators--Hillary Clinton should be able to comfortably win this election. I think Trump is not a uniter, and even though many Republicans will fall in line, there won't be a united effort. It looks like 1964 again. If I had to bet right now, I'd say we'll see a repeat of a Lyndon Johnson drubbing of Goldwater. 

One way to look it, though not necessarily a predictor, is whether Trump can do better than Romney 4 years ago. Yeah, you say, but there's no incumbent president and it's not the norm that the same party gets a third presidential term.  However, the economy is doing OK, low unemployment and no inflation, so Trump's argument (which is absolutely bullshit) he can make better deals won't look as credible alternative, especially when more Americans learn about the deals and the scams he's done building his empire.

So, Romney got 59% of the whites to 39% of Obama, and 27% of Latinos. I don't see Trump doing better with these numbers. Then how about the women who are the majority of the voters? In 2012, Obama won the women's vote by 12 points, whereas Romney won the men's vote by 8 points. It's expected that Hillary will get more that 12 points among women voters in 2016.

Images of the Great Leader everywhere in Trumpmurca,
by decree of the Dear Leader.

What's worse for Trump is that where he's very strong doesn't really help him--he may be getting 90% of the white voters in the South, but in many "blue" states he will lose the white vote. The Latino/Hispanic vote will most definitely not be as good as 27% for Trump as it was for Romney. In addition, millions of new Latinos are being registered to vote, and there's a real movement to vote against a bigot like Trump.

KAOS will be defeated

I watched both speeches last night as the two presumptive nominees spoke after their last round of victories. Hillary was amazingly good I thought. Unless you're totally blinded by bias, there's only one person qualified to be president. I'm not talking about policy or ideology; I'm talking about maturity, temperament, and skill.  I think this is the theme Hillary should pursue and not engage in mudslinging; let others attack Trump and get under his skin by talking his language. This doesn't mean that she can't be critical, but she should refrain from making statements like he needs a psychologist to figure out why Trump says whatever... 

Bernie ran a needed campaign but he may have gone a bit too far. Still, he can be a very important player in this election by marshaling his army into a "stop-Trump" movement. He has to tell his supporters that Trump is not an acceptable choice for president, and that the Dems need to take back control of the Senate so he, Sanders as a leader in the Senate, can push through more progressive legislation, and, oh, let's not forget the Supreme Court, where the Dems can confirm liberal judges to the high court. In the next 4 to 8 years, Hillary will nominate at least 2 new justices. The court can finally speed up the progressive direction of our country.

It's a Race Between HR Clinton and B Sanders

As many of you, I'm watching the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, and judging by how the candidates present their case, it's a race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The other three aren't cutting it. They're not saying anything different that the activist base will turn to them instead of the two front runners. And, yes, the delivery matters.

Of course they're all playing to the activist Democratic base, which is the one that will come out in the primaries. Therefore, there's lots of agreement on most issues. The peripheral issues aren't make or break for the people who will decide this primary race, and for more general election voters.

What I like:

BS: "Fraud is a business model" for Wall Street! Break up the humongous banks.

HRC is weak on dealing with Wall Street and big banks, but, she seems comfortable on stage and has command of the issues. Her performance will pay dividends, and if not against Sanders right away, it'll probably make Joe Biden's entry into the race less remote.

BS: If serious change is to happen, millions of people who aren't participating need to come out and vote. This is very true. Many Americans either don't see how politics in DC affect their lives directly or have given up. The system favors the insiders and the elites (usually the same group), but it can respond to popular pressure. The ballot can be an effective way to make the leaders understand what their priorities should be.

Most Americans don't understand our complicated political system. The media don't explain how things work. The candidates don't want to say that no matter what they promise, Congress has to go along. And, Congress isn't elected on a national ticket. Congresspeople represent their districts or states, not necessarily the interests of the country. So, it's very important that a president has the ability to convince--the people, the Congress, political parties, and the media. Popularity matters, but political capital must be spent quickly or it evaporates.




 

Election 2010 and the Aftermath. Much Will Depend on the Learning Curve of President Obama in the Next 2 Years

Probably you've heard that the GOP took control of the House in Congress in a "historic" collapse of the Dems. Nothing unusual really. In the last 80 years, in the first midterm elections the party in the White House always loses seats in Congress. Only twice there was an exception: FDR in 1934 (Great Depression), and GWB in 2002 (War time). 


The opposition is always more energized and it shows at the polls. This election was decided primarily by turnout. The economy and the perception of ineffectiveness/weak leadership were the other reasons.

Did you watch Obama's speech/analysis of this election? “We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done,” What?! No, Mr. President, the Democrats lost because:


1. The economy still sucks even though Wall Street is doing fabulously well. More importantly, you didn't explain to the public that 8 million jobs were lost before you took office; that another 3/4 of a million were lost in the first 3 months after you got into office--before your policies went into effect; that 40% of the stimulus money went to save jobs like school teachers, firefighters, and police. Needed projects to shore up our crumbling infrastructure also helped with keeping unemployment down and stimulating the economy. Same for extending unemployment benefits. Many economist have argued that your stimulus wasn't big enough.


2. That you failed to pass a health care reform bill as you had promised, because you wasted one year trying to convince Republicans to support a watered-down bill (none of them did anyway), and you gave your electoral winnings to DINOs (like Max Baucus) to gamble away. You failed to explain that even this health care bill gives coverage to millions more Americans, prevents insurance companies from capping coverage and dropping people for pre-existing conditions, and allowing students to be under their parents insurance until 27 years old. But, where's the public option? Also, most of the already insured saw their coverage premiums go up.


