Why Obama can WIN

Barack Obama can win in November over John McCain for one simple reason: he offers the one thing people have been clamoring for, and never recieved -- an actual choice.

Assume for a minute that the Clintons cease shilling for John McBush, and the Democrats can find a way to bring Michigan and Florida back into the fold, thus increasing the chances that the party can win. Further assume that Al Sadr is politically astute (as he has shown himself to be) and he ends the “truce” he’s kept his people under in Sadr City. Finally, assume that the Fed continues its disastrous path of bailing out investment banks with no additional regulation.

Now, flip to July.

Gas is $4.00/gallon. Unemployment is up. More people have walked away from their homes or been foreclosed upon. Food prices are doing what they did in the late 70’s when prices rose seemingly by the hour. The streets of Iraq are running red with blood at a level which makes Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds seem tame by comparison. More of the Antarctic ice shelf has dissipated and chunked off.

John and Barack have a debate.

By the summer, the economy might be more of a news story then it is now. Sure, it’s a story with legs, but the media likes the political sniping better. But by summer, it will be pretty bad. And McBush will likely be on the same page that he was on yesterday: he doesn’t know, he’s hoping someone will give him an answer. (Check out the teleprompter story from yesterday for the details.) Obama will present the ideas he’s already come out with: new green jobs, a modified WPA to rebuild our infrastructure, new training programs, FAIR trade instead of “free” trade, and a renegotiation of NAFTA and CAFTA. Because the campaign personnel are smart, they will likely recommend the kind of banking oversight for the private banks that saved the commercial banks in the ‘30’s (which is actually the only hope the financial markets have).

With the Iraq surge the same level of fiasco as the rest of the war has been, McBush will still be pushing that we stay for 100 years, and Obama will be pushing a path to bringing the kids home.

Stark.

But there are also fundamental differences -- the biggest one has to do with ethics. The Wright thing might continue on, but even the people who find Obama’s responses to be unacceptable cannot deny that he did face the issue head on. He didn’t deny he knew the man. He didn’t deny that he was there in the pews. By summer, when the press is more focused on McBush, his ethics violations will come out, and all will see more proof of his being in bed (literally and figuratively) with the Telecom lobby his Commerce Committee is charged with overseeing.

The money issue will resurface, and Obama is clean. No beholden monies, no PAC money, no lobbyist money. Stark, stark contrast to both McBush and the Clintons. A money flow from regular people, most of whom give less than $50 at a time.

There are many who say that Obama cannot win because of the number of people who will not pull the lever for a black man. That thought repulses me to my very essence. But I know there is SOME truth to it. I’ve had it virtually spat in my face. True vitriol from low lifes too stupid to evaluate people AS people. Horrible sub-humans that continue to spread lies about Obama just because he is half-black.

But I believe that in the end, self-interest will trump malevolence. For racism is the sole thing that people can have against Obama. I believe that even the morons will come to see that hate is a zero sum game, and that “together” can lead to win-win.

Further, there is the map issue. There are states that are “true blue” which will vote Democratic no matter what. NY, CA, MA, MN and a long list of others. They could as much go red as I could. There is a lot often said about Florida -- and no, Obama can’t take Florida. Neither could Clinton, neither did Kerry nor Gore -- so just mark that off the list, and add in the states that Obama CAN take which Clinton cannot: New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, and yes, even Michigan. SUSA has done the maps, and I’ve referred to them before. The Obama map is 290 Electoral Votes. And yes, that’s a win.

Next, there is the issue of coattails. It is important for the Democrats to win not only the White House this year, but to continue the increases in the House and the Senate. We have a clear shot at an unheard of 30 House seats. Plus Senate seats in MN, NM, CO, NH, and ME. They win bigger with the ticket headed by someone who will bring out the vote. Remember, the Clintons in 92, 96 and 98 had NO coattails, and in 94 caused (due mostly to the Hillary health care plan) the greatest House seat loss in history.

And finally, I know Obama can win because I work the campaign. I’ve lost count of how many campaigns I’ve worked - but this is truly different. People, who never in the past wanted to be involved, now enthused. I know Republicans (smart, decent people with whom I generally have philosophical differences, but they ARE smart and decent) and they are considering voting for Obama as their first Democrat. Obama runs a huge campaign, and the campaign runs better than any other. If this is how he runs a campaign, there is hope for the human mass we refer to as “government bureaucracy.”

Everyone touched by the campaign will tell you that this is different, this is hope, this is the legitimate chance for a better future for which we’ve been waiting. And once he is the nominee, more people will see that. And the country will be better for his leadership.

And as for winning the nomination -- yesterday, ABC news quoted a DNC member (and SuperDelegate) as saying Hillary Clinton was now playing Tonya Harding. Her last hope is to knee-cap Obama. Some say she is attempting to put a stake through the Democratic Party (okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I say that too) but my new take is that people ask if he’s battle-tested, ready to lead, able to take what the Republicans will throw at him in the general. I answer -- since he can survive the Clintons, he’s already seen the worst. I don’t know that she’s Tonya, but she’s certainly taking a page from Karl Rove’s playbook.

Bring it on.

Electability Redux

This is my third shot at the electability issue. The first, 1200-word, essay was a personal one on why I am supporting Obama. The second was a mathematical treatise on voter turnout statistics and a state-by-state data set on who could win what. Neither published because they didn’t speak anywhere near succinctly to the base issue à why Hillary Clinton cannot win the General Election, no matter what.

The context is all the people I know here in Pennsylvania (and in North Carolina) who are considering who to vote for in the primary EXCLUSIVELY on who gives the Democrats the better shot in November.

So, as briefly as possible, here is why she CANNOT win.

1. Voter Turnout: HUGE this year. Biggest ever. A lot of these people are engaged in the process this year for the first time. When June 4^th comes, and Obama is winning by 500,000 popular votes, and has won the states and territories 32 to 18, and the pledged delegate count by 150, they will expect that he has won the nomination. If it is stolen by a group of party elders, they will stay home in November. (I will spare you the “turn out the others” discussion, but at base, it says that 70% of the November electorate will vote Democratic or Republican based on muscle memory -- it’s that last group of new voters and independents and moderate party switchers that actually decide an election.) If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this: if you belonged to an organization, be it the 5^th grade class, B’Nai Brith, CYO, Sierra Club or WHATEVER and they held an election where someone won 65 to 35 and they gave the person who won the 35 the nod, would you want to continue your participation?

