The Question Now...

The question now is whether Hillary has enough sense to leave now, or whether she stays in the battle and weakens the party.

FROM AP

WASHINGTON - Democratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.

The deal was reached after committee members met privately for more than three hours, trying to hammer out a deal, and announced in a raucous hearing that reflected deep divisions within the party. The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal.

They also agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, according to The Associated Press calculations.

Rules and By-Laws

Today the Democrat's Rules and BY-Laws committee meet to settle the question of the Florida and Michigan primaries which were held in contravention of party rules. The party leadership in both states jumped the gun and scheduled their primaries too early in the political season. Hillary "won" in both Florida and Michigan, but Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan so the people there didn't have a a fair choice.

Hillary wants all the votes apportioned in accordance tot eh results of the votes in those states, but that will never happen. The national leadership must maintain some semblance of order--admittedly, hard for Democrats to do--and so they will compromise and give each delegate only half a vote.

They result will leave Obama with a substantial lead in delegate strength with primary season ending this week. The only question for Hillary is whether to take the classier route and withdraw after the primaries, and thus allow the various factions in the party sufficient time to lick their wounds and rally behind Obama and prepare for the battle with McCain. Hillary's alternative course of action is to keep the pot boiling until the convention in August and wage a floor fight based on two theories. First, she can argue that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at full strength and the delegates apportioned in accordance with the votes in those states. Second, she can argue that as a result of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations at full strength, the number of delegate votes needed for the nomination then increases to 2250 from 2050. If Hillary chooses this latter course of action she will damage the party and what is left of her reputation.

The fact is, the PLEO's who have to vote will run to Obama following the last primary. Politicians never want to be the last aboard the bandwagon, and they see Obama's nomination as being inevitable at this point.

Look for Hillary to bow out in ten days.

Memorial Day

No politics today, as I write to honor those who are currently serving their country in uniform, those who have worn the uniform in the past, those who have been wounded in defense of freedom, and those who have given their lives for that precious ideal.

It is both unfortunate and sad that wars are still fought and that warriors are needed.

However, with every bullet fired, with every bomb dropped, and with every missile launched, we degrade and devalue the holiness and beauty that is inherent in our human existence. Therefore, even through the darkest periods of our existence as a species, we must always aspire to a higher level.

I hope we can eventually earn the peace prophesied by Isaiah and others:

<< Isaiah 2:4 >>

American King James Version
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.


Isaiah 9:5 For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.

Isaiah 9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Isaiah 11:6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together

Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and confidence forever.

Isaiah 32:18 Then my people will live in a peaceful habitation, And in secure dwellings and in undisturbed resting places;

Hosea 2:18 "In that day I will also make a covenant for them With the beasts of the field, The birds of the sky And the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land, And will make them lie down in safety.

Joel 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords And your pruning hooks into spears; Let the weak say, "I am a mighty man."

You've Got to be Carefully Taught

Let's take a look at a couple of items.

I think it is generally agreed that the issues in this election, as of today are: the war, the environment/global warming, the economy-energy, housing, health care, education. And I think that you would agree that the Republicans have made a hash of all of these, close to 4,000 American dead in Iraq, the administration not addressing global warming in a meaningful way, a housing market collapse across the country, etc. etc. and so forth, as they say in The King and I.

These are all real issues that the Democrats can and should own.

The Republicans are bound to counter with their usual assortment of fear items: gay marriage, especially in light of the latest ruling by the California Supreme Court allowing it; illegal immigration and gun control. Not one of these issues impacts on the health of this nation but you can bet that the Republicans will play these cards because they have nothing left after eight years in power and no accomplishments to show the electorate.

This year should be a landslide in favor of the Democrats and, indeed, some pundits are starting to say those words, and they point to the Democratic victories in special congressional election in Louisiana, Mississippi and Indiana, where strong Republican districts elected--GASP!-- DEMOCRATS! But I think that the situation is more complex and not as rosy for the Dems. Let's take a look at some polls.

The electorate believes that the war was unnecessary, has been mishandled, and that we should get out. Take a look at this

Quinnipiac University Poll. May 8-12, 2008. N=1,745 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.4.


.


"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"


.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %


5/8-12/08 29 67 4


10/23-29/07 31 65 4


8/7-13/07 29 67 4


6/5-11/07 25 70 6


4/25 - 5/1/07 31 64 5


.


"Do you think going to war with Iraq was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"


.

Right Wrong Unsure
% % %


5/8-12/08 33 62 5


10/23-29/07 38 55 6


8/7-13/07 35 59 6


6/5-11/07 37 57 7


4/25 - 5/1/07 39 55 6

Nationally, the presumptive Democratic candidate, Barack Obama leads the presumptive Republican candidate, John McCain by single digit margins only. According to an analysis of several different polls and pollsters performed by Real Clear Politics, the margin in Obama's favor is slightly greater that 3%, well within the margin of error for most polls.

Another warning flare for the Democrats has to be this analysis of individual state polls performed by The Votemaster, which shows McCain handily winning 290 electoral votes, more than enough to take the Presidency.

So what is going on here? Why are the Democrats able to make significant inroads on a congressional level into heavily Republican areas while, at the same time, it appears that their candidate for President is in a statistical tie with the Republican candidate on a national basis and losing to him in the Electoral College?

I think several factors are at play. First, many of the issues we face are economic in nature, and Republican districts are showing that the Republican party has failed them here by voting for the Democratic candidate. As Tip O'Neill used to say, "All politics is local." On the other hand the international security issues are still controlled by the Republicans, even though there is great distress over how the war was being conducted.