3. You alienated your progressive and most active political base by scorning groups that raised lots of money for you, hoped you'd end DADT, DOMA, take the country out of 2 wars and bring the troops home.  You took bad advice from people like Rahm Emanuel, who don't understand that progressives may not go to the other side but they can stay home on election day.


4. You didn't push for immigration reform. Hispanics are heavily pro-Democratic but they have to see someone fight for good, sensible, and practical reform of our broken immigration system. 


5. Do you know why you lost the independents' vote? About 20-25% of the independents are "floaters"--move from party to party within a short span of time. Some 10% can be moved by rational arguments, like reasonable people who evaluate the evidence and make a rational decision. Unfortunately, most voters aren't moved by rational arguments. They are moved by impressions, perceived results, and strong leadership.

A Different Electorate

This electorate was older, richer, and whiter. Blacks didn't come out to vote like they did in the past--their percentage in the voting public dropped precipitously. Hispanics didn't vote either in big numbers--except in Nevada! They had a reason there: Sharon Angle and her racist, xenophobic ads.


As for compromise the Dems  and the president are ready to accept, it's a dubious thing. The Repubs aren't interested; their number one priority is to make Obama one-termer! The latter already bought into their talking point: extend the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts will go to the top 2% of Americans and will cost $1 trillion. Sure, cut the government, they say to balance the budget. First, it can't be done--enough of these deficit peacocks. Secondly, what are they going to cut? Seriously? What part of the discretionary budget will they cut? Is the defense budget on the table too? 

Compromise is part of politics. Our own political system is partly the result of a compromise. However, facts are pesky things that get in the way of an opinion. A conversation and possible compromise between rational parties should start on a factual basis. Compromising with the flat earthers by agreeing that the earth is a ..square serves no good purpose.


There are positive outcomes from this election too: The Tea Party as the spoiler to the GOP hopes of capturing the Senate. There will be a fight now between the teabaggers, their supporters and the pragmatists like Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Also, the "blue dogs" Dems were disseminated. If Obama plays it smart--like FDR did in the 1930s--he can blame the conservatives for gridlock and, more importantly, he can point out who's on whose side. Who's is promoting the interest of the people and who's promoting the interests of big business and the rich. Can't wait for another government shutdown... 


I've talked with many people who are disgusted by politics, who believe that our two corporatist parties have the same agenda and it doesn't really make a difference. I share their frustration but I don't share their conclusion. It's beyond obvious to me that elections matter. A preliminary analysis by Think Progress shows:

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of man-made climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

To be continued.....

Vote for Sanity on November 2, 2010

Politics is often the outcome of the possible under the circumstances and the people involved. The outcome can be a compromise that isn't appealing. We progressives have lots to complain about, but, again, what is the alternative? I don't want to say we have to accept what comes our way, but this is a critical election. It won't be the end of the world, obviously, though if the Republicans improve their standing, we'll see more gridlock.

If the GOP wins the House, expect investigations on whether Obama is a ..Muslim non-citizen. Expect more of the same bad ideas and policies that got us into the Great Recession under president Bush. Expect an Extreme Makeover! This article by Think Progress is an eye-opener.
 

• A Judiciary chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who has hinted at impeaching President Obama.
• Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who opposes the existence of the global warming committee he would chair!
• The subcommittee that controls monetary policy would be headed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who has called paper money "nothing short of counterfeiting"
• Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who apologized to BP during the oil spill for a $20 billion "shakedown," would control national energy policy.
• And, several others, like the tea partisans who are running for the House and the Senate; they will obstruct and destroy. The only goal publicly stated will be to make Obama one-term president. "There will be no compromise," is their mantra.

Vote for sanity, because we can't go back to failed policies and have this very conservative and backward-looking Republican party have power. I know, most people are concerned not with happened but with what's ahead and who's going to lead the country into a better place. But, the past tells you where you're coming from, and if it's the ..Dark Ages, you wouldn't want to go back.

I was going to write summary of a very nice article in Rolling Stone magazine titled, The Case for Obama, but you can read it on your own. I recommend it.

This election will be decided on turnout. Only a minority turns out to vote in midterm election, and the more energized side usually wins. The election of 2010 may be decided on local issues and personalities, but it will have huge national political implications. Even though campaigns aren't necessarily about reasonable arguments and intellectual discussions, what we're having today in this polarized country is a choice between insanity and mediocrity, between the nuts and the mainstream, between 19th century ideologues and 21st century pragmatists. Between darkness and 1 photovoltaic watt.  The latter choices aren't the ideal, but I'll take them given the options available to us.

I'm voting for sanity.

Polls Are a Snapshot of the Moment, and Right Now the GOP is Winning the House

An outside observer may wonder how the Democrats, having won overwhelmingly in the last election, can be blamed for a bad economy and government inefficiency. The stimulus money failed to convince Americans that this expensive action was worth it. It's hard to easily demonstrate that things would be worse hadn't been if these monies hadn't been spent. As for the gridlock, well, you know which is the "party of NO."

However, in reality American politics are unique in many ways. One is, that under our system of checks & balances, the lack of (appropriate) accountability. The executive is separate from the legislative branch, hence the President does not control the actions of Congress. Throw into the mix a quirky tradition of the Senate--the filibuster--and you can have a small minority obstructing at will and with impunity. 

Of course, the Republicans were never going to accept president Obama's legitimacy. It's no accident that there are so many "birthers" in the GOP Congressional delegation.  Apparently they're poised to capitalize on the effects of a bad economy--one they helped to create--and weak presidential leadership.

