Posted by Scott Cavanagh
What, exactly, do Obama supporters propose everyone "move on" to--Hillary simply quitting and handing the nomination to an opponent that cannot mathematically lock it up himself, trails in super delegates, has not won a single large or battleground state other than his own and just got clobbered in both Ohio and Pennsylvania? That request would not be surprising however; they've been begging their opponent to either play nice or quit for months now.
If those continued surrender requests were not strange enough, they want her to do so with two of the four most populous and important states in the union having no say whatsoever. I find this attitude particularly odd coming from fellow progressives who traditionally scream (appropriately) from the rooftops when it appears some small precinct or group of voters (usually in states just like Florida and Michigan) has been disenfranchised as the result of local, state or national party mandates or decisions. Now disenfranchising the entire Democratic voting populations of two all-important battleground states is just fine.
If the Obama camp's case against the revotes is simply and understandably the fact that taking those states out of play favors them and they are not about to slit their own throats--that's fine, but to disingenuously pretend that some flimsy decision by the DNC (a group the two major candidates otherwise ignore) binds them and ties their hands from changing things, is a far worse fib than anything dealing with a Bosnian tarmac.
Who cares whose fault it is that all of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will have no say in the closest and most historic presidential race in history? Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Obama people could not easily dump a few of their $220 million into a fund matched by the Clinton people to pay for revotes in those two all-important contests?
Do the Obama people truly expect us to believe that their justification for not wanting to actually hear from the voters of Florida or Michigan is a decision by the DNC prompted by the greedy and egotistical actions of some state party bosses? Wow, some kind a "new politics" there.
The Obama campaign has been quick to question Hillary's sincerity on a number of issues. Let's talk about sincerity here. They don't want revotes because they are petrified of them. While neither of the candidates campaigned in Florida, both were on the ballot in the original vote, and Clinton won by a landslide. It is the state with the largest senior voter base--her strongest voting block. Michigan is a snapshot of both Ohio and Pennsylvania--both big Hillary wins.
Once again, it comes down to what happens in November--that is all that should matter to Dems and Progressives. I ask you again, without Florida and Michigan, what large electoral count, in-play, battleground states has Senator Obama won? How well has Obama and his popularity fared after just the smallest of controversies over speeches by an old preacher and just one little misstatement about religion and guns? Remember, the GOP has not even begun to unleash the hounds on this guy. What do you think Karl Rove and Co. will do with Rev. Wright's speeches and the fact that a convicted American terrorist bomber held a fundraiser for Barack--mention it in a speech like Hillary? They'll turn the GOP campaign into their own little YouTube of Wright, The Weathermen, and bullshit "He's a Muslim" stories--24/7. If he can't take what Hillary is dishing out without calling on her to quit, what does that tell us about his chances against the inevitable Republican blitzkrieg attacks? Hillary has taken everything the Right has thrown at her for 17 years--from total dissections of her political decisions and the most intimate details of her personal life, to being called everything from a radical and a carpetbagger to a drug dealer and a murderer--and she has bounced back and come out on top time and time again.
Obama has said it himself--Indiana should be the key indicator of who will get the nomination. If he wins there, the combination of a strong showing in North Carolina would probably stem any momentum Hillary has recently gained and force her out. If she wins however, and carries that momentum to victories in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico (63 delegates and polling 2-1 in her favor), she would have every reason and right to think that she would be the stronger general election candidate and fight for the nomination.
The only way for this to be avoided, other than asking the first viable female candidate in history to just quit a race in which her opponent cannot mathematically put her away or beat her in the most vital states, is to have campaign-funded revotes in Florida and Michigan. Both candidates would have the opportunity to make their cases regarding the importance of each and every vote. If Obama were to win even one of the two, he would have an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and sit on the cusp of clinching the delegate count. If Hillary were to sweep both, she would still need a strong showing everywhere else to take the nomination, but if she pulled it off, she would have accomplished it fair and square. Either outcome would be fairer, more transparent, less divisive and a better reflection of the voters' wishes than any other foreseeable conclusion.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Democrats' Two-State Two-Step Continues...
Not So Fast With Those Revotes...
Posted by Ken Hart
Sigh, this again? If Hillary were really interested in acting according to party rules, she would've abided by the decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Oh wait, I forgot -- she did sign off on that decision. She just changed her mind once she started losing.
