My mom is from a politically influential in Ohio. Her father, an immigrant from Italy, was a county prosecutor in Cleveland. His younger brother was the mayor for years. All three of her brothers were judges—the oldest was the chief justice for the state's supreme court. Her first cousin was the state's attorney general. One of her nephews is an appellate court judge, another nephew is a city councilman. One of my mother's nieces is running for judge this election (If she wins the primary next week, my cousin is almost certain to win the general election.).
So when my mother expresses a doubt about a Democrat, I usually listen a little more closely than when Max Schmuckatelly says the same thing. Yesterday morning, she told me that she's afraid of the outcome of Ohio's March 4 primary. Her big fear is that if Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, wins big next week and becomes a virtual lock for the nomination, then he will be killed—"just like Bobby Kennedy," she said.
That fear, one that I really hadn't considered since last year when Mr. Obama first announced his candidacy, was reinforced when I was reading the New York Times this morning. The story echoed one that appeared Friday in the Washington Post. A quick look at the blogosphere, and it's all over the place. When I asked my mother why the idea occurred to her, she said that she'd heard it from "somewhere," which in her way means that one of her brother's said it.
The notion of Mr. Obama's being a target seems so crazy to me that I'd sooner believe that President Bush is planning a coup before November.
The fact that it's being said—and has legs in some pretty credible news outlets—seems to me to indicate that race and its ugly twin racism still play an visceral role in American politics. Add Fox's Bill O'Reilly's "investigation" into the need to lynch Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, and one would think this is 1968 not 2008.
Won't the goddam 60s ever end?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Some are more equal than others
I remember 1984. It was the first year that I voted, and as a Democrat it was a lesson in humility. Walter Mondale—the presidential nominee who lost in 49 states—had not been my choice in the primaries, but I supported him in the general election because I didn't think the working class in this country could survive another four years of Reaganesque government.
I was torn in the primaries between a personal hero—Sen. John Glenn, D-OH—and the rhetorical magic of Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. I was drawn to Rev. Jackson with each speech I heard, but I listened to folks I respected—elected Democrats and local party officials—who told me that Rev. Jackson couldn't win a national election. Their reasoning was based on more than race, it was based on the reverend's divisive political rhetoric from the past.
Mr. Glenn was different. He was a Marine fighter pilot, an astronaut, a centrist and had served in the US Senate for a decade. The fact that I was from Ohio made it rather easy for me to get behind Mr. Glenn so I canvassed for him in the run up to the Ohio primaries.
Whether from a plethora of good choices or from the lack of a leader able to unite the party, the Democratic convention opened without a clear choice for the nomination. It was the first time the superdelegates—created after the debacle of the 1980 convention—were called upon to assert their leadership. The result of the convention and the new power of the superdelegates was the choice of Mr. Mondale for the top job and a virtually unknown running mate—Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY—whose biggest contribution to the party was the creation of the superdelegate system.
The Reagan win that November was the nearest thing to a sweep this country has ever seen. He carried all but Minnesota and Washington, DC. Mrs. Ferraro's presence on the ticket couldn't even deliver her home state of New York. So much for the wisdom of the superdelegates.
In today's New York Times, Ms. Ferraro—still a superdelegate by virtue of her place on the ticket in 1984—lays out her rationale for obviating the popular vote, dismissing primary elections and caucuses, reversing rules established by the Democratic Party and adopting a Kremlin-like nominating process in an Op-Ed.
Her logic is filled with holes, and her desire to please the party elite meshes so nicely with what the right wing has said about the party that one begins to worry.
In spite of the evidence from the general election of 1984, she says that the superdelegate process worked. She authored the "longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce." Ms. Ferraro is saying that the overwhelming majority of voters choosing the other guy wasn't as important as the fact that the superdelegates were pleased with the party platform.
She disputes the validity of excluding Michigan and Florida in spite of the state parties defiance of the DNC, but dismisses the importance of primaries and caucuses because they "do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." If that is the case, why should the results in Michigan and Florida matter?
Ms. Ferraro claims it would be "shocking if 30-percent of registered Democrats...participated" after admitting that she's impressed by this year's turnout. She says that primary turnouts are notoriously low. Low or not, these same primaries made it possible for her to ascend to a vice presidential nomination and helped pick a candidate in the 2o years since the DNC developed the superdelegate system.