Midterm elections traditionally are bad for the party in the White House. All else being equal, there are a couple factors. One, that the opposition is more energized while the core supporters stay home. Two, the 10-15% of floating non-ideologues and low information voters, who have left Obama's 2008 winning coalition and are generally frustrated with gridlock and lack of clear policy from the administration.

There's a consensus today, as a snapshot of the electoral mood that the Republicans (and their tea party allies) will win enough seats [218 need for majority] in the House to control it. That's unfortunate, but the White House and the Dems hopefully will get the correct message from this: Do not try to win the minds and hearts of those who didn't vote for you in 2008. These voters will never come over. Be true to what Obama-the-candidate ran on, as most of the country still supports that agenda. Show clear objectives and demonstrate strong leadership.

This GOP has no future, unless the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Republicans will soon find out that the tea parties are their greatest enemy, because not only prevents them from winning the Senate this year but also pulling the party further to the right--where most of the country isn't! More on this later..
 

Some Thoughts on this Off-year Election of 2009

I spent last night following the election results. The most interesting outcomes were the 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York, and the referendum in Maine about same-sex marriage. Obviously, I kept checking the numbers from New Jersey; they looked bad for Corzine the moment the polls closed. So, now the Garden State has a Republican for governor. It's been a very tough year for executives, regardless of their political stripes. The Dems had more seats to defend, therefore more to lose--and they did.

I don't think this off-year election can be used as a barometer for the 2010 midterm elections, when the whole House (435) and 1/3 of the US Senate are up for re-election. There will be more serious messages then about Obama's performance, the Dem leadership in Congress, and the shape of the Republican party.

In Washington State, the voters re-affirmed the legal protections & rights the legislature had given to same-sex couples. They don't call it "marriage" but it's close. I don't think it's far when most blue states will move more aggressively in a progressive direction, and it won't be long before we look back and wonder why the hell we didn't move faster--as we look back today and shake our heads in disbelief that states prohibited cross-racial marriages.

However, I think two results from this election have lots to tell us. First, the repealing of the same-sex marriage law in Maine by a small margin. I'm disappointed but there's good news here. The northeast is moving in a progressive direction. Almost half of those who voted are OK with giving same legal rights to homosexuals. In a few years, there will be a solid majority (at least on this progressive issue) in Maine. Students at the University of ME voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the same-sex law. One campus registered 81% support! As older generations expire, the country moves in a more progressive direction. And, this is the problem the Republican party is having nowadays. They're purging the moderates in their midst. When one GOP moderate (through his/her own devices) manages to win public office in the Northeast, the party claims victory. But, it's not the victory that comes out of the conservative ideology and the Republican party's platform.

The GOP seems to be trapped in the southern strategy--which worked for a generation or two, but not anymore. The Republican party is not a national party any more. A governor and a mayor here and there don't make a national party. If, for example, the blue state of NJ wanted the Republicans in charge, they would have thrown out the big Dem majority in the state legislature. They did not. In addition, those Republicans who manage to get elected in the Northeast are rather moderate. The Dem incumbent screws up (especially in a very tough economic environment of today) and the voters replace him with a moderate Republican.

The 23rd CD in NY showed us that the moderate Republicans are the most endangered species. When president Obama chose an upstate moderate Republican to be the Secretary of the Army, the NYS GOP picked another moderate Republican to run in the special election. But, wait, the conservative movement is controlled today by the most extreme, most conservative elements. Thus, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin [do I need to mention more names?] went out of their way to promote one of their own in the 23rd CD. The result was a Dem winning the district. He is the first Dem to represent the district since the 1800s!

Now, I'm not saying the Dem will hold this CD, but this race shows who's in control of the Republican party. It shows the direction is going into. I like it. They think that their ideology or policies [what policies besides "NO" have they proposed since they lost power?!!] aren't the problem. It's the party and the moderates who are responsible for the big defeats in the span of 2 elections, 2006-2008.

There are no Republicans represented in the House of Congress from the six states that comprise New England! Throw in New York state's 29 seats and you get only 2 Repubs. Actually, the Congressional Dems added 2 more seats in yesterday's special election.

On the other hand, I don't have the illusion the country is truly as progressive as some of us would prefer--even though the majority holds progressive ideas on many social issues. These days, we collectively are re-evaluating the role of the government. What is it that the government can do for us? Isn't, after all, our government? Did you see the recently released Prosperity Index? It's very interesting.

Here are the indexes:

• Economic Fundamentals – a growing, sound economy that provides opportunities for wealth creation
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation – an environment friendly to new enterprises and the commercialization of new ideas
• Democratic Institutions – transparent and accountable governing institutions that promote economic growth
• Education – an accessible, high-quality educational system that fosters human development
• Health – the physical well-being of the populace
• Safety and Security – a safe environment in which people can pursue opportunity
• Governance – an honest and effective government that preserves order and encourages productive citizenship
• Personal Freedom – the degree to which individuals can choose the course of their lives
• Social Capital – trustworthiness in relationships and strong communities.

The US ranks 9th.

An Election at the Brink of A Major Political Realignment

<-Air is Running Out for One of These Two Guys...

OK, folks, there's nothing to see here, move on. The third debate has concluded, and as a columnist put it, we've reached the end of a long road of debates, soon to wrap up our even longer campaign season for the presidency. It's not up to the McCain-Palin team anymore. They can't change the dynamics of race to the White House. Maybe I should take this back. They can make it worse for them. Did you see Mac on Letterman? He said he knew the reputation of Sarah Palin. Sounds too highschoolish to me. Those signs their supporters wave, "America First," should serve a reminder to big Mac--that his VP choice shouldn't have been done like his first blind date.