2. The Lies: Clinton’s campaign strategy is founded on “experience”. She had no portfolio nor security clearance at the White House. That trip under “sniper fire” in the Balkans? Complete falsehood. Peace in Northern Ireland? Didn’t happen. The recently released daily diaries (yes, they’re available, and I only skimmed them) show a typical first lady setting up photo ops and luncheons. NOT some great participation level after the health care fiasco. The Republicans will end up showing that in the 8 years she has been in the Senate (which she rarely mentions) she sheparded two (ONLY 2) pieces of legislation through the Senate. Same number as Obama in 2 years. That’s it for 8 years. Oh, and the Iraq vote….And the McBush campaign will likely bring out the donation issues to this campaign -- the donor list is interesting, and the Clinton money from Bill’s income isn’t going to play well either, if they ever release their tax forms. I say “likely” because McBush has his own issues -- including the fact that he’s going to get dinged by the Ethics Committee for cheating them out of $285,000 LAST WEEK relative to the Mideast trip.

3. The Clinton Name: there are many people who want to see a woman president, just “not that woman”. There are people who detest the Bush administration as an abomination, who understand that McBush will be a continuation of all policies, except we’ll also bomb Iran, further kill off civil rights domestically, and destroy any chance of the economy recovering in the next decade. BUT they will not put another Clinton in the White House, and do not want Bill prowling the halls. Again. Make no mistake, in the general, Whitewater, NAFTA (and her public support of it, which DID make the daily diaries, with art), Vince Foster’s death, Bill’s women, the China connection -- they will ALL come back. And if you don’t remember the scandals of the 90’s, trust me, they dwarf the Wright issue.

4. The Head-to-Heads: In going up against McBush, Hillary cannot run on “change” only on “experience”. Hers pales in comparison to his. No matter what you may think of McBush’s positions, he has portfolio, he has standing, he has BEEN THERE. A strong case against McCain can be made for his ethics violations, his lobbyist connections, his cheating on his first wife (it’s in his autobiography), his violations of campaign finance laws. That case can be made by anyone BUT the Clintons, as that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

And finally: the Clintons already know that they cannot get her the nomination this year. They actually do. Therefore, the plan most likely is to make sure that Obama loses in the general so she can run again in 4 years. It’s true, and it’s in EVERY speech she and her surrogates give which pump up McBush at the expense of Obama. If you doubt the desperation, yesterday surrogate Evan Bayh came out with the latest argument to the Supers to only look at the Electoral College votes of the won states INSTEAD of the delegate counts, the state counts, or the popular vote. Since there is no correlation from a primary win extrapolated to a national win, it is, at best, a specious argument. They are running the rest of the primary campaign dedicated to shoring up McBush in every way possible. If she does get the nomination, he can easily say “Well, Hillary, YOU said I would be good for this job.” And that will resonate with fence sitters, because their choice will be a similar one, and his National Security bona fides micrify hers.

So there you have it.

Tomorrow à why Obama CAN win.

Pennsylvania by the Numbers

The people on this blog/e-mail list live in 16 American states, and 3 foreign countries. But the majority of recipients (who I assume are also readers) live in Pennsylvania. So, since we have the next primary, and since I have gotten a lot of questions over the past months as to how Democratic primaries actually work, we’re going to use PA as an example, and then go into the national numbers.

Let’s start with how we allocate delegates here.

There are 19 Congressional districts, and they are allocated delegates based on a formula related to population and registration. In some states, there is a skew for previous participation, but I can’t find any documentation that we do that here. (I COULD be wrong, but I couldn’t find it, and I looked…)

If you want to see the Congressional districts in graphical form, use this link: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#pa This is the site of the National Atlas, and you can view/print any state, and any specific district. The fun part is the Southeastern part of the state, one of the “best” examples of gerrymandering since the term was coined. Think interwoven snakes. These 19 districts will produce from the primary 103 District-level delegates, allocated in the following manner:

District 1	7	District 11	5
District 2	9	District 12	5
District 3	5	District 13	7
District 4	5	District 14	7
District 5	4	District 15	5
District 6	6	District 16	4
District 7	7	District 17	4
District 8	7	District 18	5
District 9	3	District 19	4
District 10	4

Note the following: Districts 1 and 2 include the city of Philadelphia (and environs), and the rest of the southeast is comprised of all or part of districts 6,7,8,13,15 and 19. District 5 is comprised of all or part of 14 counties in the north central part of the state. Check the map….it’s really interesting. Therefore, when they talk of Philadelphia and “the counties” deciding this election, they’re talking about half the pledged district-level delegates (52).

The delegates will be assigned proportionately to all candidates winning at least 15% of the vote. This is how people the delegate counts come out so close in a lot of races. For example, if there are 4 delegates in a district, and someone wins 65% of the vote, and the other person wins 35%, they’re each getting 2 delegates. In a 4-delegate district, one would have to win 75% of the vote to make the split 3-1.

In addition, there are 35 At-Large delegates who will represent the statewide totals, also proportionally.

Then, there are the others -- 49 “unpledged” or “Super” delegates. They are comprised of the elected Congressional/Senatorial Democratic delegation, members of the DNC from Pennsylvania, and what’s known as “add-on’s”. (Don’t ask, you don’t want to know).

Below is a list of the known SuperDelegates, broken out by endorsement:

For Clinton:

Governor Ed Rendell

Rep John Murtha

Rep Joe Sestak

Rep Allyson Schwartz

Rep Paul Kanjorski

DNC Members: Rooney, Baumgartner, Groen, Milko, Richardson, McEntee, Rudy and Murray.

For Obama:

Rep Pat Murphy

Rep Chaka Fattah

DNC Campbell and Lynch

Have Not Endorsed:

Sen Bob Casey

Reps Brady, Altmire, Carney, Holden, and Doyle

DNC Donatucci, George and Masloff.

But let’s get back to the numbers.

I could go through the demographics of each district, but the likelihood after all is said and done, Clinton picks up +15 of the pledged delegates (District plus statewide). In context, this doesn’t really matter, because it’s a drop in the bucket of the 150 delegates Obama is ahead.

And then there is the popular vote. It is conceivable that 2 MILLION people could vote in the PA primary. When all the counting is done, Clinton could pick up 150,000 votes -- which would still leave her trailing by 550,000 votes since Obama is currently 700,000 votes ahead in the popular count.

Which brings me to the full numbers deal.

In the past week I’ve spoken to 6 people here in Pennsylvania who have not yet made up their minds about who to vote for in the 22 April primary. Not just any people -- good friends of mine. People who read, and consider. They fall into two camps: “I want to vote for the person with the best chance of beating McCain in November” and “I just plain don’t know which one to choose.”

Now, I’ve also spoken to a lot of people I didn’t know, while working voter registration drives. Including a rabid dittohead. (And I confess that while I would NEVER EVER pull a registration form and drop it into the trash because that would be immoral, unethical, and illegal -- I still hope they charge that @#(&$%#^ with voter fraud….but I digress….)

I wrote a long blog on why I’m voting for Obama, but neither published nor emailed it. That’s just personal opinion. Well-written, but it doesn’t count for much, because as I keep telling you, it is ALL about the numbers.