According to Ms. Ferraro, the purpose of the superdelegates—to eliminate fractious politics at the convention— worked in 1984. How will denying the popularly elected candidate—as she advocates doing—help eliminate fractious politics? Those thousands of rank and file Democrats who have given $25 here, $100 there to Mr. Obama's campaign—the little guys that the Democratic Party has long claimed to champion—will effectively be told that big money matters, not the will of the little man.
For years the knock on the members of the lower economic echelon has been that they vote against their own interests. So here they are, city people, suburbanites, college students and bloggers, donating time and money to a candidate who appears to have their interests in mind and they are being told that "the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country."
In the words of George Orwell, Ms. Ferraro is effectively saying, "All Democrats are equal, some are just more equal than others."
I was torn in the primaries between a personal hero—Sen. John Glenn, D-OH—and the rhetorical magic of Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. I was drawn to Rev. Jackson with each speech I heard, but I listened to folks I respected—elected Democrats and local party officials—who told me that Rev. Jackson couldn't win a national election. Their reasoning was based on more than race, it was based on the reverend's divisive political rhetoric from the past.
Mr. Glenn was different. He was a Marine fighter pilot, an astronaut, a centrist and had served in the US Senate for a decade. The fact that I was from Ohio made it rather easy for me to get behind Mr. Glenn so I canvassed for him in the run up to the Ohio primaries.
Whether from a plethora of good choices or from the lack of a leader able to unite the party, the Democratic convention opened without a clear choice for the nomination. It was the first time the superdelegates—created after the debacle of the 1980 convention—were called upon to assert their leadership. The result of the convention and the new power of the superdelegates was the choice of Mr. Mondale for the top job and a virtually unknown running mate—Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY—whose biggest contribution to the party was the creation of the superdelegate system.
The Reagan win that November was the nearest thing to a sweep this country has ever seen. He carried all but Minnesota and Washington, DC. Mrs. Ferraro's presence on the ticket couldn't even deliver her home state of New York. So much for the wisdom of the superdelegates.
In today's New York Times, Ms. Ferraro—still a superdelegate by virtue of her place on the ticket in 1984—lays out her rationale for obviating the popular vote, dismissing primary elections and caucuses, reversing rules established by the Democratic Party and adopting a Kremlin-like nominating process in an Op-Ed.
Her logic is filled with holes, and her desire to please the party elite meshes so nicely with what the right wing has said about the party that one begins to worry.
In spite of the evidence from the general election of 1984, she says that the superdelegate process worked. She authored the "longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce." Ms. Ferraro is saying that the overwhelming majority of voters choosing the other guy wasn't as important as the fact that the superdelegates were pleased with the party platform.
She disputes the validity of excluding Michigan and Florida in spite of the state parties defiance of the DNC, but dismisses the importance of primaries and caucuses because they "do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." If that is the case, why should the results in Michigan and Florida matter?
Ms. Ferraro claims it would be "shocking if 30-percent of registered Democrats...participated" after admitting that she's impressed by this year's turnout. She says that primary turnouts are notoriously low. Low or not, these same primaries made it possible for her to ascend to a vice presidential nomination and helped pick a candidate in the 2o years since the DNC developed the superdelegate system.
According to Ms. Ferraro, the purpose of the superdelegates—to eliminate fractious politics at the convention— worked in 1984. How will denying the popularly elected candidate—as she advocates doing—help eliminate fractious politics? Those thousands of rank and file Democrats who have given $25 here, $100 there to Mr. Obama's campaign—the little guys that the Democratic Party has long claimed to champion—will effectively be told that big money matters, not the will of the little man.
For years the knock on the members of the lower economic echelon has been that they vote against their own interests. So here they are, city people, suburbanites, college students and bloggers, donating time and money to a candidate who appears to have their interests in mind and they are being told that "the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country."
In the words of George Orwell, Ms. Ferraro is effectively saying, "All Democrats are equal, some are just more equal than others."
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Times' columnist ignores truth, gives McCain a pass
Nicholas Kristof is an award-winning New York Times columnist who helped focus American attention to the ongoing tragedy in Darfur and the power of microfinance for single women living in poverty throughout the emerging world. He is admired by many as a champion of progressive ideology.
So it comes as a complete shock to read his column on Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, in the Feb. 17th issue of NYT. The title, "The World's Worst Panderer," might lead one to think that Mr. Kristof is criticizing Mr. McCain for pandering to the conservative wing of the GOP. In fact, Mr. Kristof is commenting on the poor quality of Mr. McCain's ability to pander.
It's a clever use of language and certainly the column itself is not going to make it into Mr. McCain's campaign literature, but Mr. Kristof does his readers a disservice by continuing the myth that Mr. McCain has been consistent on the issue of torture.
Mr. McCain's public statements about torture have taken on a place in popular culture because they fit neatly within the narrative that exhorts the virtues of American individuality and justice. Mr. Kristof repeats this thread in his column.
But the tread has been broken. Mr. McCain is not against torture now that he's trying to convince the right-wing of the party to get behind him and preserve the White House to the GOP.
This week, Mr. McCain opposed a bill that would make it illegal to use interrogation measures such as "beating, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain to an individual."
Now that he is virtually assured of the nomination, he decides that principle can be sacrificed for the record. His vote was meant to be a signal to the right that he would play ball. And given that Mr. McCain knew that the White House had promised to veto the bill, there is no way that he can claim that his vote wasn't pandering.
Why would Mr. Kristof give Mr. McCain such a pass: Is the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist getting lazy in his dotage?
At the end of the Academy Award nominated film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, newspaper man Maxwell Scott (played by Carleton Young) is confronted with a choice to print the truth about a legendary western senator (played by Jimmy Stewart) who gained his fame for standing up to and gunning down a local outlaw. Scott decides not to run the truth that someone else actually killed the outlaw. Apparently both the fictional newspaperman and Mr. Kristof hold the same sentiment.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
So it comes as a complete shock to read his column on Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, in the Feb. 17th issue of NYT. The title, "The World's Worst Panderer," might lead one to think that Mr. Kristof is criticizing Mr. McCain for pandering to the conservative wing of the GOP. In fact, Mr. Kristof is commenting on the poor quality of Mr. McCain's ability to pander.
It's a clever use of language and certainly the column itself is not going to make it into Mr. McCain's campaign literature, but Mr. Kristof does his readers a disservice by continuing the myth that Mr. McCain has been consistent on the issue of torture.
Mr. McCain's public statements about torture have taken on a place in popular culture because they fit neatly within the narrative that exhorts the virtues of American individuality and justice. Mr. Kristof repeats this thread in his column.
But the tread has been broken. Mr. McCain is not against torture now that he's trying to convince the right-wing of the party to get behind him and preserve the White House to the GOP.
This week, Mr. McCain opposed a bill that would make it illegal to use interrogation measures such as "beating, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain to an individual."
Now that he is virtually assured of the nomination, he decides that principle can be sacrificed for the record. His vote was meant to be a signal to the right that he would play ball. And given that Mr. McCain knew that the White House had promised to veto the bill, there is no way that he can claim that his vote wasn't pandering.
Why would Mr. Kristof give Mr. McCain such a pass: Is the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist getting lazy in his dotage?
At the end of the Academy Award nominated film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, newspaper man Maxwell Scott (played by Carleton Young) is confronted with a choice to print the truth about a legendary western senator (played by Jimmy Stewart) who gained his fame for standing up to and gunning down a local outlaw. Scott decides not to run the truth that someone else actually killed the outlaw. Apparently both the fictional newspaperman and Mr. Kristof hold the same sentiment.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Gone Fishing: Another Internet Scam!
This message showed up in a Yahoo e-mail on Saturday, 16 February.
Most are so inured to fishing scams from West Africa (Dear trusted colleague, Representative Needed, Kindest Regards, etc.) that they just mark them as Spam and go to the next message.
People familiar with the scam don't even read them anymore because after a while it gets to the point where one can spot the fishing expedition simply by the sender's e-mail address.
The .gov TLDN (domain name) caught the attention of the recipient here. Several things are wrong with this e-mail that clues the reader that it is a scam, but the biggest clue besides the scant graphics is the way the number of the supposed refund is written using a comma. The inexact grammar is another clue, but overall this is a pretty good fishing scam.
The click-through takes one to the following page:
The page looks pretty good except that Firefox recognized it as a scam and the browser sent a warning. The next screen asks for credit card information and so on. The actual TLDN for this website is .ro, which indicates that the scammer is in Romania.
Most are so inured to fishing scams from West Africa (Dear trusted colleague, Representative Needed, Kindest Regards, etc.) that they just mark them as Spam and go to the next message.
People familiar with the scam don't even read them anymore because after a while it gets to the point where one can spot the fishing expedition simply by the sender's e-mail address.
The .gov TLDN (domain name) caught the attention of the recipient here. Several things are wrong with this e-mail that clues the reader that it is a scam, but the biggest clue besides the scant graphics is the way the number of the supposed refund is written using a comma. The inexact grammar is another clue, but overall this is a pretty good fishing scam.
The click-through takes one to the following page:
The page looks pretty good except that Firefox recognized it as a scam and the browser sent a warning. The next screen asks for credit card information and so on. The actual TLDN for this website is .ro, which indicates that the scammer is in Romania.
Why vote at all?
It's hard for many Americans who paid attention to the last two general elections for president to stomach what's going in the Democratic Party with the possibility that superdelegates will ultimately decide the nominee and once again rob the majority of voters their popular choice.
But now comes the news that votes for Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, in the New York City primary were not counted at all. In an election where apparently every delegate will count, Mr. Obama's actual results from New York must be calculated. Although officials claim that nothing sinister was at play in this undercount, there still lies the specter of a fix.
As the late Court of Appeals Judge Anthony J. Celebrezze, Sr. used to say, "The appearance of impropriety is improper."
If both sides are willing to win no matter what, then why have elections at all? Let the men in the smoke-filled rooms decide it.
But now comes the news that votes for Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, in the New York City primary were not counted at all. In an election where apparently every delegate will count, Mr. Obama's actual results from New York must be calculated. Although officials claim that nothing sinister was at play in this undercount, there still lies the specter of a fix.
As the late Court of Appeals Judge Anthony J. Celebrezze, Sr. used to say, "The appearance of impropriety is improper."
If both sides are willing to win no matter what, then why have elections at all? Let the men in the smoke-filled rooms decide it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tortured language and the New York Times
As further proof that the mainstream media is the New York Times' reporting of today's passage of Senate bill 1943, which would prohibit the use of any interrogation technique not permitted US Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
Included among the acts prohibited by this bill is the torture technique called waterboarding. It also specifically prohibits "beating, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain to an individual." Torture is not permitted. Period.
The Times referred to these as "other harsh interrogation methods." The language comes straight from the White House. The Bush Administration has repeatedly argued that the United States does not use torture, but only by torturing the definition of what is torture. The mainstream media has apparently adopted that definition.
President Bush will veto the bill because it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.” The mainstream media doesn't point out that under the Constitutional system in the US, Congress tells the President what is lawful. Accepting the logic that this law is unlawful is as ridiculous as saying that the US is at war.
There has been no Congressional declaration of war, the US is not opposed by any government or nation, and there has been no national mobilization. The US is not at war.
Included among the acts prohibited by this bill is the torture technique called waterboarding. It also specifically prohibits "beating, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain to an individual." Torture is not permitted. Period.
The Times referred to these as "other harsh interrogation methods." The language comes straight from the White House. The Bush Administration has repeatedly argued that the United States does not use torture, but only by torturing the definition of what is torture. The mainstream media has apparently adopted that definition.
President Bush will veto the bill because it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.” The mainstream media doesn't point out that under the Constitutional system in the US, Congress tells the President what is lawful. Accepting the logic that this law is unlawful is as ridiculous as saying that the US is at war.
There has been no Congressional declaration of war, the US is not opposed by any government or nation, and there has been no national mobilization. The US is not at war.
* * * * *
On a different note, the 51-45 vote fell relatively along party lines with a few senators crossing the aisle to vote their consciences. One notable exception to this conscience voting was Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, the "defacto nominee" who in spite of his vehement and vituperative opposition to torture, voted against a law explicitly prohibiting torture. If that's not pandering to the GOP base, then what is?
When does the media hold GOP feet to fire?
In his victory speech after sweeping the so-called "Potomac Primaries," Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, took the opportunity to trot out an old GOP talking point about the Democratic Party.
According to Mr. McCain, the Democratic nominee to be the next president would “promise a new approach to governing but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government’s failures is to simply make it bigger.”
Coming from a group that cedes the Bill of Rights to the executive branch, has created the post-WWII national debt, created the largest federal bureaucracy since the 1930s, and spent more money on the boondoggle in Iraq than the US spent in more than a decade in Vietnam, this kind of folderol is rarely challenged by the media.
There seems to be an active group think in the media that allows certain story lines to continue without challenge.
For example, the conflation of the occupation of Iraq with the so-called war on terror is not only not challenged, news outlets speak of it as fact. The GOP has been pushing the notion that withdrawing from Iraq is equivalent to capitulation to al Qaeda to the point that arguing for immediate withdrawal is considered irresponsible.
What happened to the Fourth Estate? There seems to be two forces at work here: the consolidation of media ownership and the media's fear of bias.
The consolidation of ownership has been well-documented, but its influence on reporting is anecdotal at best. No objective measure can be made of the decisions to air or kill/print or spike a story. Reporters will tell tales of having a publisher screaming about a story. Almost every journalist knows someone who was disciplined or fired for working a story that the powers that be didn't like.
More insidious is the media's fear of appearing biased. Even the clearly right-wing Fox News pays some homage to the notion of objectivity. Note the presence of Juan Williams on its Sunday morning programming and the continuing saga of Hannity and Colmes.
But to be fair, those on the right are far less concerned with fairness and accuracy as their counterparts on the left. Most newsrooms are not political monoliths in spite of what most Americans believe (e.g., "The New York Times is liberal, the Washington Times is conservative."). There are as many opinions in the average newsroom as there are in the country. But what is evident is that journalists who are politically left go out of their way to give the right a voice. These journalists are so sensitive to accusations of bias that they go into paroxysms of self examination at the mere suggestion that something wasn't fair. To challenge someone on facts is now seen as having a bias; therefore, reporters don't do it with any frequency.
The GOP knows this, and it continues to manipulate the media to report things as it wants. The answer to the question is never.
According to Mr. McCain, the Democratic nominee to be the next president would “promise a new approach to governing but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government’s failures is to simply make it bigger.”
Coming from a group that cedes the Bill of Rights to the executive branch, has created the post-WWII national debt, created the largest federal bureaucracy since the 1930s, and spent more money on the boondoggle in Iraq than the US spent in more than a decade in Vietnam, this kind of folderol is rarely challenged by the media.
There seems to be an active group think in the media that allows certain story lines to continue without challenge.
For example, the conflation of the occupation of Iraq with the so-called war on terror is not only not challenged, news outlets speak of it as fact. The GOP has been pushing the notion that withdrawing from Iraq is equivalent to capitulation to al Qaeda to the point that arguing for immediate withdrawal is considered irresponsible.
What happened to the Fourth Estate? There seems to be two forces at work here: the consolidation of media ownership and the media's fear of bias.
The consolidation of ownership has been well-documented, but its influence on reporting is anecdotal at best. No objective measure can be made of the decisions to air or kill/print or spike a story. Reporters will tell tales of having a publisher screaming about a story. Almost every journalist knows someone who was disciplined or fired for working a story that the powers that be didn't like.
More insidious is the media's fear of appearing biased. Even the clearly right-wing Fox News pays some homage to the notion of objectivity. Note the presence of Juan Williams on its Sunday morning programming and the continuing saga of Hannity and Colmes.
But to be fair, those on the right are far less concerned with fairness and accuracy as their counterparts on the left. Most newsrooms are not political monoliths in spite of what most Americans believe (e.g., "The New York Times is liberal, the Washington Times is conservative."). There are as many opinions in the average newsroom as there are in the country. But what is evident is that journalists who are politically left go out of their way to give the right a voice. These journalists are so sensitive to accusations of bias that they go into paroxysms of self examination at the mere suggestion that something wasn't fair. To challenge someone on facts is now seen as having a bias; therefore, reporters don't do it with any frequency.