Now the question is whether the US Senate will have a Democratic super-majority. It's almost 50-50 right now. If the Dems get very close to a comfortable majority--especially if conservative icons like McConnell and Dole are defeated--Sen. majority leader, Harry Reid, will be able to get a couple Repubs to stop the filibuster (60 votes needed), and perhaps to jump ship.

Another intriguing scenario is for President Obama (oh, that sounds great, doesn't it?) to appoint Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to a position in his government. Olympia is a fine human being and a very moderate politician who I happen to know and like. She's also a dying species in the GOP, as the latter has turned/surrendered to extremes. I couldn't understand why she has remained in a GOP controlled by the loonies. The Maine gov. is a Dem, and govs appoint people to fill vacant senatorial seats until the next election. BO and the Dems will have the opportunity to do good. On the other hand, they'll have no excuse if they fail. With power comes responsibility. Soon we'll see if they're up to the task.

Leadership is important. A wise leader can steer our ship, elevate the political discourse, focus the attention of the nation on the important issues, etc. Or, not! As we all know from the injurious leadership of the worst president ever!

I'm looking forward to this election with a good feeling that I haven't experienced in a very long time. Last time we thought we'd have excellent chance of winning was in the Clinton years.

But, let me clarify the "we" part. I'm a progressive liberal above all, and I would have liked to see more progressive politicians win. Yet, I understand the country and my fellow Americans... they are more conservative, or middle-of-the-road species. Gradualism (moving slowly, like molasses) isn't attractive either when you want to get to the promised land asap. [this is a metaphor, not a religious reference]

In kindergarten I was taught to compare and contrast. Didn't forget that. By doing so, and assuming some minimum standards are met, I choose to support individuals for leadership positions. Democrats come the closest to my ideology, my views, my aspirations, and the vision for the future. Clinton (and his Democratic Leadership Council) was too conservative, but I understood the big difference between Clinton and any Repub. So, I was elated he won.

Barack Obama holds more promise; I hope he delivers, even though I expect him to disappoint many people when he doesn't deliver all the things they expect and demand. That's politics, especially in a big and diversified country like the US. Our own politician system is designed for gridlock and slow change, though change is not only desirable but also possible under a president who understands the times and manages to steer the country into the right direction. That's very important, more important today since our country has been seriously injured under the tutelage of George Bush and his Republican party! There's simply no margin for errors any more.

A New America

Back in June, I thought [wrote about it on this blog] that there was a good chance this election would produce a new political realignment, and that, unless the Dem nominee committed political suicide, the election wouldn't be close. BO has scratched the surface of the heavy coats of paints piled by the conventional media. There were certain trends going on for a long while in our country, and, finally, BO managed to ride the wave into an seemingly improbable victory in Iowa--a very white state that GW Bush had won in 2004. That demonstrated BO could energize lots of people, many of whom were newcomers to politics. Hundreds of thousands of new voters came out in the middle of winter to participate in the caucuses! This tremendous wave has continued. I don't see why it won't show in the general election too. BO also proved many people wrong (including some of his advisers) that the country wasn't ready to elect a black man president.

The other trend was the Hispanic vote. This block is the new majority of the minorities. It is socially conservative, but issues like immigration and, yes, the economy, has driven it to the Democrats by 2 to 1 margin. This appears to be solidifying. If they stick with the Dem party of a couple more elections, we'll be talking about a huge advantage--bigger than the one the GOP enjoyed via its "Southern strategy."

The country has been undergoing some important trends. Older people with stale views (including racism) have been dying off and the new gens don't have the same racial biases as their parents. Population growth and movements within the country. The GOP has lost ground in some of the "reddest" states that are becoming "purple" if not blue!


There's been a cultural change too. Americans under 40 see the world differently than those over 50. Technology, information explosion, rise of education, peace and relative prosperity, all have been attitude changers. What generational change? Let me give you a great example: Same-sex marriage. While the country overall rejects it, Americans under 30 overwhelmingly approve it, or are not bothered by it.

Studies have shown that if a young person (under 30) votes 2-3 times for the same party then he/she will remain loyal in their later years as well. The young vote (at least the ones that bother to vote) is heavily Democratic today.

Furthermore, in the last 25 years there has been a change regarding:

• The role of government! This has been one fundamental difference between the conservatives and liberals the last 2 centuries. Majorities now want the government to be more active not an impotent observer. The latest excesses of Wall Street and the financial debacle further reinforced this view.

• Moral absolutism is no more! People today more readily accept that as long as others don't trample on their rights, it's OK for others to have their own morality. The government should not be used to impose and intrude.

• The US foreign policy should not be of unilateralism and only via brute force. Bush's disastrous war has divided our friends and united our enemies. Our country's standing in the world has declined. Americans seem to understand this.

These are all progressive views; I just hope the Dem party takes advantage of these trends and finally puts the country on a progressive path for good. I believe that progressive politics are good even for the non-progressives. The conservatives always come late to accept the ideas of liberalism. Most of them accept the ideals that came out of the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and today enjoy the freedoms of liberal democracy!

What I think will happen after the election is that the GOP will go through an identity crisis, because political realignments signal a repudiation of a party's ideology, policy, and leadership. I hope that the Republican party will emerge as a modern party that embraces tolerance, has a modern view of the role of government, and finally rejects ignorance! However, I don't see this happening any time soon. I expect most of the conservatives (like many people do in times of crisis) to fall back on their "tried & true" dogma. It might take another election or two of bad defeats for them to change course and revise their ideology.