After PA, there are 408 pledged delegates available. The breakdown (in date order) Guam - 4, Indiana - 72, North Carolina - 115, West Virginia - 28, Kentucky - 51, Oregon - 52, Puerto Rico - 55, Montana - 16, South Dakota - 15. The projections indicate that some will split, Obama will “take” Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon, and Clinton will take West Virginia and Kentucky. It had looked like Clinton would take Puerto Rico once they shifted from a caucus to a primary, but the effect of Bill Richardson’s endorsement on Puerto Rico is unknown. (As an aside, the embeds are pissed that Puerto Rico moved up its date, since they had hoped it would be the last one, and they could spend the following week there.)

Because of the population of the races remaining after Pennsylvania, even given historic turnout, there are not enough physical human bodies to switch the popular vote total from Obama to Clinton. To overtake him in the popular vote, Clinton would have to see huge turnout AND win EVERY remaining race by capturing 75% of the popular vote -- NOT going to happen.

Come June 4^th, Obama will have a popular lead of a minimum of 500,000 in the popular vote, and a minimum of 120 in the pledged delegate lead. That’s the deal. It might even be a bigger spread since most caucus states don’t report turnout numbers (which would give him a bigger spread since he virtually swept the caucuses (except Nevada) and as the caucus system progresses up from district to county to state level, he’ll pick up more votes, as happened in Iowa. (Note to the Clinton campaign -- if you’re going to denigrate the caucus system in loud and vulgar ways -- next time, wait until the votes are OVER.)

It will then be up to the unpledged SuperDelegates, and the uncommitted pledged delegates to put either Obama or Clinton over the magic number (which varies but will be somewhere between 2024 and 2208 depending on deaths, special elections, governors losing their standing due to sex scandals and whatever becomes of Michigan and Florida).

Phil Bresden, an uncommitted Super and governor of Tennessee put out a post that he believes all uncommitteds should commit ON June 4^th, so that we can regroup over the summer, and not have that obnoxious 3 month wait for the outcome. We’ll see what he does. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Chair of the Convention, has said that the Supers should vote the will of the people. Whether she meant that state-by-state or nationally was not made clear.

So that’s where we stand this morning. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yesterday was the 5^th anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

Yesterday, and the day before that, John McCain confused Sunni and Shia, Iraq and Iran, and didn’t have a clear picture of what Al Qaeda is. He did this while speaking in Jordan, in an interview, and published in campaign documentation. He even had help from that turncoat Lieberman, who whispered the correct information. But a few hours later, McCain blew it AGAIN -- IN A PREPARED TEXT. He got the whole picture wrong 4 times publicly in 48 hours.

If Obama or Clinton had done this, they would have been SKEWERED. McCain mostly got a walk. It’s the war hero thing, I bet. Now don’t get me wrong, he IS a war hero. But he’s also 71 years old.

Some have contended that he “misspoke”. OK, it happens.

But there is something called “muscle memory”. You know what this is: it’s the ability to think “call mom” and your fingers do the walking on the phone -- because you know the number so well that you don’t think, you just do. Muscle memory is controlled by the brain, not directly by any muscles. Muscle memory is a cool neurological construct. Our brains allow us to do a lot of things from memory. And certain things are inculcated as memory, and we generally don’t get them wrong. We do not misspeak the ideas and concepts we own, in the same way that we do not misdial.

The Iraq issue should be intellectual muscle memory to John McCain. THIS IS HIS ISSUE. Security. War. The Middle East. This is his platform.

I don’t think he doesn’t actually know. I think it’s something else entirely.

A couple evenings ago I heard Bernard Lewis and Dennis Praeger speak. Professor Lewis is 92 years old. He spoke haltingly, he shuffled from the table where he sat to the podium. But he was brilliant. (And believe me, I have an incredibly high bar for defining “brilliant”). While I vehemently disagreed with a lot of what he said, his arguments held together, he knew his facts, during the post-lecture discussion he was easily able to pull the facts he needed to make his interpretive points. But you could tell that 10 or 20 years ago, his mind was even more brilliant. Age, however, has taken its toll.

And that’s the deal with John McCain -- I think he knows the information; he just can’t access it because he forgets. Campaigning is hard. It’s tiring. If he’s getting this stuff wrong now imagine what will happen after the conventions when he has to debate the Democratic nominee, and campaign at their pace. (No more bbqs for the press at his Arizona digs.) Age matters.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Being in one’s 70’s isn’t old -- especially not in my family. People work, they contribute, they are still smart.

But “President of the United States” is not “a job” -- it’s the most powerful political position in the world. And whoever is doing it shouldn’t need a lot of naps. If he forgets the information he “owns” -- what will he be unable to process in terms of new information? What about issues like economics, which he readily admits he knows nothing about?

A few other facts on John McCain -- all of which have citations from McCain’s writings, specific Senate votes, or his campaign literature. Drop me a line if you want a specific page citation -- I’m a little short on time this morning.

• McCain cheated, A LOT on his first wife. In fact he took up with his second wife while married to his first wife.
• He would change the tax code so that health insurance premiums would no longer be tax deductible to ANYONE (including business). Everyone would have to buy individual policies, and no insurance company would be required to accept people. Therefore, if you have a pre-existing condition and current group insurance -- you’re DONE under the McCain plan.
• McCain is a big fan of NAFTA and CAFTA, and voted to allow China into the WTO.
• McCain’s 2007 record was to vote the Bush position 95% of the time. (This actually from Congressional Quarterly, one of my favourite sources).
• He wants to privatize Social Security, and raise the retirement age.
• He used to support Gramm-Rudman, and other fiscally conservative policies -- up to and including voting AGAINST the Bush tax cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible. But oh -- not since he’s running for President….
• Two words: KEATING FIVE (and if you don’t know what it is -- look it up and see how McCain had to give campaign contributions back, had improper relationships with business people, and ran aground of Senate ethics legislation, back when “Senate ethics legislation” didn’t even mean much.)
• He has a lot of financial issues this campaign related to potential misuse of funds -- but since the FEC is lacking a quorum, you won’t hear much about it, although I’ll be doing more McCain lists so you can see the full skinny on it.

Just thought you’d want to know….

The Speech

It's hard to know where to start in discussing Obama's race speech yesterday at the Constitution Center. The politics of it? (Brilliant) The responses to the speech? (Nary a negative word) The tone? Pitch perfect.

It's said that he wrote it himself. Up until 2 in the morning. And that is where I want to start.

But before that, if you have neither seen nor read the speech, here's the link: http://my.barackobama.com/hisownwords. Because you should. Don't take my word for what was said, ignore the pundits -- this one, you should see.