Nice use of caveats here, too: "...when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states?" Actually, he does still lead in the popular vote. And if you count Florida, he still leads in the popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, Clinton takes the lead ... only because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. That's because he, like Edwards, stuck to his agreement. If you count the people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan, he retains his lead in the popular vote. And that's not counting the states to come.
This talk of "overriding the will of the people" ignores the fact that the state legislators themselves are responsible for this mess, not the DNC and not any of the candidates. (And don't forget that the GOP also punished states, though not as harshly.) If the DNC hadn't punished those states, do you think Iowa or New Hampshire would hesitate to move their primaries up to December? It would be a mess.
Michigan has already ruled out a new primary, and Florida seems willing to do it ... only if someone else picks up the tab for their own screwup.
After three months of this, let's move on.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
Monday, April 28, 2008
Obama Needs to Support FLA/MI Revotes
By Scott Cavanagh
For months now, the political airwaves, editorial pages and blogs of this nation have been overflowing with the opinions of concerned pundits languishing with worry over what (Oh, my God—Its TEARING US APART!!) a protracted battle for the Democratic presidential nomination might produce this November.
The main concern, particularly among supporters of Senator Barack Obama, is that a brokered convention fight—particularly one ending in a Clinton victory via a super delegate advantage—would be a horrible example of old school inside political gamesmanship overriding the will of the people—and would turn off all of the wonderfully righteous flock that have only come into the political process because they want change.
Once again, I find the gall and chutzpah of the Obama Camp (and I count the editorial boards of the NY Times, The Nation, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone among them) just amazing. They complain endlessly of Hillary playing dirty, when Obama surrogates continually hold press conferences and send mailings that disparage her in ways much more personal than anything she has said about Obama. When asked about it, Obama simply says it did not come from him—yeah, and the Swift Boaters had nothing to do with Bush. Don’t get me wrong—banging on your opponent is okay, its part of the game—crying foul every time your opponent fires back is not. It's a sign of weakness—one the GOP will jump on faster than a missing flag pin.
If crying every time they took a shot were not bad enough, the continual calls for their opponent to drop out of a race in which she trails by the slimmest of margins and has won virtually every major battleground state vital to a November victory, borders on comical. This is particularly galling when you consider that the only reason the Obama people have any lead at all is because of petty, inside political games.
Michigan and Florida are two of the largest and most important swing states in the union. One is the picture postcard of the economic disaster that is Reagan-Bush economics, the other the most-hotly contested and important state (along with Ohio) of the past two presidential elections. Both also happen to be Hillary strongholds (Florida has the highest percentage of senior voters in the country, while Michigan is almost identical in demographics to both Ohio and Pennsylvania—both won big by Hillary).
Because of petty party politics, egos and inside squabbles, neither of these two ultra-important states will seat any delegates, nor have any say in who the Democratic nominee will be.
How in the world can the Obama people cry foul over Hillary fighting for her legal right to the nomination--by established party rules--when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states? Does he have a legitimate case to be the nominee? Of course he does, but so does she, and unless the problem of Michigan and Florida is solved, he and his supporters had better get used to the idea that this might come down to the supers—and if it does there is nothing “wrong” or “shady” about it.
If Obama wins Indiana next week, this may turn out to be a mute point, but with Hillary leading in all the polls there, it looks as if the race will be even tighter the next day. The only way to avoid the brokered convention that everyone says is such a prescription for disaster, is to have revotes in both Michigan and Florida. If Obama were to win those states, the nomination would be his—guaranteed. If Hillary were to win, she would have the lead in both popular vote, super delegates and major states—case closed. What would be the argument--from either side—with such a plan?
The Clinton camp has proposed such an idea and the early reaction from the Obama people is that the Florida and Michigan decisions have already been made and that is simply that. They also claim that the costs would be prohibitive and would not be picked up by the party. For the Obama campaign that claims to represent “new politics” and has by most accounts over $220 million in the coffers, to take the position that the party bosses made their decisions to move their primaries up and got what was coming to them—voters be damned (and by the way, we can’t afford it)—is not only hypocritical, its irresponsible.
Without Florida and Michigan, what real claim will Obama have to the nomination? That he won a bunch of southern and western states that are traditionally dominated by the GOP? Democrats need to think about November. Another GOP win and that Supreme Court will be stacked for the next half-century. The four most important states in the union, as far as 2008 are concerned, are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. Hillary has won two of them. As it stands now, only the Obama people stand in the way of finding out who would win the other two.
END OF POST
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Clinton Wins--But Does It Change Anything?