Why Obama Will Beat McCain? Here Are Some of the Reasons..

In just over a month the country will elect a new president, but still there's plenty of time for the voters to move or make a decision. I know the chart (on the blog's right column) shows McCain having the advantage in the Electoral College today, but even though I think it's an snapshot, it does not give the complete picture. There have been some nail-biting moments of doubt and conversations among the progressives who are almost convinced that Obama will lose. I think Obama will win this, probably by a more comfortable margin that most people expect today. Let me tell you why.

Sarah Palin. She will be a net negative to the ticket. This will become very clear in the next few weeks as her record and her statements during the campaign (and before) come to light. The debate with Biden hopefully will also show that she's very inexperienced to be presidential material. McCain needed to pick a VP who could take over on day two, if not day one! Obama must exploit this, and connect it to Mac's poor judgment. Whatever motivation the conservatives got from the Obama-Biden ticket cannot match the motivation the progressive had against McBush already. With Sarah added on, then more money and volunteers will go Obama's way. Most voters (60%) think that BO chose Biden because of his qualifications, but Palin was chosen to help Mac win (75%), not for her qualifications (17%). On balance, Palin's negatives will grow at the expense of her positives. I know most people vote for president and not his VP, but the bounce the GOP ticket got post-convention was because of Palin, therefore, this phenomenon will change to Mac trailing BO as before the conventions. Further, I believe that Sarah is a liability and will further damage the ticket.

The Economy. Yes, how can you not think that the Democrats don't have the advantage on this issue? Our government--properly accountable to the people--has a vital role to play in the marketplace. Regulate big business from indulging in excesses that hurt the "average American" the most. This way, and there will be less need to nationalize private businesses, and/or the taxpayer has to bail them out. [The Republican economic plan: socialism for the rich--private profit, social risk--and capitalism for the poor. But, the Dems and especially Obama must draw this connection soon.] "It's the economy, stupid!" Traditionally, the Dems have an advantage when the excesses of the marketplace threatens everyone--and nowadays almost any working person with savings or a pension has a stake in the performance of the marketplace.

New Voters. What's been missing from the polls is the enormous advantage the Obama/Dems have this season. Millions of new Dems have been registered, many are under 35 years old. Quite a few only have a cell phone and can't be polled by traditional landline methods. In addition, there's lots more excitement on the Dem/progressive side. The Repubs/cons got excited with Palin, but they're sensing it now: their ticket isn't going to win. As the gap (national polls) grows between Obama & Mac, many GOPers are more likely to stay home on election day.

Electoral College Map. If Obama is to win, he must carry all the Kerry (2004) states plus some. McCain has not added one Blue state to his column yet. There are a few states that are very competitive for both. However, Mac has not added any; he has lost Iowa already, and he'll probably lose New Mexico and Colorado, possibly Nevada too. In this scenario, if PA returns to the Blue column, Obama wins. Again, in the following weeks, I expect the national polls to show an increasing spread between BO - JM; this will add a few percentage points for BO in the battleground states. It may even turn into a landslide in the Electoral College.

Change. Most Americans by huge margins accept that Obama is the agent of change. This poll confirms that McCain may talk about change but he does not represent true change. Mac has the advantage on "experience" and being the commander-in-chief (especially the latter), but, the way I read it, most of the country wants change in the direction, priorities, and role of government--not merely a change of faces in the White House. Advantage BO. Even though the war is still a big issue, Mac's advantage on military leadership will be trampled by Americans' wish for the war to end. It's been too costly and people know it. I hope the Dems keep making a connection between a bad economy and the war.

"Results from the New York Times/CBS News Poll released Thursday indicate voters view McCain as a "typical Republican" who would continue or expand President Bush's policies. The latest poll found 46 percent of voters thought McCain would continue Bush's policies, while 22 percent indicated they thought he'd be more conservative." UPI/NY Times

Nobody knows the future, especially when there are many fluid factors as they are in an election cycle, but some movements and trends can be identified. We examine the numbers as we have them (subject to mistakes), see the prevailing voters' views, and then make educated guesses. When we want something, really long for it, our judgment may be clouded--I'm aware of this. However, I'm following a reasonable path to forming a conclusion, which is: this election is for Obama to win or lose, and I think he will. Call me on November 5th.


Update, 9/20/08
When I wrote this a couple days earlier, the electoral map (on the right column) showed a McCain advantage, as most others (like CNN's) have the Republican ahead. There's a seesaw race up to this point, but I think this will change to Obama's favor in the next few weeks.

The VP Choices for Barack Obama

A Season for Runners

Next week, Sen. Barack Obama will officially be the Democratic presidential nominee and he'll have a running mate. There's lots of speculation as to his VP pick, but most of the names mentioned are not good choices, like Sen. E. Bayh from Indiana. First principle is do no harm! Obama should choose a VP that will not distract or have "excessive baggage"--sorry, Hilary Clinton is therefore excluded by definition.

However, I don't want to see another Dan Quale, so lightweight that he'll just blow away in eight years--which brings me to my point: Obama should be the beginning of progressive change that will be continued by his VP in 2016! Therefore, this person should be able (age, ability) to continue the course after Obama leaves office.

Another requirement would be that the VP should not be a senator from a state that has a Republican governor. The governors appoint senators until the next election when there's a vacancy. There's a great effort & an opportunity this year to increase the Dem majority in the Senate. Obama should know that much of his success as president will depend on getting legislation through Congress-- this measn both chambers, or there's no deal! Often, this translates into having 60 votes in the Senate to prevent the conservatives from filibustering sensible legislation. The more Dems in the Senate the better the chances for president Obama to get things done, like universal health care.

The other requirement would be to pick someone who is progressive. Don't try to balance the ticket. I don't think this works. It worked with Kennedy-Johnson, but for the most part Americans vote for the president alone, not who's his running mate. Along the same line, I disagree with those pundits that advise Obama to "move to the center." What center?... [The answer in the next post in a couple days.]

Obama's Choices for VP Should be about the Future, not the Past or Present

There's lots of "short lists" for Obama's VP choice floating around, but I don't understand why most of those names appear on such lists. [here's one from Huff Post/MSNBC] I think most of this pre-vetting process has more to do with a show and to keep certain people happy (for being considered), than with reality.

Sen. Obama needs to pick someone to complement the ticket, not bring negatives to it. Furthermore, I hope that Obama picks someone who could be presidential material in eight years--an incumbent VP in 2016 who is progressive enough and will solidify the political realignment & progressive direction of the country.

I'm not ready to make any predictions yet; we'll have a much better understanding of the situation after the convention. I'm cautiously optimistic though, and there are several indicators that point to a historic political realignment about to take place. It's even possible that the election won't even be that close. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves right now.

The VP choice would further give Obama a boost, but he should choose someone who can carry the mantle forward not just a party elder to "anchor" the ticket. Clinton and Gore, both in their 40s, did just fine, so a younger age isn't a problem. The most important thing is to get a VP who can have an active & complementary role in the next administration. This election will be about change, and this can begin with two people who have a similar vision of where the United States should be in the near & foreseeable future. Let's not forget that we don't have much (if any) margin for error anymore thanks to the present gang in the White House.



PS. If it's another Senator, he/she cannot be at the expense of losing a Democratic seat in the Senate! Yes, it is very important the Dems get a serious majority in the upper chamber too, hopefully 60. One of the very first things to do after the election is to kick Lieberman (I/R-CT) out of any position of influence.

Barack Obama Wins The Democratic Presidential Contest! [please, someone tell Sen. Clinton it's over!]

The Democrats Have Selected their Presidential Candidate.

This is a historic moment for the United States, and the first step to changing the direction of our country. Not so long ago, who could have imagined that a Clinton with lots of money, insider support, and "air of inevitability" would be ultimately defeated by a black man with a funny name--Barack Hussein Obama?! That the junior senator from Illinois would be the one to lead the Democratic party to vie for the presidency in 2008?!! This is the time for change, and I mean progressive change!

This contest has been decided today after a long, harsh, but beneficial process. It gave the opportunity to millions of Americans--many new to politics--to participate in an important event, and to many others to get to know the next president of the US. Senator Obama learned a great deal as well from this long campaign--a necessary experience for him to be "vetted" and become a better, formidable candidate.

Hubris

This is an opportunity to celebrate and look ahead with hope. However, there's a sour note in this: Senator Clinton refused to concede! "No decision tonight," she said. I say, what's the point senator? What the hell are you trying to achieve now? This is not about you anymore. The millions of Americans that voted for you are not your property. Thank you for your participation, now be gracious and throw your support behind Sen. Obama! It's over, as it should be. And, please, don't try to fool us by asking your supporters to go to your website to tell you what to do next! You don't know?!! Of course, you do! You still think it's about you, and that you can hold hostage a political party that is so near to winning an extremely important election!

This used to be funny, but I bet it can get ugly if Clinton persists

On the other hand, Sen. Clinton has to look no further than her own speech tonight (6/3/08) to see who should be the next president of the country. Who would implement change and the policies she advocates? Sen. Clinton, to her credit, talked about health care for every American, better opportunities for education, smarter foreign policy in Iraq, medical research, an economy that serves most Americans, stopping the genocide in Darfur, and having pro-environment policies! Also as a pro-choice woman, Hillary knows that the future of the Supreme Court is at stake here--the next president will definitely nominate at least one justice to the high court. Not even for a moment does she think that Sen. McCain would be the better president! If so, she should stop being petulant and selfish, and work hard to elect Obama and as many progressive Democrats to Congress in November!

"Deranged narcissism." CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on Clinton's refusal to concede.

As for the so-called "dream ticket," I don't think it would be a good idea for Obama to offer the VP spot to Clinton, at least not yet. He should take his time, examine the possibilities and potential running mates. He should get a boost in the country after today, and his VP choice should be a gain-only to the ticket. It should be a deliberative choice not one under pressure from the Clinton camp. It'll take a while. Obviously it goes without saying that Sen. Clinton has to "disband her army" and drop her demands--just as she would expect Sen. Obama to do if she had won the contest!



PS>As I've said numerous times in the past few months, I still don't think the Democratic party will get to the Convention in August divided. If I was advising Hillary, I'd tell her to drop this silliness before the party leadership [remember, she doesn't control the party], the activists, the netroots, and many of her own troops come down on her like a ton of bricks.


Update, 6/8
Well, it's done. Hillary Clinton saw the light (that the party would not stand for her ..narcissism) and today she suspended her campaign. According to some reports, she's almost $30 million in the red, so by suspending she can still raise money to pay off her bills. So far, I've predicted correctly that the Dems would finish this selection process in the first week of June, and solidify behind Obama. What's happened so far, it will be ancient history by the time Obama accepts the nomination 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

Obama is Ever so Closer to Clinching the Nomination Outright!

Will the Democrats Come to Their Senses?