I'm a great believer in words. In the power of words; both for good and bad. Despite my general inability with dates and times, I looked these up. My first poem was published 33 years ago. My first short story was published in 1976, first essay (and political piece) in 1978. My first public speech was in 1979. I know something about being up late struggling with just that right word. I stand in awe of his ability to write things difficult, simultaneously finding the words that resonated from his essence.

Most people who I've heard commenting talk about his views on race in America. How we must see things as dynamic, not static, and accept that by working together we can overcome the zero sum game. And I agree. And yes, I want an "I'm here for Ashley" tee shirt.

But even more importantly to me, speaking as one of Spiro Agnew's "effete intellectuals" (proudly, I might add), was the bravery it took of Barack Obama to believe that Americans can be smart. In a world of sound bites, Senator Obama took the tact that people could understand concepts, consider change for the better, and potentially embrace it.

Senator Obama spoke of his white grandmother and the part of her that is bigoted. There is likely not a person who has not heard someone they love say something which appalled their beliefs. And yes, you disavow the words, strong and painful as they may be, while still loving the person. He could have stopped there. But instead he took that amazing step forward and challenged us all to change for the better. To consider that we can change the most fundamental part of our beings: that is, our individual belief systems, and our culture of divisiveness and blame.

We are fighting wars on multiple fronts: the invasion of Iraq, the quagmire in Afghanistan, the crumbling of our economy (while the current administration does their best Nero fiddling group imitation), the lack of an educational system which can turn out people who think, not to mention master mathematics, science and engineering, able to compete in a changing world economy. To this, the Senator valiantly reminds us that the greatest war might well be within ourselves.

Will he be heard? I don't know. Most people don't read, don't really think, and live lives of one-foot-in-front-of-the-other. Will people understand that the Senator is right when he says that if we do NOT address the most fundamental concepts we will be distracted from what we SHOULD be doing: bringing our country back to greatness? Most importantly, will people take a few minutes and actually THINK about what it could mean if we functioned as a country working toward a common win-win devoid of the desire to assign culpability to SOMEONE for whatever goes on in an individual's life?

The choice itself is simple: embrace the politics of hate, or believe that we, as individuals, as members of families, as members of groups, religions, and corporate cultures, can change for the better, embrace the concept of hope, and then work for the paradigm shift.

For me, the choice is simple. I image joy.

Voter Registration Drive

I worked at a voter registration drive yesterday.

In the past 30 years, I’ve worked 100 voter registration drives if I’ve worked one. And that was AFTER the “lower the voting age to 18” petition drives. (You remember “old enough to die in Vietnam, old enough to vote”)

Anyway -- in all those drives, I never saw anything like what I saw yesterday.

For those of you out of state, PA is a closed primary. (Yes, I DO feel a petition drive coming on, but only in an off-year…) Therefore, to vote in the Democratic primary, one must be registered as a Democrat. Independents cannot vote in any primary unless there is an across-the-board election (as there was last year to fill the seat of a deceased state Senator) or a ballot issue.

Perhaps you’ve heard there is a bit of interest in the PA Democratic primary this year….

So, first -- the drive was held at a little strip mall. The woman running the drive put out signs at each entrance to the strip mall, plus signs at the table pointing out that it was a closed primary. Big, beautiful signs.

Then, there was the enthusiasm of the volunteers. REMARKABLE!

And then there were the people who stopped, read the signs, asked questions, and changed their party or registered as a new voter.

Often, we didn’t have enough chairs for the people who clamored to fill out forms. Cars would stop and people would yell their fervor. The excitement was palpable.

And we finished our day with more than 100 forms -- one drive, one day. Some were new registrations, but most were party-change.

The first thing that struck me was the number of people (one being in his 80’s) who have always (or almost always) voted Democratic, but registered Republican because “Chester is a Republican-controlled county”. We’ll see in May, when the County releases the April registration numbers. The last official numbers are from November 2007, when Chester County was 31.6% Democratic, 51.4% Republican, and 17% Independent/Other Party. If you look at actual vote tallies from recent years, it’s obvious that “registration” did not always equate to “number of votes”. While it’s true that for most positions, most Republicans won, the split is often damn close to 50/50, and Democrats have started winning more and more local and statewide races.

What I think will really wow people will be the 2008 turnout numbers. For frame-of-reference, in 2000 15.3% of registered voters turned out for the primary, and in 2004 21.7% turned out, county-wide. In the general on-year elections, we did 64.7% in 2000 and 71.9% in 2004. While from my personal perspective, these numbers are well below the 98% I think there SHOULD be -- but comparatively to national numbers, they are good. Therefore, based on primary percentage turnouts in other states, I think we could be looking at 60% turnout this year in the primary. And as I always tell you -- it’s the process -- the more people involved, the better. If the process corrupts, the results don’t matter. If the process corrupts, the results will yield a winner, but that winner is often illegitimate.

I ended my day by driving out to the far Western reaches of the County to pick up two change-party forms from 2 dear RINO friends. Welcome home!

Iowa Update

Y’all remember Iowa. The lead-off caucus state. Y’all remember That there were 45 pledged delegates: 16 to Obama, 15 to Edwards and 14 to Edwards. Those numbers have changed….

Yes, it’s all legal.

Remember that in caucus states, the initial votes are at the local level (in Texas, 31 Senatorial districts and in Pennsylvania, 19 Congressional Districts for example) extrapolated by the news organizations toward the final numbers. But what they use are “X” number of local delegates, which is larger than the actual number of district delegates. These delegates go to district, county and/or state conventions (based on state regs) to winnow the numbers.

The County Conventions were yesterday, and it looks like the final count will come out to be 28 Obama/17 Clinton. If you want to see the full breakdown, I refer you to my source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/. If you think that “11” isn’t that big a number, remember that when Hillary Clinton had her March 5^th “blowout” she netted 4 delegates. This means, including the SuperDelegates and excluding the undeclared delegates, the total count is now 1598 Obama/1492 Clinton. If you include the total Florida and Michigan counts (and I DON’T) the count is 1685 Obama/1670 Clinton. Upshot -- it no longer matters if those numbers are included, in the sense that the outcome will not change.

A personal note, the greatest personal political irony of my life à I’ve always wanted to be called to jury duty. I used to call the county and ask why I HADN’T been called to jury duty. (I gave up on that about 10 years ago because it didn’t help.) I BELIEVE that the jury process in NY is best because there are no excuses. Juries are better when they are comprised of a true section of citizens, not just “those too stupid to get out of jury duty” as the old saying goes. Well, I’ve FINALLY been called to jury duty. Here’s the punch line -- for the day of, and the day before, the most important primary in Pennsylvania history.