The GOP knows this, and it continues to manipulate the media to report things as it wants. The answer to the question is never.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The numbers don't matter for Dems, it's just Political Idol
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, has won 17 state caucuses and primaries, 9 more than Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-AR. That margin is enough for pundits and 24-hour news outlets to declare him the victor for the GOP nomination for president. Never mind that there are still big states out there that have yet to be decided, never mind that Mr. McCain's famous temper could still get him into trouble, never mind that the right-wing of the party hates him: Mr. McCain is the nominee these voices bombard voters in the as-yet-to-be-decided states.
While it might not be fair for them to make this declaration, they can argue that with all these victories and delegates piled up, momentum is on Mr. McCain's side.
The problem is that none of these same folks would argue that Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is the presumptive Democratic nominee. In fact, even though he has won 23 of the 36 contests so far, many news outlets have him trailing or only slightly ahead of Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-NY, in delegates. Nary a mention of the resounding wins that are falling into Mr. Obama's tally. The media doesn't seem impressed with the 25- and 30-percent margins of victory. They instead focus on the demographics of the voters who support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. Add to this the pundits propensity of referring to the two Democratic candidates by their gender and race.
One would suspect that the long discussed liberal media is well and truly dead. Liberals everywhere are supposedly celebrating this turn of events: That the next Democratic presidential nominee will make history.
This notion—and indeed this storyline—infantalizes the American voter. The serious issues that are being discussed by both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama don't make us vote. The desire to replace the politics of the Bush Administration isn't the factor. According to the mainstream media, Americans are voting for Mr. Obama for the same reason that they vote for American Idol: the chance to make history.
The media isn't liberal or conservative, it's juvenile.
While it might not be fair for them to make this declaration, they can argue that with all these victories and delegates piled up, momentum is on Mr. McCain's side.
The problem is that none of these same folks would argue that Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is the presumptive Democratic nominee. In fact, even though he has won 23 of the 36 contests so far, many news outlets have him trailing or only slightly ahead of Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-NY, in delegates. Nary a mention of the resounding wins that are falling into Mr. Obama's tally. The media doesn't seem impressed with the 25- and 30-percent margins of victory. They instead focus on the demographics of the voters who support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. Add to this the pundits propensity of referring to the two Democratic candidates by their gender and race.
One would suspect that the long discussed liberal media is well and truly dead. Liberals everywhere are supposedly celebrating this turn of events: That the next Democratic presidential nominee will make history.
This notion—and indeed this storyline—infantalizes the American voter. The serious issues that are being discussed by both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama don't make us vote. The desire to replace the politics of the Bush Administration isn't the factor. According to the mainstream media, Americans are voting for Mr. Obama for the same reason that they vote for American Idol: the chance to make history.
The media isn't liberal or conservative, it's juvenile.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Democratic Party to Disenfranchise Americans
So it looks like the popular vote means nothing to the Democratic Party. With all the talk of superdelegates and proportional distribution of delegates, it appears that no matter what the people decide, the party leadership is determined to give the nomination to Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-NY.
Of the 303 superdelegates that responded to the New York Times, 204 have committed to Mrs. Clinton.
In spite of all the work done by groups like the People for the American Way and MoveOn.org to stop any repetition of election stealing tactics of the last eight years, it looks like the Democratic leadership doesn't believe in fair elections.
American democracy is a myth. During the 70s, apathetic nonvoters frequently argued that one vote doesn't matter. These folks would argue that all politicians are crooked and elections don't matter. Unfortunately, the evidence is mounting that they were right.
If Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, continues to win primaries and caucuses like Nebraska and Washington but loses the nomination to Mrs. Clinton anyway, it will take more than 40 years before people will believe in the system again. By that time, who knows what America will be.
Of the 303 superdelegates that responded to the New York Times, 204 have committed to Mrs. Clinton.
In spite of all the work done by groups like the People for the American Way and MoveOn.org to stop any repetition of election stealing tactics of the last eight years, it looks like the Democratic leadership doesn't believe in fair elections.
American democracy is a myth. During the 70s, apathetic nonvoters frequently argued that one vote doesn't matter. These folks would argue that all politicians are crooked and elections don't matter. Unfortunately, the evidence is mounting that they were right.
If Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, continues to win primaries and caucuses like Nebraska and Washington but loses the nomination to Mrs. Clinton anyway, it will take more than 40 years before people will believe in the system again. By that time, who knows what America will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)