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Hillary Clinton got her desperately needed victory in Pennsylvania yesterday--besting rival Barack Obama in the last large battleground state primary and keeping alive her slim hopes of overtaking him for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The win itself may not have been as important to the former First Lady as the margin of victory. The New York Senator's 55%-45% triumph not only produced needed delegates, it should also produce a vital influx of both energy and cash into a campaign in continuing need of both.
Meanwhile, Obama and his staff know that time and hard numbers are on their side. They simply need to play smart and protect their lead, but as countless fourth quarter comebacks have proven--the prevent defense often prevents nothing but victory.
END OF POST
Post a Comment
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Judgment Day in PA--Dems Finally Hit Polls
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
All the talk of salty Reverends and Bosnian tarmacs gets put on the back burner today, as Democratic voters in the Keystone State finally get their say in determining whether the contentious race for their party's presidential nomination will continue straight through to a convention floor battle.
Anything less than a convincing win by Senator Hillary Clinton in this last major electoral battleground will likely create a wave of popular sentiment (even among some of her most ardent supporters) for her to drop out of the race and unite the party against the increasingly confident campaign of GOP nominee John McCain.
A big Clinton victory (eight percentage points or more) however, will almost certainly guarantee that the fight will go on full-bore through the May 6 primary battles in Indiana and North Carolina. Even wins in both Pennsylvania and Indiana will do Clinton little good without surprise showings in at least two states that now lean heavily toward Obama. Her dream scenario is a big win tonight, followed by two more wins in Indiana and West Virginia and better-than-respectable results in North Carolina and Kentucky. Those are some big hypotheticals for a campaign currently hanging on by a thread again--at least for a few more hours.
END OF POST
Post a Comment
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Bark Back Sports: Celtics' 60th Win Conjures Up Memories of Bird Era Excellence
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
The Boston Celtics picked up their NBA-best 60th win last night. The victory is significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it sets a league record for biggest one season turnaround. It's also the first time any Eastern Conference team has won 60 in a decade and the first time that the storied Boston franchise has won as many as 50 games since the retirement of Larry Bird 16 years ago. They last won 60 (67 to be exact) in the championship season of 1986.
The sudden rise from 24-win doormat to title favorite can be directly attributed to the off-season acquisition of star forward Kevin Garnett, whose arrival immediately changed the fortunes of the Green and White and made basketball matter again in Beantown. Ironically, it was the arrival of Bird from Indiana State in 1980 that had produced the league's previously largest 60-win turnaround. That year the rookie forward led a team of castoffs and veterans that had won just 29 games in '79 to a league-best 61 wins and the conference finals.
With 60 already under their belt and seven more games to play, the 2008 Celtics will certainly win more games than the 1980 model and are expecting bigger things than the conference finals, but they will be hard-pressed to come near the amazing run of excellence produced during the Bird era.
Following up Bird's 61-win rookie campaign with a 64-win championship season in '81, the Celtics would AVERAGE 63 wins a year for the next six seasons. In Bird's first seven seasons, the Celtics won sixty or more games six times. In his first nine seasons, the Celtics won eight division titles, reached the conference finals eight times, the league finals five times and won three championships--all while playing in the same era as the Dr. J/Moses Malone Sixers and the Showtime Lakers. In 12 seasons (he sat out all but six games of the 1988-89 season) the Bird-led Celtics averaged 61 wins every year.
Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen have produced an incredible regular season, but as the numbers and banners show, they have a long way to go to become real Boston legends. Don't even get me started on Bill Russell.
Bonds Still Sitting
He can still hit home runs. He can still get on base more regularly than most all stars. He can still draw more walks (intentional or otherwise) in one month than anybody else can in three. So why is Barry Bonds still looking for a place to ply his trade a week after opening day?
Well, we all kinda know why, but do we really? Is he not signed because teams are worried about losing him to his possibly impending perjury trial, or is it because of the distractions a Bonds signing would cause a team--trial or otherwise? Is it because his creaky knees won't allow him to play the outfield, or the added expense of creating appropriately sized caps to fit his giant and ever-growing coconut? Is it his advanced age, or the advance knowledge that his permanent locker room equipment includes a recliner as big as a Hummer?
Regardless of the reasoning, one thing is for sure. If Barry is not signed by any team this season-- or ever--and his trial either never materializes or does not produce a conviction, Major League Baseball and its owners will have collusion and right-to-work lawsuits on their hands that will force them to deal with Bonds for the next decade.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment
