It is a false statement made by informed people often enough to be presumed to be true; Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States withdraws its military presence from the beleaguered Middle Eastern country.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A Process Compromised
When asked during the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success in recent Democratic primaries, Fox News pollster, conservative political consultant, and Republican loyalist Frank Luntz indicated there were fives reasons accounting for Senator Obama’s accomplishment. Mr. Luntz cleverly called the reasons “The 5 M’s.”[i]
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Still Waters
Former New York congresswoman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro created a firestorm with her comments about current Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. During a newspaper interview in late February, Ms Ferraro said, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”[i]
Her comments are similar to the remarks former Detroit Piston Hall of Fame guard and current failure as team president and coach of the New York Knicks Isiah Thomas made about Boston Celtic great Larry Bird. After a heroic game winning play by the legendary Larry Bird, Thomas said, “I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”[ii]
During an interview the following day, Ms Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”[iii]
It is considered rude in polite society to pass judgment on anyone’s personal appearance, but if Senator Obama was a woman, he would be an ugly transsexual.
It is ironic that at this point in the campaign Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for president. He was not considered black enough in the beginning of the campaign. However, Senator Obama is very fortunate to be running for president of the United States of America at this point in our history because Americans in the 21st century are so enlightened and are free of intolerance, bigotry and racism.
Just ask the factually challenged commentator for Fox News (using the word News in its most diluted context) Bill O’Reilly who was fortunate to have dinner with Reverend Al Sharpton at the famous restaurant Sylvia’s in Harlem in September 2007.
Mr. O’Reilly was amazed African Americans had good manners. On his widely syndicated radio show he said, “I could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it was run by blacks, primarily black patronage… There wasn’t one person screaming, ‘M-fer, I want more ice tea.’ You know, I mean everyone was – it was like going to an Italian restaurant in an all white suburb in the sense people were sitting there, and they were all ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”[iv] Black people acting civilized in a restaurant, who would have ever believed that was possible. Makes you wonder if O’Reilly was aware black people discovered the diverse, practical applications of fire.
Unfortunately for Ms Ferraro, she was branded a racist for her comments. However, Ms Ferraro did not retract her statements and did not apologize. Instead, she defended her statements in another series of interviews. The former candidate for vice president said, “The spin on the words has been that somehow I was addressing his qualifications. I was not. I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country has come out with pride in his historic candidacy and has shown itself in the polls. You’d think he’d say, yes, thank you for doing that. That is the kind of thing that we want to say thank you to the community. Instead, I’m charged with being a racist.”[v]
A white Obama would not be considered a viable candidate, but his skin color and exotic name makes him a feasible candidate. Senator Obama and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. They are ungrateful because they did not thank Ms Ferraro for pointing out the Illinois Senator is the token black candidate in the Democratic Party.
Asked if she regretted making the statements about Senator Obama, Ms Ferraro said, “Absolutely not. I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well. And I’m hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing, spun it to imply that in any way I’m racist.”[vi]
Granted, her remarks are not as sophisticated as presidential puppeteer Karl Rove who in a column for the Wall Street Journal wrote Senator Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.” Or that Senator Obama “is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[vii] A black man who is a lazy, basketball-playing, hustler. I’m surprised Rove did not include in his brilliant observations that Senator Obama was a Colt 45 swilling, watermelon and fried chicken eating, weed smoking, street hustler trying to steal the Democratic nomination from an older white woman.
And it’s not like it ever happened before, for example in 1988 when Ms Ferraro mentioned, “Because of his radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”[viii]
In another interview, Ms Ferraro said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”[ix]
It is a sad day in America when a white person is not allowed to speak freely and elaborately express their opinions about black people without fear of the consequences or repercussions.
Let’s get technical about the term racism before analyzing Ms Ferraro’s ridiculous statements regarding Senator Obama’s good fortune of being a black man with a funny name running for president in the United States. Racism is a codified policy of discrimination against minorities like apartheid in South Africa, or the infamous Jim Crow laws in the south.
Ms Ferraro is not advocating that Senator Obama should not be allowed to run for president because he is black. In addition, she is not arguing people should not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. Ms Ferraro does not have the power to deny Senator Obama the Democratic nomination for president because he is black. On that basis, she is not a racist.
But she is a bigot. Ms Ferraro believes the reason Senator Obama’s campaign has thrived is because he is black. Ms Ferraro statements about Barack Obama can be interpreted to mean he is not qualified to be president.
Ms Ferraro’s statement, (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position), is dangerously similar to the same statement former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president in charge of player personnel Al Campanis said during an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline in April, 1987. Mr. Campanis answered the reason there were no black managers, general managers, or black owners because “I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager or perhaps a general manager.”[x]
Trapped by his bigoted remark, Mr. Campanis attempted to extricate himself by saying, “Well, I don’t say all of them, but certainly they are short. How many quarterbacks do you have, how many pitchers do you have, that are black?”[xi]
Later on in the interview, Mr. Campanis said, “Why are black men or black people not good swimmers? Because they don’t have buoyancy.”[xii]
In Ms Ferraro’s defense, she never said Senator Obama could not float or swim. However, a white Barack Obama would not be considered a quality candidate. The white Obama would not have defeated Senator Clinton in 27 contests.
When she said, “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept,” Ms Ferraro sounds like overbearing conservative talk show host and make-believe football analyst Rush Limbaugh when in October 2003 he made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. “What we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well – black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he did not deserve.”[xiii]
Limbaugh injected his two favorite topics in his football analysis: “Affirmative Action and Liberal Media Bias.” McNabb is an NFL quarterback due to affirmative action and the liberal media elite is rooting for the unqualified black quarterback to succeed in order to alleviate the white man’s guilt over slavery.
Through her histrionics, Ms Ferraro is blaming the media for not being tough with Senator Obama because of the fear of being accused of racism. The media is over compensating its coverage of Senator Obama by not asking hard questions, and not vetting him to the public. As a Clinton supporter, she shares the same frustrations as the Clinton campaign, witnessing a virtual unknown walking away with the presidential nomination. Both are looking for someone to blame, someone to scapegoat for Senator Clinton’s failure to capture the Democratic nomination. Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton have focused on the media.
Ms Ferraro could have made the same argument without mentioning race. She could have said, “He’s young, he’s new, he’s exciting, he’s a great public speaker and people, especially young people, are caught up in the excitement, but Senator Obama’s supporters are not focusing on his inexperience. He’s been in the Senate for only two years, and that is not enough of a track record for a presidential candidate, especially in this very important election with so many important issues the country is facing.” There’s the argument against Senator Obama, and race was not mentioned.
Or Ms Ferraro could have mentioned Senator Obama’s race in the argument without sounding negative. Simply interject in the previous paragraph, “And the country is really excited about electing the first African American as president, but we should not let our excitement cloud our judgment about Senator Obama because he is inexperienced. In this election, our country needs to elect a president with more experience, and I believe Senator Clinton’s experience is greater than Senator Obama’s.”
Ms Ferraro’s comments instantly reminded me of a monologue from the exceptional police drama Homicide. In the episode “Colors,” a Turkish student was drunk and wearing KISS makeup. He mistakenly thought he was at the address of a KISS theme party. A white homeowner killed the Turkish student who would not leave.
The great actor Andre Braugher confronts his partner in the Baltimore Police Department who is the cousin of the white homeowner. He says, “Your cousin’s racism is so deep, so much a part of him that he did not get a chance to think about what he was doing. Jim is worse than a Klansman because at least in their white sheets they are recognizable, but your cousin’s brand of bigotry is much more frightening because like still waters, it runs deep. He doesn’t even see it himself.”[xiv]
Ms Ferraro’s bigotry runs so deep that she is unable to recognize it. Senator Obama has run a race neutral presidential campaign, but unfortunately Ms Ferraro can only see is a black man running for president, and that is truly sad.
Maybe that is the real threat of an Obama campaign for president. Our dirty little secrets, fears, insecurities and hatred will be exposed and on display for the whole world to see. Deep inside we know the still waters of racism run very deep, but we do not want anyone else to see it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us for what we really are, nothing but a backward people, backwater country hicks with nuclear weapons.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ii] Josh Levin, “Follow That Bird,” December 12, 2005.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[iv] Media Matters for America, “O’Reilly Surprised There Was No Difference Between Harlem Restaurant and Other New York Restaurants,” September 21, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vii] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ix] Katherine Q Seelye and Julie Bosman, “Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.
[x] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xi] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xii] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xiii] Richard Sandomir, “Limbaugh Resigns From ESPN’s NFL Show,” New York Times, October 2, 2003.
[xiv] Homicide, “Colors,” April 28, 1995.
Her comments are similar to the remarks former Detroit Piston Hall of Fame guard and current failure as team president and coach of the New York Knicks Isiah Thomas made about Boston Celtic great Larry Bird. After a heroic game winning play by the legendary Larry Bird, Thomas said, “I think Larry is a very, very good basketball player. He’s an exceptional talent, but I have to agree with Rodman. If he were black, he’d be just another good guy.”[ii]
During an interview the following day, Ms Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”[iii]
It is considered rude in polite society to pass judgment on anyone’s personal appearance, but if Senator Obama was a woman, he would be an ugly transsexual.
It is ironic that at this point in the campaign Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man running for president. He was not considered black enough in the beginning of the campaign. However, Senator Obama is very fortunate to be running for president of the United States of America at this point in our history because Americans in the 21st century are so enlightened and are free of intolerance, bigotry and racism.
Just ask the factually challenged commentator for Fox News (using the word News in its most diluted context) Bill O’Reilly who was fortunate to have dinner with Reverend Al Sharpton at the famous restaurant Sylvia’s in Harlem in September 2007.
Mr. O’Reilly was amazed African Americans had good manners. On his widely syndicated radio show he said, “I could not get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it was run by blacks, primarily black patronage… There wasn’t one person screaming, ‘M-fer, I want more ice tea.’ You know, I mean everyone was – it was like going to an Italian restaurant in an all white suburb in the sense people were sitting there, and they were all ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”[iv] Black people acting civilized in a restaurant, who would have ever believed that was possible. Makes you wonder if O’Reilly was aware black people discovered the diverse, practical applications of fire.
Unfortunately for Ms Ferraro, she was branded a racist for her comments. However, Ms Ferraro did not retract her statements and did not apologize. Instead, she defended her statements in another series of interviews. The former candidate for vice president said, “The spin on the words has been that somehow I was addressing his qualifications. I was not. I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country has come out with pride in his historic candidacy and has shown itself in the polls. You’d think he’d say, yes, thank you for doing that. That is the kind of thing that we want to say thank you to the community. Instead, I’m charged with being a racist.”[v]
A white Obama would not be considered a viable candidate, but his skin color and exotic name makes him a feasible candidate. Senator Obama and his supporters should be ashamed of themselves. They are ungrateful because they did not thank Ms Ferraro for pointing out the Illinois Senator is the token black candidate in the Democratic Party.
Asked if she regretted making the statements about Senator Obama, Ms Ferraro said, “Absolutely not. I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I’ve been treated as well. And I’m hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing, spun it to imply that in any way I’m racist.”[vi]
Granted, her remarks are not as sophisticated as presidential puppeteer Karl Rove who in a column for the Wall Street Journal wrote Senator Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.” Or that Senator Obama “is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[vii] A black man who is a lazy, basketball-playing, hustler. I’m surprised Rove did not include in his brilliant observations that Senator Obama was a Colt 45 swilling, watermelon and fried chicken eating, weed smoking, street hustler trying to steal the Democratic nomination from an older white woman.
And it’s not like it ever happened before, for example in 1988 when Ms Ferraro mentioned, “Because of his radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”[viii]
In another interview, Ms Ferraro said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.”[ix]
It is a sad day in America when a white person is not allowed to speak freely and elaborately express their opinions about black people without fear of the consequences or repercussions.
Let’s get technical about the term racism before analyzing Ms Ferraro’s ridiculous statements regarding Senator Obama’s good fortune of being a black man with a funny name running for president in the United States. Racism is a codified policy of discrimination against minorities like apartheid in South Africa, or the infamous Jim Crow laws in the south.
Ms Ferraro is not advocating that Senator Obama should not be allowed to run for president because he is black. In addition, she is not arguing people should not vote for Senator Obama because he is black. Ms Ferraro does not have the power to deny Senator Obama the Democratic nomination for president because he is black. On that basis, she is not a racist.
But she is a bigot. Ms Ferraro believes the reason Senator Obama’s campaign has thrived is because he is black. Ms Ferraro statements about Barack Obama can be interpreted to mean he is not qualified to be president.
Ms Ferraro’s statement, (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position), is dangerously similar to the same statement former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president in charge of player personnel Al Campanis said during an interview with Ted Koppel on Nightline in April, 1987. Mr. Campanis answered the reason there were no black managers, general managers, or black owners because “I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager or perhaps a general manager.”[x]
Trapped by his bigoted remark, Mr. Campanis attempted to extricate himself by saying, “Well, I don’t say all of them, but certainly they are short. How many quarterbacks do you have, how many pitchers do you have, that are black?”[xi]
Later on in the interview, Mr. Campanis said, “Why are black men or black people not good swimmers? Because they don’t have buoyancy.”[xii]
In Ms Ferraro’s defense, she never said Senator Obama could not float or swim. However, a white Barack Obama would not be considered a quality candidate. The white Obama would not have defeated Senator Clinton in 27 contests.
When she said, “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept,” Ms Ferraro sounds like overbearing conservative talk show host and make-believe football analyst Rush Limbaugh when in October 2003 he made a comment about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. “What we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well – black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he did not deserve.”[xiii]
Limbaugh injected his two favorite topics in his football analysis: “Affirmative Action and Liberal Media Bias.” McNabb is an NFL quarterback due to affirmative action and the liberal media elite is rooting for the unqualified black quarterback to succeed in order to alleviate the white man’s guilt over slavery.
Through her histrionics, Ms Ferraro is blaming the media for not being tough with Senator Obama because of the fear of being accused of racism. The media is over compensating its coverage of Senator Obama by not asking hard questions, and not vetting him to the public. As a Clinton supporter, she shares the same frustrations as the Clinton campaign, witnessing a virtual unknown walking away with the presidential nomination. Both are looking for someone to blame, someone to scapegoat for Senator Clinton’s failure to capture the Democratic nomination. Ms Ferraro and Ms Clinton have focused on the media.
Ms Ferraro could have made the same argument without mentioning race. She could have said, “He’s young, he’s new, he’s exciting, he’s a great public speaker and people, especially young people, are caught up in the excitement, but Senator Obama’s supporters are not focusing on his inexperience. He’s been in the Senate for only two years, and that is not enough of a track record for a presidential candidate, especially in this very important election with so many important issues the country is facing.” There’s the argument against Senator Obama, and race was not mentioned.
Or Ms Ferraro could have mentioned Senator Obama’s race in the argument without sounding negative. Simply interject in the previous paragraph, “And the country is really excited about electing the first African American as president, but we should not let our excitement cloud our judgment about Senator Obama because he is inexperienced. In this election, our country needs to elect a president with more experience, and I believe Senator Clinton’s experience is greater than Senator Obama’s.”
Ms Ferraro’s comments instantly reminded me of a monologue from the exceptional police drama Homicide. In the episode “Colors,” a Turkish student was drunk and wearing KISS makeup. He mistakenly thought he was at the address of a KISS theme party. A white homeowner killed the Turkish student who would not leave.
The great actor Andre Braugher confronts his partner in the Baltimore Police Department who is the cousin of the white homeowner. He says, “Your cousin’s racism is so deep, so much a part of him that he did not get a chance to think about what he was doing. Jim is worse than a Klansman because at least in their white sheets they are recognizable, but your cousin’s brand of bigotry is much more frightening because like still waters, it runs deep. He doesn’t even see it himself.”[xiv]
Ms Ferraro’s bigotry runs so deep that she is unable to recognize it. Senator Obama has run a race neutral presidential campaign, but unfortunately Ms Ferraro can only see is a black man running for president, and that is truly sad.
Maybe that is the real threat of an Obama campaign for president. Our dirty little secrets, fears, insecurities and hatred will be exposed and on display for the whole world to see. Deep inside we know the still waters of racism run very deep, but we do not want anyone else to see it. Otherwise, the rest of the world will see us for what we really are, nothing but a backward people, backwater country hicks with nuclear weapons.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ii] Josh Levin, “Follow That Bird,” December 12, 2005.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[iv] Media Matters for America, “O’Reilly Surprised There Was No Difference Between Harlem Restaurant and Other New York Restaurants,” September 21, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[vii] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 12, 2008.
[ix] Katherine Q Seelye and Julie Bosman, “Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign,” New York Times, March 12, 2008.
[x] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xi] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xii] Murray Chass, “Campanis Is Out; Racial Remarks Cited By Dodgers,” New York Times, April 9, 1987.
[xiii] Richard Sandomir, “Limbaugh Resigns From ESPN’s NFL Show,” New York Times, October 2, 2003.
[xiv] Homicide, “Colors,” April 28, 1995.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Lady McClinton
With each passing day, Senator Hillary Clinton is clearly demonstrating characteristics that make her unfit to be president. It’s not just that she refused to admit (at least until the 20th Democratic Presidential debate) that she made a mistake in voting for the authorization to invade Iraq in 2002.
Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.
However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.
After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.
In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]
We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.
Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]
We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.
The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.
Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]
As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]
Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.
Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]
As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]
Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”
Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.
To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.
Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.
Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.
But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.
To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.
Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.
Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?
In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.
Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.
As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
Or that Senator Clinton deliberately misrepresented the Levin Amendment in order to justify her vote authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.
Or that she reneged on her promise not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because the disobedient states ignored the rules of the Democratic National Committee and scheduled their primaries earlier than New Hampshire.
However, after losing primaries and caucuses in several “insignificant” states, Senator Clinton needed to change the narrative of her struggling presidential campaign. She included victories in Michigan (she was the only Democratic candidate on the ballot) and Florida to pad her primary victories resume. Senator Clinton is demanding the delegates from both states be seated at the Democratic National Convention, which would potentially increase her pledged delegate totals.
After ending her losing streak at 12 by winning the Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island primaries, Senator Clinton is arguing that the Democratic Party Superdelegates should correct the mistakes made by the delusional voters who were so overwhelmed by the charisma of Senator Barack Obama that they failed to notice the young Illinois Senator with the Middle Eastern middle name is virtually inexperienced for the demands of the presidency.
In an interview, Ms Clinton stated, “New challenges are being put to my opponent. Superdelegates are supposed to take all of that information on board and they’re supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information… had been available several months ago.” Furthermore, Senator Clinton argues, “That is why we have Superdelegates. Superdelegates were put into this process about 35 or 36 years ago for a purpose. That’s the way the rules are… The voters have said by more than two to one, they want this to go on and they want it to go on they want to make sure we pick the nominee who is best able to win.”[i]
We pause this amusing essay at this time to point out another disingenuous remark by the Senator from New York.
Senator Clinton claims voters by a margin of more than two to one want the nominating process to continue. Senator Clinton won Ohio by 10%, and Texas by 4%, hardly a two to one margin. Her only convincing victory was in Rhode Island, but Rhode Island is a small, insignificant state according to her standard, therefore it does not count.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton’s victory in Texas may have been the result of mischief perpetrated by the Republican Party. Self-absorbed radio talk show host and recovering prescription drug addict Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton. The Republican nomination process was settled. Senator John McCain won the nomination. According to the Limbaugh Effect, as described on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, eight percent of Senator Clinton popular vote consisted of Limbaugh listeners who followed the talk show host’s instructions.[ii]
We now return to “Lady McClinton” already in progress.
The Clinton campaign believes their success in March 4th primaries was due to a television commercial intended to scare Americans into believing Senator Obama is not qualified to answer an ominous telephone call at three o’clock in the morning, therefore he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Another scare tactic was leaking to the media a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional Somali clothes during a trip to Kenya in 2006. It was enough to make you wonder what type of phone call a black man with the middle name Hussein and dressed like that would receive at three o’clock in the morning.
Senator Clinton contends that being married to the Commander in Chief for eight years and traveling to 80 countries in the capacity as First Lady makes her eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief even though her trips around the world during the Clinton presidency were nothing more than “photo ops” and opportunities to have “tea and cookies in those countries.”[iii]
As First Lady, she did not negotiate treaties with foreign governments. Ms Clinton “did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crisis in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.”[iv]
Her most important official role during the Clinton Administration was when she fronted the healthcare initiative. To put this failure in perspective, Ms Clinton was unable to produce an acceptable universal healthcare package when the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It is only a matter a time before the Clinton campaign starts arguing that Chelsea Clinton, current First Lady Laura Bush, the President’s twin daughters Barbara and Jenna, and President Bush’s Scottish terrier Barney are more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama. Unbeknownst to the public, First Pet Barney performs an invaluable role in the Bush Administration. President Bush has stated he will not withdraw from Iraq “even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” In waging an unnecessary and fraudulent war, it is important for the president to have the unequivocal support of his pet. Furthermore, what better ally in the War on Terror than a Scottish terrier.
Senator Clinton argues that Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than her democratic rival. “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander in Chief threshold. And I believe I’ve done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that.”[v]
As a campaign development, her argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Senator Obama is most alarming. Senator Clinton has given the Republican attack machine a gift, an argument that can undermine Senator Obama’s chances of becoming the next president. It is an argument that also disqualifies him for the vice presidency because Mr. Obama lacks experience. At a news conference, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.”[vi]
Senator Clinton betrayed her own political party in order to further her own political career. Her kitchen sink strategy is predicated on diminishing and damaging Senator Obama, not to the voters, but to the Superdelegates. Senator Clinton has to prove to the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election against Senator McCain. This was considered “rat-fucking” during the Nixon presidency. It is also known as the “double cross.”
Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination based on pledged delegates. Senator Obama leads by a comfortable margin of 136 pledged delegates. She cannot win the nomination based on total number of states won during the primaries and caucuses. The Illinois Senator has won 27 contests through March 8, 2008. Ms Clinton has won 14 contests (not including Michigan and Florida). The ambitious Senator from New York may not win the popular vote. Her only alternative is to convince the Superdelegates that Senator Obama cannot win a general election.
To accomplish this goal, Senator Clinton has decided to wage a negative campaign against the young Senator from Illinois – including the argument that Senator McCain is more qualified to be president.
Senator Obama has two options to counter Ms Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy. First, he can counteract with a negative campaign against Senator Clinton, but at the risk of being called a fraud by Ms Clinton and the Mediacracy. Mr. Obama’s campaign is premised on being above the pettiness, nastiness and divisiveness of prior political campaigns. A negative campaign will damage his reputation and campaign narrative.
Second, Senator Obama continues running a positive campaign. Simply ignore Senator Clinton’s damaging attacks. However, Mr. Obama may be perceived as weak, thus reinforcing the perception that he is not tough enough to be president, a premise the Clinton campaign will present to the Superdelegates.
But there is a third option. Senator Obama can make an argument to the Superdelegates that Senator Clinton cannot be trusted. For all intents and purposes, Ms Clinton endorsed Senator McCain for president. If she turned against a fellow Democrat during the presidential campaign, then she is very capable of turning against other Democrats as president. As president, Ms Clinton may have a list of enemies in the Democratic Party who did not support her during the nominating process. Mr. Obama has to convince the Superdelegates that he would be an easier president to work with than Senator Clinton.
To the electorate, Senator Obama can make the following argument: Why are Senator Clinton and Senator McCain so determined from denying me the nomination? Mr. Obama can argue Ms Clinton is colluding with Mr. McCain to prevent him from becoming president. The old style of politics joined forces to keep him out of the White House. Old style politics depends on conflict, which will be the result of a Clinton or McCain presidency. Senator Obama can continue his campaign narrative of bringing a new era of politics.
Furthermore, the Illinois Senator should argue that the Republican Party would prefer to run against Senator Clinton because the Republicans believe she would be easier to defeat in the general election.
Also, Senator Obama can claim Senator Clinton does not value voter participation. Her campaign disparages Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states, calling these states insignificant. Senator Obama can argue Senator Clinton considers voters from small states insignificant. Can you, the voter, support a candidate who considers your vote insignificant?
In addition, Senator Clinton is attempting to nullify the will of the people by appealing to the Superdelegates, thus circumventing their votes.
Adopting this strategy will help Senator Obama’s candidacy because it reinforces his campaign narrative of inclusiveness, uniting the country, and providing hope for a better future.
As for ruthless Senator Clinton, the list of unappealing characteristics continues to grow. She voted for an unnecessary war. The Democratic Party needed a true leader to stop President Bush from launching an unnecessary war against Iraq. Instead, Ms Clinton misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching the war with Iraq. She reneged on her word regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Ms Clinton wants to thwart the will of the voters by having the Superdelegates decide the nominee. The determined Senator betrayed her own party by practically endorsing the Republican nominee over Senator Obama. She is willing and able to fracture the Democratic Party in order to achieve her goal. Do we need any more proof Senator Clinton should not be the Democratic nominee?
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 5, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “The Resume Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady,” The New York Times, December 26, 2007.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, March 6, 2008.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Inevitable Loss
The inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Senator Hillary Clinton is currently campaigning as the candidate with solutions. For her sake, the Senator should hope her math skills have not eroded because her biggest problem will be obtaining the necessary 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, and defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Barack Obama who is currently frontrunner for the presidential nomination. The path to the nomination is now a math problem.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Senator Obama’s delegate projection is 1,275. Senator Clinton’s delegate projection is 1,220. She trails the Illinois Senator by 55 delegates. The Illinois Senator needs 750 delegates to win the nomination. Obama needs to secure 57% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 805 delegates, or 61% of the outstanding delegates to win the nomination. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton surpassed the 55% margin six times, including American Samoa. Senator Obama has exceeded the 55% threshold 14 times.
Currently, Senator Clinton is mired in a prolonged slump, losing eight straight primaries/caucuses to Senator Obama. The Illinois Senator won 22 states. Clinton won 13 contests, however the Senator from New York argues most of the states Senator Obama has won are small and insignificant. Clinton chief campaign strategist Mark Penn argues, “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois.”[i] According to the Clinton campaign, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland are insignificant. Senator Clinton defeated her opponent in California and New York; therefore her victories are more valuable.
At their current pace, neither candidate will have the required 2,025 delegates needed to secure the presidential nomination, however Senator Obama will have a slim lead (1931 – 1876) over Senator Clinton, assuming the candidates split the delegates equally in the remaining contests. It is a generous calculation because the charismatic Senator from Illinois is beating the pantsuit off Senator Clinton. During his current winning streak, Senator Obama’s percentage of the vote routinely exceeded 55%. In the last 10 contests, Clinton surpassed 40% twice. It is a safe bet Senator Clinton will not win the nomination if she loses 30-35 states.
The Clinton campaign devised a new winning strategy. Just stay close to Senator Obama until the Democratic National Convention in August. President Clinton will attempt to seduce the undecided super delegates with his unique oratory skills. The super delegates will provide Senator Clinton with the margin of victory.
The concept of the super delegate is a creation of the Democratic Party establishment to correct a flaw in the nominating process. The flaw is the power of the voters to choose a satisfactory candidate who they believe is most likely to win the general election.
In 1968, the Democratic Party removed the party bosses from the process of selecting the nominee. The liberal, activist base of the Democratic Party seized control of the process. However, the party establishment became disenchanted with the nominees in 1972 and 1976. Blowout loses tend to create disenchantment. President Nixon trounced Senator McGovern. Ronald Reagan routed President Carter in 1980.
The super delegates were introduced in the 1984 campaign. Vice President Walter Mondale was the immediate beneficiary of the new process, defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Gary Hart. Super delegates are supposed to be a reliable method of preventing unelectable liberal candidates from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.
Depending on super delegates is not “Plan A.” The Clinton campaign was predicated on the notion that the nomination process would be completed by the Super Tuesday primaries. In December, Senator Clinton declared, “I have a campaign that’s poised and ready for the long term. We’re competing everywhere through February 5th… So I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll all be over by February 5th.”[ii] Senator Clinton was the odds on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. With President Bush’s disastrous presidential term coming to an appreciative end, she was practically planning what pantsuit to wear on Inauguration Day.
It was the Spanish poet, essayist, novelist, philosopher George Santayana who uttered the famous quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Senator Clinton adopted President Bush’s winning strategy in 2000, to have someone other than the voters decide the outcome of an election. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court. In 2008, it will be the “Super Delegates.”
Perhaps Ms Clinton was so obsessed with her own election to the United States Senate in 2000 that she forgot the repercussions of the Supreme Court selecting Governor Bush as president. Senator Clinton is risking the legitimacy of her candidacy by having the Democratic Party elite select the next presidential nominee. She is in danger of alienating new voters, African Americans, independents, moderate Republicans, and the liberal base of the party. The Democratic National Convention is in August. If she walks away with the nomination even though she lost the popular vote, the majority of the states, and is behind the delegate count, then will face a hostile electorate in November. Senator Clinton may not have enough time to repair the damage caused by usurping the will of the voters.
The Clinton perception of campaigns as adversarial, nasty, and brutal affects their political judgment. Their strategy is to win with 50% + 1 of the electorate. Just win with a simple majority, get elected, then govern with the same mindset. Work enough to just win, instead of trying to overwhelm the opposition. Politics is a constant struggle – a jihad to use another term. The Clintons approach to governing is the constant struggle between them and the opposition.
The Clinton War Room was based on the need to quickly respond to attacks from the Republican Party. Granted the Republican Party is prone to manufacturing controversies, but the War Room served another function. Bill Clinton is an accomplished politician, but a flawed human being. Allegations of womanizing were expected. The War Room served to counter the allegations of womanizing.
To the Clintons, landslide victories are anomalies. That is why Senator Clinton can blithely dismiss Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states with insignificant Electoral College votes because these states are unworthy of attention. Bigger states matter more than smaller states because the reward is greater. She would gladly concede these smaller states to the Republican Party as long as she can win the bigger states in the general election. Their primary concern is winning 270 electoral votes.
However, Senator Clinton does not understand the electorate. Voters expect more. It wants unity instead of constant struggle. Senator Obama is running a presidential campaign in all 50 states. Every vote matters to his candidacy. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can get votes anywhere. In contrast, the Clinton campaign opened offices in Texas and Ohio this past week.[iii] Their campaign methodology did not extend beyond Super Tuesday. This is a challenge the Clintons were not expecting and are not prepared to contest.
Senator Clinton’s journey to the White House has not been smooth. She lost the Iowa Caucuses, was almost reduced to tears in New Hampshire, then witnessed former President Clinton inject race into the South Carolina primary, and she lost in 22 insignificant states. Senator Obama wants to introduce a change in attitude in Washington DC. Senator Clinton is reduced to constantly changing campaign strategies.
Desperation leads to bad judgment. Senator Clinton is running an anti-hope campaign to counter Senator Obama’s positive campaign for change. Senator Clinton argues Senator Obama just sounds pretty, but does not propose solutions to our problems. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescription or do anything about the stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That’s the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions.”[iv]
Clinton campaign flack Howard Wolfson advanced a new negative tactic by labeling Obama a plagiarist in an attempt to tarnish the gifted Senator’s image. His candidacy is fundamentally premised on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises… So when he is found lifting the rhetoric from another politician, it calls into question the premise of the candidacy.”[v]
In addition, Senator Clinton argues that talk is cheap. Being married to President Clinton makes her an expert on politicians who like to talk and make promises. Remember, “I feel your pain?”
Senator Clinton ignores American history when she claims talk is cheap. President Roosevelt was not being a Pollyanna when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” President Kennedy was not being cynical when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can you do for you country.” The Reverend Martin Luther King was not being naive when he delivered the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. In his last speech as president, Eisenhower was not being an alarmist when he warned against the growing influence of the military industrial complex in the political process.
Speeches matter because it sets the tone of the debate. Ms Clinton argues she has 35 years of experience. She is ready to be president from day one. The Senator fails to understand that she is not interviewing for a job. She is campaigning for the presidency. Proclaiming, “I am ready” does not set a tone, or a mood. Leaders need to inspire.
Talk is cheap only when you are unable to enunciate an idea clearly, like Senator Clinton’s inability to create an effective campaign slogan. Even campaign flack Howard Wolfson agrees that Senator Clinton is rhetorically challenged. “Senator Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.”[vi]
Now she is the problem solver “because there’s a big difference between making speeches and offering solutions.”[vii] Offering solutions is the latest is a series of bumper sticker slogans the Clinton campaign has recited like “Big Challenges, Real Solutions,” or “Working for Change, Working for You” or “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead,” and lately “Solutions for America.”[viii]
Senator Clinton presidential campaign recently encountered financial difficulty. Maybe that is where the Clintons spent the money. Printing new bumper stickers and placards can be expensive.
Senator Clinton continues to make errors during the presidential campaign. She intends to make a valiant stand in the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. The Senator should consider a campaign rally in The Alamo for metaphorical effect.
Her strategy is flawed because she is ignoring Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. This error is not unprecedented. Mayor Giuliani thought he could start his presidential campaign in Florida after bypassing Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. This strategy did not work for America’s Mayor.
Attacking Senator Obama is another failed strategy. It started in December 2007 when the Clinton campaign attempted to argue Obama was disingenuous when he said he never planned to run for president. Through hard work, the Clinton campaign uncovered essays titled “I Want to be President” written by the precocious Barack Obama as a child in the third grade and in kindergarten.
Negative attacks make her campaign appear petty. Attacking Obama reinforces the notion that Senator Clinton is incapable of changing “politics as usual” in Washington. Recently she joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in attacking Obama. Both claim the Illinois Senator is changing his position regarding public funding during the general election. A Democratic candidate is coordinating attacks with the Republican nominee against her Democratic rival. According to Senator Clinton, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Senator Clinton needs to employ a different strategy. She should run a positive campaign, emphasizing the policy differences between Obama and herself. She needs to run competitive races in Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Ms Clinton cannot afford to concede the smaller states to Senator Obama. At best, Senator Clinton may secure 300 to 350 delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She will still need another 455 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama will win the nomination if Clinton disregards the remaining 962 delegates.
Senator Clinton overestimated her inevitability as a candidate. Inevitability has limits. She indubitably accepted the premise that the nomination was hers. The Clinton campaign took the process for granted. That was the biggest mistake, besides her inability to add.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, February 17, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[iv] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[v] Thomas DeFrank and Michael Saul, “Hillary Cries Plagiarism and Barack Sez She Has Borrowed Words From Him,” New York Daily News, February 19, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 18, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[viii] E.J. Dionne, “How Inevitable Got Outmaneuvered,” The Washington Post, February 15, 2008.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Senator Obama’s delegate projection is 1,275. Senator Clinton’s delegate projection is 1,220. She trails the Illinois Senator by 55 delegates. The Illinois Senator needs 750 delegates to win the nomination. Obama needs to secure 57% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 805 delegates, or 61% of the outstanding delegates to win the nomination. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton surpassed the 55% margin six times, including American Samoa. Senator Obama has exceeded the 55% threshold 14 times.
Currently, Senator Clinton is mired in a prolonged slump, losing eight straight primaries/caucuses to Senator Obama. The Illinois Senator won 22 states. Clinton won 13 contests, however the Senator from New York argues most of the states Senator Obama has won are small and insignificant. Clinton chief campaign strategist Mark Penn argues, “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois.”[i] According to the Clinton campaign, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland are insignificant. Senator Clinton defeated her opponent in California and New York; therefore her victories are more valuable.
At their current pace, neither candidate will have the required 2,025 delegates needed to secure the presidential nomination, however Senator Obama will have a slim lead (1931 – 1876) over Senator Clinton, assuming the candidates split the delegates equally in the remaining contests. It is a generous calculation because the charismatic Senator from Illinois is beating the pantsuit off Senator Clinton. During his current winning streak, Senator Obama’s percentage of the vote routinely exceeded 55%. In the last 10 contests, Clinton surpassed 40% twice. It is a safe bet Senator Clinton will not win the nomination if she loses 30-35 states.
The Clinton campaign devised a new winning strategy. Just stay close to Senator Obama until the Democratic National Convention in August. President Clinton will attempt to seduce the undecided super delegates with his unique oratory skills. The super delegates will provide Senator Clinton with the margin of victory.
The concept of the super delegate is a creation of the Democratic Party establishment to correct a flaw in the nominating process. The flaw is the power of the voters to choose a satisfactory candidate who they believe is most likely to win the general election.
In 1968, the Democratic Party removed the party bosses from the process of selecting the nominee. The liberal, activist base of the Democratic Party seized control of the process. However, the party establishment became disenchanted with the nominees in 1972 and 1976. Blowout loses tend to create disenchantment. President Nixon trounced Senator McGovern. Ronald Reagan routed President Carter in 1980.
The super delegates were introduced in the 1984 campaign. Vice President Walter Mondale was the immediate beneficiary of the new process, defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Gary Hart. Super delegates are supposed to be a reliable method of preventing unelectable liberal candidates from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.
Depending on super delegates is not “Plan A.” The Clinton campaign was predicated on the notion that the nomination process would be completed by the Super Tuesday primaries. In December, Senator Clinton declared, “I have a campaign that’s poised and ready for the long term. We’re competing everywhere through February 5th… So I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll all be over by February 5th.”[ii] Senator Clinton was the odds on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. With President Bush’s disastrous presidential term coming to an appreciative end, she was practically planning what pantsuit to wear on Inauguration Day.
It was the Spanish poet, essayist, novelist, philosopher George Santayana who uttered the famous quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Senator Clinton adopted President Bush’s winning strategy in 2000, to have someone other than the voters decide the outcome of an election. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court. In 2008, it will be the “Super Delegates.”
Perhaps Ms Clinton was so obsessed with her own election to the United States Senate in 2000 that she forgot the repercussions of the Supreme Court selecting Governor Bush as president. Senator Clinton is risking the legitimacy of her candidacy by having the Democratic Party elite select the next presidential nominee. She is in danger of alienating new voters, African Americans, independents, moderate Republicans, and the liberal base of the party. The Democratic National Convention is in August. If she walks away with the nomination even though she lost the popular vote, the majority of the states, and is behind the delegate count, then will face a hostile electorate in November. Senator Clinton may not have enough time to repair the damage caused by usurping the will of the voters.
The Clinton perception of campaigns as adversarial, nasty, and brutal affects their political judgment. Their strategy is to win with 50% + 1 of the electorate. Just win with a simple majority, get elected, then govern with the same mindset. Work enough to just win, instead of trying to overwhelm the opposition. Politics is a constant struggle – a jihad to use another term. The Clintons approach to governing is the constant struggle between them and the opposition.
The Clinton War Room was based on the need to quickly respond to attacks from the Republican Party. Granted the Republican Party is prone to manufacturing controversies, but the War Room served another function. Bill Clinton is an accomplished politician, but a flawed human being. Allegations of womanizing were expected. The War Room served to counter the allegations of womanizing.
To the Clintons, landslide victories are anomalies. That is why Senator Clinton can blithely dismiss Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states with insignificant Electoral College votes because these states are unworthy of attention. Bigger states matter more than smaller states because the reward is greater. She would gladly concede these smaller states to the Republican Party as long as she can win the bigger states in the general election. Their primary concern is winning 270 electoral votes.