You cannot discount the canards that the Republicans are spreading about Obama's patriotism and religious affiliations. So many items are being zapped about the Internet attacking Obama for being a Muslim (he isn't) and for not properly displaying appropriate patriotism by wearing an American flag lapel pin (a practice started by the soon to be impeached Richard M. Nixon) or having his hand over heart heart during the playing of the national anthem. All are false issues.

What may give McCain a boost into the Oval Office is simple: racism. Take a look at this article from the Washington Post:

Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause

By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; A01

Danielle Ross was alone in an empty room at the Obama campaign headquarters in Kokomo, Ind., a cellphone in one hand, a voter call list in the other. She was stretched out on the carpeted floor wearing lace-less sky-blue Converses, stories from the trail on her mind. It was the day before Indiana's primary, and she had just been chased by dogs while canvassing in a Kokomo suburb. But that was not the worst thing to occur since she postponed her sophomore year at Middle Tennessee State University, in part to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama.

Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.

"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person," recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."

For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

So while people might express their dissatisfaction with the Republicans by voting for Democrats to preserve their economic interests, they may prefer the Republicans on the national security issues. But it may, in fact, be plain old bigotry that puts John McCain in the White House.

You've got to be carefully taught, indeed.

Michael Writes

I think you may be accused of a poor memory if you do not amend your statement "I can't think of one successful war of independence within the last century that was waged by a people against its own totalitarian regime."

Were the British in India Totalitarian? What about Apartheid in South Africa? The Philippines? I think there are many more and better examples that will crop up if you examine the question.
- Michael

Michael,

Let's examine the question. I established the conditions as follows:

1. It has to occur within the 20th Century;
2. It had to be successful in that it overturned a totalitarian government and replaced it with a long-term, democratic form of government;
3. It had to be waged by a people against its own government.

The British in India were colonial but not totalitarian. Could you possibly imagine Gandhi's March to the Sea under a classic totalitarian government such as the Nazis or Soviets? Further, Indian independence was fought for, and attained, against a foreign colonial power,not a native and indigenous totalitarian regime. Therefore, that does not meet my criterion of "own totalitarian regime."

"The Philippines". Michael, so nice that you just toss this out without any explanation. Are you talking about the Philippine rebellion against Spain in the 19th century? That doesn't meet my threshold of taking place in the 20th century and while the United States certainly was a colonial power in the Philippines, I would not consider its' role that of a totalitarian power as evidenced by the fact that the United States was committed to granting Philippine independence, which originally was to take place in the late 1930s-early 1940s, but which was delayed by World War 2. The United States eventually granted Philippine independence with the successful conclusion of the war. Again, this does not meet the criterion of being fought by a people against its "own totalitarian regime." While Philippine independence took place in the 20th century, it does not meet the threshold of criteria 2 and 3.

South Africa- I would certainly consider the white South African government totalitarian in nature, it was engaged in armed conflict with anti-government forces, and the government was changed to a more democratic form, at least for the time being. There appears to be growing evidence that this nation's government may be tilting in the direction of failure as evidenced by its support of Robert Mugabe's thoroughly totalitarian regime in Zimbabwe. Let's put South Africa on "Pending".

I think a better argument might be made by using the Polish revolution lead by Lech Walesa and his Solidarity movement, which took place prior to the demise of the Soviet superpower and with it, its retreating sphere of influence.

The demise of the Soviet Union was the result of a broad economic collapse. In any event, it now appears that the old Soviet Union, although somewhat diminished in size and reformulated as Russia, has again become totalitarian and under the control of Vladimir Putin of the KGB. Therefor, I would say that the Russian people continue to live under a totalitarian system.

TRM

Tyranny and Freedom in Iraq?

No matter whom you believe, and no matter what you believe to be the proper course of action, one thing is certain: Iraq is a mess.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone who is giving an opinion as all sides have a rooting interest. Leftists delight in the fact that the president was wrong in launching this invasion and occupation. Rightists are like those three monkeys; see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil, as they ignore what seem to be some very harsh realities staring them in the face.

What are those realities? I know only what I read in the papers but here is what I perceive. Iraq is simultaneously engaged in both a war of independence and a civil war. The war of independence is being waged against is past history of tribalism and totalitarianism.

Since its creation by the British from the remnants of the a portion of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in the aftermath of World War Iraq, a collection of disparate tribal entities, has been ruled by military strongmen who have never allowed democracy to take root there. I can't think of one successful war of independence within the last century that was waged by a people against its own totalitarian regime.

Iraq was firmly in the grip of the Saddamists before the Unites States invasion and there was no viable internal opposition to his tyranny. Totalitarian regimes are like that, as their police state sows fear in the heart of the populace while using its powers to crush--murder--any opponents to the regime. What the United States is trying to do at present is to impose a form of democratic republicanism that has not been nourished internally for more than 100 years, if ever. Further, we are trying to do it in an atmosphere where primitive tribal interests and religious imperatives--Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd--overwhelm any desire to define or work for a common "Iraqi" purpose.

Thus, we find ourselves in the middle of a political condition that we are unable to define in a manner that would enable us to exert influence in any real and meaningful way. It is now up to the Iraqis to struggle to set their own agenda. The United states cannot impose its own agenda. Instead, we might be able to quietly influence various factions to promote a stable government as we go about our business of killing the monster we created, Al-Qeuda in Iraq.

This retrenchment of our position will enable us to face the greater threat in the gulf--Iran--and the re-formed Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, respectively.