Herding Cats

Since last fall, Pennsylvania has added 65,000 new Democratic voters to the rolls, an increase of 1.7%. This compares to the Republican increase of 0.1%. There are now 700,000 more registered Democrats in Pennsylvania than there are Republicans. I can't give you an exact percentage of the total electorate, because the PA Department of State, in releasing these numbers, did not include the number of independents. Therefore, I don't know what the total voter numbers are, and can't calculate a percentage. Nor did the state release county-by-county numbers, so we don't know where the rise is occurring.

**IF** there was no rise to the number of independents, the voter registration split would be 48% Democratic/39% Republican. BUT remember that there are over 750,000 registered Democrats JUST in Philadelphia (compared to a little over 150,000 Republicans) -- so the statewide numbers skew slightly.

For those of you who don't live here --- a lot of those Democrats are anti-abortion, Second Amendment types. I have never "gotten" that, but in the county where I live, Republicans outnumber Democrats almost 2:1, but it's a lot more liberal than the numbers would make it seem. Last night while running a personal voter registration drive at my local bar, I spoke to 3 black Republicans who looked at my Obama button and said to keep up the good work, I could count on them in November if Obama got the nomination -- but who didn't want to switch parties for the primary. Then again, I've got another week, and they're regulars….

Also -- pledged delegate numbers will change this weekend when California certifies their primary vote -- will be a +4 gain for Obama (I think, we'll know on Saturday). Ohio has yet to certify 2 counties. Obama also lost the popular vote but won the certified Texas delegate county by +5.

Good-bye to Eliot Spitzer -- hello David Paterson. Learn to say "no" David -- you've got budget problems, and not everyone can win.

Good-bye to Howard Metzenbaum, who passed away last night at the age of 90.

Hello Al Franken -- presumptive nominee running against Norm Coleman for the junior Minnesota Senate seat, since all your challengers have faded away.

And then we come back to the Clinton campaign. Geri Ferrarro stepped down, and in her note pointed out that she did so just so that she could continue to spew racist bile. She didn't call it that, but turns out she has a history -- she said the same things she's saying now about Obama with reference to Jesse Jackson 20 years ago.

As for the Clinton response, while I would have used less repetition and a slightly different tone -- Keith Olbermann said it best. View the text here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/, and view the video here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329 (IF the video link doesn't work, you can link to it FROM the text page.) Keith is in many ways a Clinton supporter: as he points out in his opening, when he started out with his "Special Comments", there was a lot of flack, and the Clinton family was a great source of support. (The early comments skewered Bush on Iraq in ways you rarely see on TV, and came close to crossing several lines, although I thought they were erudite and to the point) -- but he feels that the Clinton response to blatant racism was so unacceptable that despite any personal feelings he has, a comment was necessitated. Check it out -- there's a reason he's my favourite political commentator.

You may be wondering why I called this "Herding Cats". In Mensa, they talk about the diversity of the membership -- so independent and diverse that trying to get the group (national membership is somewhere around 50,000) to agree to one thing is a lot like herding cats. Much more frustrating for the herder then the cats.

The Democratic party is much the same: we're a REAL heterogeneous bunch. It's what happens when you have the biggest tent. Somehow someone or something has to find a way to herd us all back into one tent. And I'm telling you as a member of lots of Democratic demographics -- that tent's Platform better NOT in any way condone racism. Keith is right -- the Clinton campaign has to come out with something much stronger against the railings of Geri Ferrarro.

When I went to college, there was a group in South Boston called ROAR, which stood for "Restore Our Alienated Rights". Southie was integrating back in the 70's, and when the buses would deliver black children to grade school, ROAR groups used to pelt them with pebbles and rocks as they tried to get into the school building. A bunch of college students (and others) used to put on football helmets and pads and block the rocks as we ran the kids into the school. The bruises were worth it. Back then, we didn't so much self-identify as "Democrats" as we did as "liberals". But like I always say -- it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. (Usually I'm saying it about Vietnam, but it holds for a lot of other liberal causes.)

One final note -- Jack Kervorkian (Dr. Death), having completed his prison sentence, is filing papers to run for Congress. (Michigan 9^th). Some say he killed 130 people, and shouldn't run for Congress. I say Bush has caused the deaths of 4,000 American service men and women in Iraq. No contest. Jack helped suffering people find peace -- Baby Bush sent young innocents to invade a sovereign nation. McCain thinks Baby Bush didn't go far enough. What an election year…….the differences are stark.

Women

Yesterday, I "met" a young woman on a work conference call.

About 20 minutes before the conference call, I had gotten a cup of coffee, opened this week's issue of Newsweek -- and came across Jonathan Alter's opinion piece about his mother (who was the first elected woman EVER in Cook County.) At the time the conference call started, I was composing a nasty-gram in my head to Newsweek. Not so much about Jonathan or his mother -- but about the underlying idea that Hillary Clinton should be elected BECAUSE she is a woman.

I have thought about this "entitlement" thing for a while, and despite the fact that I consider myself an articulate person, I could never compose the essential thought.

Until the conference call.

Here's a young woman (I'm guessing 21 - 23) who is bright, driven, excited, engaged, direct, knowledgeable about her area, and truly committed to doing a good job. The kind of woman I hope I was when I was her age and working my first "real" job.

There are, however, some major differences. NO ONE will ever pat her on the head and say "Good girl, you did a good job". NO ONE will ever tell her to jump up on the desk and have sex now or be fired. NO ONE will ever pay her 10% less and tell her it is BECAUSE of her gender. NO ONE will ever say "Sure, that's a nice idea, but let's wait for a man to say it." She does not know, no one in her generation knows, THANKFULLY, what it was to be a ground troop in the fight for equality and meritocracy.

This young woman is the embodiment of what we stood up for. The kind of person I'm thrilled to work with.

I, and all of my women friends, put up with all sorts of indignities and dangers so that someday other young women would be hired NOT because they were female, but because they were bright and could do the job. Our hope was that the generation that came after us would have an equal chance with men to excel, to progress, to succeed. While I have no idea how this woman got her job, I have a gut sense that she had great grades in college, a terrific resume, and that she aced the interview. I do not believe that the company hired her to fill a 'female quota'. She EARNED the right to have this job. And the project will be better for that hire.

And this young woman embodies what we always hoped women would be -- EQUALS. Not better -- just EQUAL in terms of opportunity.

There are a lot of women today who support Hillary Clinton because of her gender. They feel she should break the political glass ceiling because she is first woman to ever get this close. These women are generally my age and older -- who remember what the old days were like. At my age, we remember that affirmative action would get our foot in the door, but then we had to prove ourselves IN ADDITION to what any position required. Women 10 years older than I remember fighting to get their foot in that door. Women older than that remember limited choices, and a sense that no matter what they did, it wouldn't be enough.