As the Democrats deciding what to do with Florida and Michigan, the math as to who will end up with more delegates will not change. I've supported the process and Sen. Clinton's right to fight for the nomination--and for as many delegates as she could get. But, this will have to end this coming week!

Back in August, all the representatives of Clinton to the rules committee agreed to the penalty for any state holding early contest (before Feb. 5th). The sole dissenter was one Obama supporter from Florida. Harold Ickes, chief Clinton campaign strategist was elated back then.

The process, as it was laid out clearly favored Sen. Clinton--she had name recognition and lots of money. A shorter campaign with several bigger media markets upfront favor such a candidate. The idea was to open up the process a little bit, and in order to convince states not to come before Iowa and New Hampshire, the DNC (and the RNC) made it clear that there would be penalties! [even though we have state parties, the national convention is controlled by the national committee]. Clinton believed that this contest would have been wrapped up by mid-Feb, and that she'd be the inevitable winner.

One more thing about the rules. The Clinton campaign has been moving the goal posts and now is trying to change the rules after the game has reached its final minute! Florida and Michigan broke the rules and had been told that if they held their contests before Feb 5th, they would not count. They knew the rules before they decided to break them!

Let's say I'm a Dem voter in one of those two states. I'm told that the contests will not count. I decide to do something else with my time instead of voting in a "meaningless contest." Now, I'm told that the contests would count after all. Whaaaaaaa? How is that fair??!!! I am disenfranchised!

...

Update 5/31 (6:30pm)

There's been a compromise. Both Florida & Michigan delegations (pledged & unpledged) will be seated in full strength at the convention but with half their votes. This deal gives Clinton at least 94.5 more delegates, and Obama 68 more. Most importantly, however, it moves the goalposts to 2118--the number needed to clinch. Obama, therefore, may fall short of this new mark after all the contents are done this week. He may have to rely on more superdelegates' support to clinch... Which probably will happen. On the other hand, Clinton will not have any chance of getting the nomination unless there's a massive movement of the superdelegates to her side--this is not likely since the movement has been consistently in Obama's favor.

I expect lots of activity (public and behind the scenes) this coming week, because it's becoming more apparent that Clinton thinks more of herself than the party and the ultimate goal of stopping a Bush third term in November! This is a serious matter and should not be allowed to fester during the summer. I can see how this perception may become a boomerang against Clinton. The Dems will see that they cannot blow this chance of winning.

I read Ickes's objections today (and from other Clinton reps) as keeping their options open to haul this fight all the way to Denver! This protracted fight should not be allowed to take place. The superdelegates and other party officials should immediately declare that the process has produced a nominee--a person who leads in the delegate count and the popular vote.

This compromise is to the satisfaction of the MI & FL Democratic parties even if the Clinton camp objects! It shows that the Clinton campaign has lost control of the party! It'll be very hard to maintain the same stance ("I'm staying in to fight to the end") until the convention.

By the numbers (5/31/08, 8 pm)

Obama needed 41 delegates to clinch before today, but now needs 64 of the remaining total 291 (pledged & supers). Clinton needs 241. It is estimated that Obama will be able to get 40-45 in the next 3 remaining primaries. That would leave him short of 20-25 only! I think this is a number he'll reach before the week is out. So, 2118 will be achieved before the convention. The only remaining question is whether Sen. Clinton will work for or against the Dems winning the White House this year.

Here's an excellent site that keeps track of all the numbers and dates.

editor's note: the picture is from Black Adder's 4th season, which satyrized the lunacy of WWI.

PS>In another unrelated story about nonsense, some conservatives have found an offensive corporate logo and are asking for a boycott. An American (US) Christian group called The Resistance says the chain's logo has a naked woman on it with her legs "spread like a prostitute... The company might as well call themselves Slutbucks". Starbucks says the image - based on a 16th century Norse design of a mermaid with two-tails - is not inappropriate.

What do you think? I think if you looked at the original logo with a magnifying glass you could see two dots around where the mermaid's tits should be.... not to mention that she's totally naked!.... Damn those ancient Greeks and their nudity, they started it!

Reading the Political Tea Leaves and Seeing Good News!

Just a few things to clarify following the results from Texas, Ohio, R. Island, and Vermont.

• The Democratic contest goes on and this is good for the eventual nominee. It gives him/her the opportunity to set the agenda on the issues and get more public exposure. They learn to fight tough (something they'll need against the Repubs in the Fall), and they get more time to be vetted of issues now that by the time the general election comes around "it's old news."


• The dreaded phone call in the middle of the night could be coming from Bill Clinton calling. Yeap, definitely you need the right person on the other end of the phone line. I suppose part of the advertised experience was hanging around the phone to ring as the First Lady.


• Reminder to Sen. Clinton: A Democrat won those big & important states you're talking about. Your supporters, (and Democrats of all stripes for that matter), will support the eventual Democratic nominee. You'll endorse him and campaign with/for him, right? Democrats have come out in greater numbers than the Republicans even in the so-called red states. That's good news, no? And, it's Obama who brings greater numbers of newcomers & crossovers. In Texas for example, the Democratic primary voters yesterday exceeded John Kerry's total vote in that state in 2004!


• Both Obama and Clinton beat McCain in national polls. Obama does better though. This lead can be solidified unless the Dems make it ugly and manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


• The spilled blood will fade by November. I'm counting on the short memory span and the lack of serious attention by most Americans right now, so unless someone is sent to the hospital, all the bruises will be healed by Nov. 4th.

Guess who's arguing for a third Bush term?