However, Senator Clinton does not understand the electorate. Voters expect more. It wants unity instead of constant struggle. Senator Obama is running a presidential campaign in all 50 states. Every vote matters to his candidacy. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can get votes anywhere. In contrast, the Clinton campaign opened offices in Texas and Ohio this past week.[iii] Their campaign methodology did not extend beyond Super Tuesday. This is a challenge the Clintons were not expecting and are not prepared to contest.
Senator Clinton’s journey to the White House has not been smooth. She lost the Iowa Caucuses, was almost reduced to tears in New Hampshire, then witnessed former President Clinton inject race into the South Carolina primary, and she lost in 22 insignificant states. Senator Obama wants to introduce a change in attitude in Washington DC. Senator Clinton is reduced to constantly changing campaign strategies.
Desperation leads to bad judgment. Senator Clinton is running an anti-hope campaign to counter Senator Obama’s positive campaign for change. Senator Clinton argues Senator Obama just sounds pretty, but does not propose solutions to our problems. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescription or do anything about the stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That’s the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions.”[iv]
Clinton campaign flack Howard Wolfson advanced a new negative tactic by labeling Obama a plagiarist in an attempt to tarnish the gifted Senator’s image. His candidacy is fundamentally premised on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises… So when he is found lifting the rhetoric from another politician, it calls into question the premise of the candidacy.”[v]
In addition, Senator Clinton argues that talk is cheap. Being married to President Clinton makes her an expert on politicians who like to talk and make promises. Remember, “I feel your pain?”
Senator Clinton ignores American history when she claims talk is cheap. President Roosevelt was not being a Pollyanna when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” President Kennedy was not being cynical when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can you do for you country.” The Reverend Martin Luther King was not being naive when he delivered the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. In his last speech as president, Eisenhower was not being an alarmist when he warned against the growing influence of the military industrial complex in the political process.
Speeches matter because it sets the tone of the debate. Ms Clinton argues she has 35 years of experience. She is ready to be president from day one. The Senator fails to understand that she is not interviewing for a job. She is campaigning for the presidency. Proclaiming, “I am ready” does not set a tone, or a mood. Leaders need to inspire.
Talk is cheap only when you are unable to enunciate an idea clearly, like Senator Clinton’s inability to create an effective campaign slogan. Even campaign flack Howard Wolfson agrees that Senator Clinton is rhetorically challenged. “Senator Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.”[vi]
Now she is the problem solver “because there’s a big difference between making speeches and offering solutions.”[vii] Offering solutions is the latest is a series of bumper sticker slogans the Clinton campaign has recited like “Big Challenges, Real Solutions,” or “Working for Change, Working for You” or “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead,” and lately “Solutions for America.”[viii]
Senator Clinton presidential campaign recently encountered financial difficulty. Maybe that is where the Clintons spent the money. Printing new bumper stickers and placards can be expensive.
Senator Clinton continues to make errors during the presidential campaign. She intends to make a valiant stand in the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. The Senator should consider a campaign rally in The Alamo for metaphorical effect.
Her strategy is flawed because she is ignoring Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. This error is not unprecedented. Mayor Giuliani thought he could start his presidential campaign in Florida after bypassing Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. This strategy did not work for America’s Mayor.
Attacking Senator Obama is another failed strategy. It started in December 2007 when the Clinton campaign attempted to argue Obama was disingenuous when he said he never planned to run for president. Through hard work, the Clinton campaign uncovered essays titled “I Want to be President” written by the precocious Barack Obama as a child in the third grade and in kindergarten.
Negative attacks make her campaign appear petty. Attacking Obama reinforces the notion that Senator Clinton is incapable of changing “politics as usual” in Washington. Recently she joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in attacking Obama. Both claim the Illinois Senator is changing his position regarding public funding during the general election. A Democratic candidate is coordinating attacks with the Republican nominee against her Democratic rival. According to Senator Clinton, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Senator Clinton needs to employ a different strategy. She should run a positive campaign, emphasizing the policy differences between Obama and herself. She needs to run competitive races in Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Ms Clinton cannot afford to concede the smaller states to Senator Obama. At best, Senator Clinton may secure 300 to 350 delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She will still need another 455 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama will win the nomination if Clinton disregards the remaining 962 delegates.
Senator Clinton overestimated her inevitability as a candidate. Inevitability has limits. She indubitably accepted the premise that the nomination was hers. The Clinton campaign took the process for granted. That was the biggest mistake, besides her inability to add.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, February 17, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[iv] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[v] Thomas DeFrank and Michael Saul, “Hillary Cries Plagiarism and Barack Sez She Has Borrowed Words From Him,” New York Daily News, February 19, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 18, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[viii] E.J. Dionne, “How Inevitable Got Outmaneuvered,” The Washington Post, February 15, 2008.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Because We Need The Eggs
Unfortunately the political evolutionary process triumphed by thinning the herd of Democratic Party presidential contenders before the primaries arrived to the great state of New York. Experienced and principled candidates such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards were forced to drop out of contention due to lack of support, but more importantly lack of campaign funds. Not only were these candidates the victim of a political form of evolution, but also by the “invisible hand” of the free market. Money, or lack thereof, talked. Free speech indeed.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Last Campaign of Mayor 9/11
America’s Mayor lackluster campaign for the Republican nomination for president ended after a disappointing third place finish in the Florida primaries. Just as famed Spanish Conquistador Juan Pone de Leon died while seeking the mystical Fountain of Youth in Florida, Rudolph Giuliani’s political campaign died a premature death in Florida in search of that elusive first victory in the 2008 Republican Presidential campaign.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