To vote for Hillary because of her gender is to denigrate what my generation worked for, it is to disparage this young woman's hire. That is -- if she was hired BECAUSE of her gender, then there was no point in having fought for equal pay for equal work, no reason to have stood toe to toe with misogynists and fought for the right to be seen and thought of as "human" and not "bra size". The fight was for equality and meritocracy -- not for automatic ingress.

The women who support Hillary Clinton because of her gender are no different then the men 30 years ago who worked to make sure women could not "get ahead". In both cases, all they saw was "girl". Interchangeable. All the same. In the vast majority of cases, to hire a woman STRICTLY because of her gender is to say the worth of the person doesn't matter. (The major exception I can think of is 'surrogate motherhood' when anatomy and physiology dictate a specific gender choice). If we select people to fill positions based exclusively on gender, it's wrong. It was wrong 40 years ago, it's wrong now. And whether that position is "wait person" "assembly line worker" "doctor" "lawyer" "accountant" "engineer" or "President of the United States" -- the choice should be based on character, ability, knowledge and above all being the best person for the job. Independent of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, age, etc.

Character and Numbers, Round 17X

First, the numbers:

Since Mississippi went Obama -->

Pledged Delegates: Obama up by 150 - 160 depending on whose numbers you believe (and believe it or not, all of Ohio isn't in, and he pulled a few more in California as just last weekend they certified the results)

SuperDelegates -- Hillary up by 38, about to fall to 37 once Eliot Spitzer resigns. (And dammit, I lost the pool, I had 2:30 yesterday afternoon).

Total Delegates -- Obama up by 110- 120

Popular vote -- Obama up by close to 700,000

HHHMMM -- Seems we have an actual front runner…..

So now let's return to character.

Building on yesterday's dual definitions of "interesting to watch" and "of high moral standing" à

Let's start with CNN. Each network picks the stock photo they use to put up of candidates with the returns. On CNN they have great photos of ALL the candidates EXCEPT John McCain -- for some reason they picked a photo that makes him look like a caricature of the devil. In addition, they SERIOUSLY messed up their delegate counts.

Then on to Eliot Spitzer. The more news that comes out, the more appalling the whole thing is. My favourite tidbit was learning that while working in the prosecutor's office, he called FROM the office, to get a call girl. AMAZING.

Today's winner is a tough call between Geri Ferraro and Hillary Clinton. Who to pick for the greatest lapse of character? And in all honesty, I find this so appalling that there is no room for humour here.

Should we pick Geri Ferraro for saying Obama got where he is just because he is black? Not that she said it, but that she unapologetically believes it. When Paterson takes over the NY governorship later today or tomorrow, he will be the fourth black governor in our country's history. EVER. (You should be easily able to list 2 of the 3 others, the third you'll have to look up.) To get somewhere in politics, blacks need to be special. They need to work harder to achieve the same ends as whites. With the exception of Wilson Goode, John Street and Marion Barry, they need to be exceedingly competent. HOW DARE SHE denigrate someone who has put together an exemplary organization, out-raised every other candidate in history in total dollars and number of donors, and put forth a message we haven't heard since JFK?

Then again, what do you expect? Let's remember that Geri's parents were indicted for gambling when she was a kid. The indictments were dropped because her dad died. Her husband was indicted and pleaded guilty to a host of fun things including not paying his taxes, taking money from a women's and orphan's fund, renting warehouse space to pornographers, and a bunch of real estate issues. Geri herself was cited by the House for personal improprieties in the use of her campaign funds.

So OF COURSE this is the kind of person Hillary picks for her finance committee. It DOES pay to learn from the best…..and if you go back and read the time line of Geri's problems with her husband John Zaccaro's tax returns DURING the race, you'll see immediate parallels and understand why Hillary won't release HER tax records -- mostly because she files jointly with Bill. (Geri and John filed separately).

Or should we give the lack of character win to Hillary?

In EVERY situation, be it a political campaign, or a business, a group (PETA, Sierra Club, even the KKK) or even an extended family in some ways -- each individual is in some ways responsible for his actions. And if Geri wants to be a racist crook -- that's her business. In certain ways, if she does her job, it MAY be acceptable to an employer.

But it is true that 100% of the time -- tone, guiding principles, honor, and character come top down. If you run a business, a political campaign or a family it is incumbent upon you to set the framework within which people operate. Many years ago, I took a job doing consulting work in D.C. The major client was the US DOT. I worked there for 6 weeks and was asked to do something that indicated that the company was basically stealing money from government contracts. I was raised right, and I live on principle, so I went to the owner of the company, assuming that he didn't know what my immediate boss was doing. He explained to me that I was young, naïve, and didn't know how the system worked -- that government contracts were tailor made to be "used in the best interests of the people who know how to work them". I quit. 3 people were indicted. The company tone was that it was all right to steal.

Hillary Clinton has set a tone that says it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, rip the party apart, and appeal to fear. In certain ways, she is the Richard Nixon of our time -- don't believe me? She recently said that "AS FAR AS I KNOW" Barack Obama is not a Muslim. She knows he's not. We ALL know. But the line she used is a take on something Dick used to say all the time: "Well, OTHER people would say "x", but not me, I wouldn't say "x"" -- he got to make the accusation twice, shrug and wink. And folks, if Hillary is the Dick of our time, Geri could easily become her Bebe Rebozo.

And so, while I'd like to award lack of character to Geri or Hillary, it actually goes to the media. Certainly I'm not the only one who knows Geri's past, nor can see the Nixonian parallels -- so how is it that they don't bother mentioning it? Is collective memory that short?

Character

There is some TV station with the tag line "characters welcome" -- they use the definition of character as "interesting, fun to watch" people. Usually, though, we think of character as something good and worthy -- the idea that a person of character is someone who does the right thing, acts in an upstanding manner.

When I was a kid, I was taught by my parents that you treat people with handicaps with respect, they were people who might need a little extra help (e.g. hold the door for someone in a wheelchair) but they were just regular people. Except, my dad said, the MORALLY handicapped -- they were just plain fun to watch.

And yes, while there should be NO JOY in watching people implode, there is something to "how the mighty have fallen."

Good morning Eliot Spitzer. Run up status to Hillary Clinton.

First, Mr. Governor.

Everything in context.

A lot of times, the fact that someone does something "bad" is a function of who they are. Personally, I don't think there is something inherently bad about prostitution. I am NOT talking about the youth sex trade, I am NOT talking about people forced into prostitution. (Those are HORRIBLE things.) I'm talking about two consenting adults undertaking a fiscal transaction -- currently legal in some counties in Nevada.

When I was in college, I had a job selling encyclopedias door to door, and we would all be fielded out of the DC office, and driven in groups to the suburbs. After, I'd meet up in DC with the kids I carpooled with. Some nights, if my group returned to the office before my carpoolers, I'd talk to the local hookers. One of them once said that she saw no difference between taking money for sex, versus taking payment in the form of a nice dinner and perhaps jewelry. I've always thought about that…..