I and others have been crunching the numbers and it seems that Sen. Clinton will not be able to catch up to Sen. Obama's delegate count, even if Michigan and Florida get a re-do. This is because, unlike the Repubs (winner-take-all system), the Dems have a more proportional system, so Clinton will have to be scorring 70% or better in the remaining contests to rise to the top. Obama will win several remaining states and he only needs to keep it close in the ones he'll lose.

Now, the super-delegates will play an important role, but I can hardly see them voting as a block to overturn the elected delegates' verdict. The worst-case scenario would be a repeat of the 1980 Dem convention and the ugly fight between Carter & Kennedy. Unfortunately, both contenders won't give up their fight if they believe they're a few delegates short of winning the nomination. But, I don't see this happening.

Finally, I think it's the Repubs that have the bigger problem. They're not unified and they're not excited about their nominee and their prospects in the general. The vast majority of the Dems (especially outside the small groups of the party activists) like both remaining candidates, and will coalesce behind the nominee. After all, there's a much bigger price out there and they're hungry for it!

The Citizens can be the Winds of Change but Our Next Captain Should Also Have a Good Sense of Direction!

Hopefully in this election, we're changing direction too not just the driver.

Everyone talks about change, but aren't the two winners in New Hampshire part of the establishment? Especially if you see the teams Clinton and McCain have assembled. Anyway, usually I don't really pay much attention to those who say they're for change. Even the conservatives are for change these days--even though the prescribe the same poison as Bush. Unless, someone specifically explains not only what he/she wants to change but also how, then I look for other clues in evaluating the candidate. On the other hand, we have seen real change in these first two presidential contests: a black and a woman have won! Never before such persons had won state presidential contests (for a major party in the US).

The polls got it wrong about the Democratic race. Way off. Now everyone is talking about an upset that Hillary delivered. I see it differently. Clinton was ahead in N. Hampshire by double digits for ever. Obama was poised to deliver an upset after his win in Iowa, but couldn't. The difference (39% to 37%) between Clinton and Obama was very small; a different, harsher weather might have flipped the result. The vote count may be attributed to the independents that chose to boost McCain, perhaps thinking Obama had this thing wrapped up.

The race will go one for a while longer, and in more diverse states. With a Bill Richardson [Hispanic roots] dropping out, the Hispanic vote in Nevada (and elsewhere) will be very important. Here's the Democrats' schedule for the next few weeks:

• Michigan, Jan. 15th
• Nevada, 19th
• South Carolina, 26th
• Florida, 29th
• 23 States, Feb. 5th
  

This site has all the state-by-state count, dates, poll numbers, etc. Great resource.

There's a fight going on, with the Dem. National Comm. (DNC) penalizing Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries so early against the wishes of the DNC, but they are important states in the general election, so the DNC may give in and seat their delegates at the national convention in Denver. Clinton (and anyone with a budget and name recognition) favored a short primary season--the earlier the better. But, I hope this system is re-evaluated, including the order of the states in the process.

I'd prefer a system that gives a chance to candidates who are lesser known, and without big bank accounts. A group of 5-7 small states, on a rotating basis, to start the presidential race for the nomination. Then we should move on to another group of bigger states, and so forth. This way, small and big states could be important players in the process.

Opening up the system with greater access to voting is necessary. Such measures would include, same-day voter registration, absentee balloting (hence, eliminating the caucus!), and, of course, reliable methods of balloting! Those who don't know it, the airwaves belong to the public. Part of the licensing requirements is that media should serve the public interest! Wow, that's a good idea, isn't it? In a democracy, elections are important, just as the need of the public to be informed. Therefore, I'm suggesting a legal obligation of that media to provide free airtime to all candidates who meet some minimum qualifications.

NOW (on PBS) just aired an interesting segment on Dirty Politics. As the South Carolina primary is approaching, watch what happened there a few years ago [when Bush destroyed McCain using dirty tricks].

I clearly dislike dishonest politics, and I do want to see smarter politics, not appeals to the lowest common denominator, use of fear, or campaigns that rely on pushing the emotional buttons. Since I'm not running for public office, I can say that it comes down to the individual citizen to have the interest in the affairs of our country and invest the appropriate time before making his decision at the ballot box. Further, people don't like negative ads, but they exist because they're effective. Let's be honest here, why should it matter if McCain had an Asian child out of wedlock, or Hillary was a lesbian, or Obama Hussein was not a Xtian? [watch NOW's video, link above, on these claims]

To me, it's more relevant to ask a candidate whether he accepts the scientific method, and whether he accepts the theory of evolution or does he prefers something else? Does he confuse the meaning of scientific theory with any view, or a guess, or a feeling? And, whether this candidate will promote creationism, alchemy, astrology, and phrenology...

On the other hand, the public has to have access to information, and the system should provide the framework & the safeguards for free and accurate information. Smarter people produce smarter politics. We should take ownership of our government, should we not?

The quality of government says a great deal about the citizens and the conditions that exist in a particular country. Does it not? Several countries (i.e., in Scandinavia) have managed to have rather efficient government, no serious corruption problems, with strong social safety net, while maintaining a very free & democratic system!

In the US, the Republicans see the government as the problem and the enemy that needs to be "drowned in a bathtub." What kind of a government such a party can run? More often than not, the GOP has no well-laid plans to make the government work for the people. "Cut taxes, cut services, shrink the government," they tell us. No ones likes taxes, but, then, who needs the services government can & should provide?!! Under Bush and the neocons, we've gotten the worst of conservative medicine: they've cut the taxes (guess who's benefited?), cut services, but made the government bigger than ever before! Oh, and they did it while accumulating the biggest debt ever!

Boy, it is time for some radical change around here!


Comics by Ziggy