Point is, the act itself, is not all that horrible. (Mann Act notwithstanding -- transport is BAD.)

I know someone today who hooked tricks a bunch of years ago. If you met her, you wouldn't know -- she looks just like all the other suburban housewives.

But back to Governor Spitzer. The thing that makes this fun is that he PROSECUTED prostitution rings. (A bad joke would be to find out whether when he was with the woman, he gave her a driver's license….think back a few months and laugh along.) He ran for governor on a platform of ethics.

In politics, there are men who should really know better and NEVER get caught with a hooker à Jimmy Carter, Gerry Ford, Abe Lincoln, to name a few. HOWEVER, we would think nothing of it if there was actual art of Bill Clinton with a hooker. Or Gary Hart. Or even Sam Adams. It's all in what you say you are.

He'll resign soon -- and if you're keeping count, that's one SuperDelegate down for Hillary.

And speaking of Hillary -- she has a part in the character debate also. Hillary Clinton is running on her WHITE HOUSE experience, NOT her Senate Armed Services Committee experience. Listen to her stump speeches -- she talks about things from the 90's and NEVER mentions her A.S. experience except to apologize for her Iraq vote (sort of apologize…..) She actually can't -- her voting record would hurt her with the Democratic base. (And yes, I'll be posting her voting record -- probably this weekend.)

But she runs on her White House record, and yesterday she got caught. Twice. Just like Spitzer -- what she did wasn't bad -- but she set up the context, and then she lied.

First -- her claim that she brokered peace in Northern Ireland. From her web site: "She has continued to advance peace in Northern Ireland by maintaining close ties with Irish leaders and promoting business partnerships between Northern Ireland and the United States." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/security/

From the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

And then there was the trip to Bosnia. From A Clinton press release in 2007: "As First Lady she worked for reconciliation in the aftermath of wars and she led humanitarian efforts for Bosnia and on behalf of Kosovar refugees." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4573

Then again, to actually SEE what she did, check the art: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-willis/hillary-clintons-experi_b_90588.html where you will see that her refuge experience was limited to standing on stage at a USO show with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow, Sinbad, and an unidentified US Army officer -- SINGING.

There is nothing wrong with going on a USO tour, nor visiting Ireland. Just don't claim you worked on the peace process. ESPECIALLY if you're going to cite it AS your foreign policy experience.

And that isn't even my favourite lack-of-character hypocrisy. THAT is reserved for the PLO. That's (so far) the best failing fact check. Hillary Clinton has said many times that she is a great supporter of Israel. Yet she did something that NO OTHER U.S. politician has EVER done. She kissed a terrorist. And yes, there is art. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm. Back in 1999 Hillary listened to a speech by Soha (Mrs. Yasser) Arafat where Soha claimed that Israelis were gassing Palestinian children. Something that never has, and never could, occur. After the speech, Hillary kissed Soha on both cheeks. Check the picture.

Jessica's rule -- sure, run on your record Eliot. Run on your record, Hilary. But make sure it's a record you can actually live.

 

 

 

Why I am a Proud, Liberal Democrat

When she died last year at the age of 106, my grandmother was a proud Democrat who had never missed an election. I was born into a family that valued not only the Party and its principles, but the political process. In my extended family, if you were old enough to stand on a box and reach a table, you were old enough to stuff envelopes. I worked my first election at the age of 3.

But "because that's how I was brought up" is not reason enough to make the choice as an adult as to which party one wishes to belong. I am a proud, liberal, Democrat because of the ideals and principles involved in the Democratic Party platform and its proud history. While I may not always agree with all of the members of the party and what they stand for as individuals, one of the fundamental tenets of the Democratic Party has always been that many voices are better than one.

The Democratic Party is the oldest continuous political party in the US. The party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790's as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights, a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a weaker Federal government (relative to States Rights). Jefferson was elected as the third President of the US under the banner of the "party of the common man", officially named the Democratic-Republican Party. The party split in 1824, emerging as the Democratic Party with the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, Abraham Lincoln later being the first Republican president.

In the 20^th Century, the Democratic Party brought great change to America. Things that we take for granted today were codified by Democratic administrations and Congresses; including, but not limited to: the eight-hour work day, Civil Rights Legislation (integrated schools, voting rights, prohibition of discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin, and prohibition of housing discrimination), affirmative action, the lowering of the voting age to 18, and the repeal of prohibition.

But it is not just the elected officials who make a Party, it is the people who work for the party (formally and informally). The first US party platform was put forth by the Democrats in 1840. To this day, any registered Democrat can apply to be a part of the platform committee, and Democrats can also testify to make their feelings known to the whole platform committee. It is truly a big tent. The platform is the framework of goals and aspirations: what the Party views as imperative to make America better.

The 1840 platform was brief, and was concerned with limiting the powers of the Federal Government, including avoiding chartering a National Bank, and conferring most powers to the individual States, resolving that every citizen had the right to equality of rights and privileges, and to protection from domestic violence and foreign aggression.

The current platform, from 2004, is much longer then the first, and reflects a world which faces challenges inconceivable to the early Democrats. It is entitled "Strong at Home, Respected in the World" and answers not just to making America stronger in terms of reformed health, education and jobs programs, but also handling terrorism, nuclear weapons, the world-wide AIDS epidemic, renewable energy, and equality for all.

The final words of the 2004 Platform are as follow: "Members of our party have deeply held and differing views on some matters of conscience and faith. We view diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who seek to build a stronger America. We are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect. That's the America we believe in."

That is the America I believe in, and the Party I think has the best chance of getting us to where we need to be in a dangerous and difficult world. Democrats have a long history of being able to set lofty goals and then achieve them: FDR and his Kitchen Cabinet got us out of the Depression, JFK wanted a man on the moon in a decade, and that occurred sooner than expected, Johnson fought for a Great Society, and much was accomplished in those turbulent times. Were these men, and their associates, perfect? No, certainly not. But their intentions were true, and they made great strides.

I leave you with the words of two great Democrats, who espouse better than I ever could, why I am a Democrat. First, JFK, speaking to the Liberal Party of New York in 1960: "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" … [I]if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""

And finally, his brother Ted, after losing the nomination in 1980: "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

 

Written by the blog author -- Reprinted by permission from the Mensa Bulletin, September, 2007.

 

Philadelphia -- More than cheesesteaks and pretzels

Today I'd like to rant about the media. But since most of them are called "talking heads" for a reason -- it probably isn't entirely their fault.

First -- Texas. Despite what you may have heard about Clinton winning Texas, she won the popular vote, but she LOST the delegate count. And in the same way as one can win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, the same holds in Democratic primaries. Don't like it? Change the rules -- but these ARE the rules for now. Finally tally of pledged delegates is Obama 98, Clinton 94.

But for some reason the media, DESPITE understanding the process, keeps referring to Clinton as the front runner. Obama is ahead by somewhere between 100 and 150 pledged delegates, ahead in the popular vote, and down on the SuperDelegate count by about 40. Add it all together, and just call me confused.

Here at Ground Zero, there was a big meeting in Philadelphia on Friday -- something called the City Committee. A place where all 60+ ward leaders for the party meet. Bill Clinton came to nail down an endorsement. Bill Clinton, one of the biggest guns in the party. He came with the support of Ed Rendell (PA Governor) and Michael Nutter (Philadelphia mayor). He spoke for well over an hour. The Obama surrogate was Patrick Murphy -- a first term Congressman. From the Philadelphia suburbs in Bucks County. Not the world's greatest speaker. Won his seat 2 years ago by virtue of being and Iraq vet. The City Committee yielded to Murphy's request that no endorsement be forthcoming. As an aside, both Hillary and Obama will be speaking IN PERSON to the City Committee in a few weeks.

Chris Matthews (currently an MSNBC pundit, a Philadelphia local, a speech writer for Tip O'Neill, and brother to a Montgomery County (again, a Philly burb) County Commissioner) -- talked about it. No one else that I could find on the news did. To give you an idea of how important the Philadelphia vote will be in the primary -- Philadelphia Democratic registration in 2007 was equal to 10% of the total (Democratic, Republican + Independent) registration for the entire state. More importantly, registered Democrats are 75% of the Philadelphia electorate. Herewith, the numbers, all based on November 2007 registrations, courtesy of the PA Department of State:

County        Where        Registered Democrats    Percentage of Total

Allegheny    Pittsburgh        542,036            61%

Berks        Phl burb        106,085            45%

Bucks        Phl burb        165,571            40%

Chester    Phl burb         92,317            32%

Delaware    Phl burb        132,783            35%

Montgomery    Phl burb        217,036            40%

Philadelphia    Phl            749,652            75%

 

 

 

Herman, Roosevelt, Roques-Arroyo - A Civics Lesson

Do you know those names?

Actually, the full names are Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr., and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo.

"Do you know me now?"

We'll come back to them; today's topic is Michigan and Florida.

But before we even get to that, I'd like to tell you about a brand new technology from Google called "Grand Central -- Call Me". Let's say you read this e-mail, or read it on my docjess.blogspot.com blog. And you're angry at something I said (as was the case yesterday with a bunch of you). You want to yell -- now, on my blog is a button that says "Call Me" -- click the button, and Google will call you, you'll hear the kind of ring that the old black dial phones had, and then you can leave me a message which will go immediately to my cell phone and my e-mail. It is INCREDIBLY COOL. End of commercial, back to politics.

Since we have 48 days until the Pennsylvania primary, there is a lot of time to consider all sorts of things about this year's contest. One of those things is whether or not the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated in Denver. It is an interesting conundrum because base Constitutional tenets are pitted against personal feelings.

My personal love of the Constitution knows no bounds. And the 10^th Amendment gives every state the right to set election dates on any day they so decide. HOWEVER the 1^st Amendment gives the DNC the right to say they wouldn't accept any date prior to the 5^th of February. Pretty simple. THOSE ARE THE RULES. And I'm a big believer in rules, ESPECIALLY where elections are concerned. Let's all harken back to 2000. Oh yeah, butterfly ballots in Florida. Katherine Harris. His Honour Chief Justice Rehnquist. Let the nightmare return. Back then, a lot of us wanted the popular vote to hold, but the Constitution said no -- it's the Electoral College, and then the court of last resort. Sucks, but without the rule of law, emanating from the Constitution, we have nothing.

From that perspective, the delegations do not get seated.

BUT

The DNC has said that the states can re-run the primaries. (And this time, in Michigan, they could actually put ALL the names on the ballot, unlike what they did in January.)

Also but --

To be seated at the convention, your credentials need to be approved by the DNC Credentials Committee. I bring you back to Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr., and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo. Meet the 2008 DNC Credentials Committee. They can accept the delegate slates, modify the slates, deny the slates. Those are the rules; it's up to 3 people. Out of the 12 million who have voted so far. (And if you're interested, you can Google the names -- they're pretty interesting people.)

A side problem is where the Michigan and Florida delegates would stay in Denver, since the DNC has a sub-committee that "owns" all the hotel blocks in the city -- and rumour has it they aren't handing any out to those delegations. Then again, if you've ever done ANYTHING political, you're familiar with room sharing.

So what do we do? An interesting addition to this relates to the Pennsylvania primary. The Clinton campaign never submitted a full delegate slate to the state, so if she wins, there is a question about which human delegates will represent her in Denver. And remember, as I keep harping, NO delegate, pledged or Super, is required to honour the candidate to which they committed. They can change their minds on the Convention floor.

What do you think? If you have a heart-felt opinion, you can write to the Credentials Committee. You can send a letter, or an e-mail, or call them. http://www.demconvention.com/contact-us/?lang=en
has all the contact information. The trick to politics comes from Tip O’Neill. (And if you don’t know who he was, PLEASE don’t ask me -- my heart can’t take it) -- He said “All politics is local” -- I say "All politics is retail” (Apologies to every English teacher I ever had. Honest.)

Things get accomplished in the political realm from both the top down and the bottom up. Politicians run for office. Some of them as often as every two years -- and if you open with “I have an opinion, AND I VOTE” -- they listen. From one end of the spectrum to the other, up to and including Rick Santorum, politicians normally vote their constituencies, provided those constituencies make themselves heard.

Whether the Michigan and Florida delegations get seated as they are, or with a different slate, or not at all, might affect the outcome of the nomination. Might not (it depends how one runs the numbers, and what the final delegate count is on June 7^th). But whether they are seated says a lot about process and outcome.

I have heard from a bunch of you who say “Yeah, but I’m one person, what I do doesn’t matter.” I’m one person. This e-mail goes to a distribution list with 220 names on it at last count. I know it’s forwarded. The email is posted on a blog which is read by another 40 or so people (that I know about). So let’s say a few other people forward the information, or share it. It might be that what I say reaches 300 people on any given day. Think that number doesn’t make a difference? Remember: Al Gore lost Florida by 533 votes.

Tell the DNC what you think. Tell your SuperDelegates what you think. EVERY sitting House and Senate Democrat is a SuperDelegate. More than 25% of the SuperDelegates are up for re-election 8 weeks after the convention. Trust me, they care what you think. Write your newspapers and magazines (if nothing else, it’s fun to see your name in the paper….) Be heard. How the Democratic Party nomination comes out this year is a function of participatory politics.

I leave you with a Margaret Mead quote à “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”