Clinton's big win last night in West Virginia (67-27), while disappointing, wasn't entirely unexpected. Even with an 16-7 delegate split (estimated) that closes the gap by 9 -- in a week when Obama picked up at least two dozen superdelegates and even a handful of delegates already "pledged" to her.
Inexplicably, 6% voted for John Edwards even though he dropped out months ago. What's with that?
The real story last night, was the by-election in Mississippi-01, the northwest of the state. This was no contest: The Democrats won a huge upset in the land of Elvis, historically Democratic but a GOP fiefdom for more than a decade, by a comfortable margin of 8 points; and drop the elephants to below 200 seats in the House. Republican attempts to paint Travis Childers as an Obama ally backfired as there was a record turnout of both blacks and poorer whites who are just fed up with the Gingrich-Cheney revolution.
A huge congrats to Childers, who puts another piece in the puzzle to help all of Mississippi turn Democratic this fall.
Childers is a strong conservative, a Southern Democrat in the traditional sense (he called himself a "Mississippi Democrat"); and Obama will need to pull a big chunk of disenchanted classical conservatives (not the pseudo neo-cons). He's proven he can do this in some marginal regions but will have to repeat the feat nationwide. Nevertheless, winning three out of four by-elections in three months -- and all three switches in favour of the Dems -- is a very good sign that, yes he can.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
By the way, Hillary ...
... about that thing you said a few months ago, that pledged delegates really aren't pledged at all. Maybe you should have kept your mouth shut. Because one of your "pledged," Jack B. Johnson -- the county chair of Prince George County, Maryland, who was "pledged" to you -- will now vote for Barack Obama.
As Edna Krebapple would say, Ha!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
As Edna Krebapple would say, Ha!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Buffalo Bills do right by Everett
It's not every day that a sports team does the right thing by its players, but I want to tip the hat to the Buffalo Bills.
Tight End Kevin Everett, a third round draft pick in 2005, was looking forward to a breakout season last year when during the season opener's second half opening kickoff, he collided into Denver's Domenik Hixon and severed his third and fourth vertebrae. Paralyzed from the neck down, many thought he'd never walk again. This was a truly awful scene -- people in the normally boisterous crowd were just silent and many bars across North America even more so.
Most teams would just cut their losses -- especially a team which haven't had a few good seasons. Not the Bills. Thanks to a quick acting sports medicine team in the ER as well as extensive rehab in Houston, Everett is walking on his own.
He was officially released today -- technically, placed on the waived / failed list. But the Bills did something else which makes me want to stand up and cheer.
The team made a point of putting him on the reserve injury list last year, and he was paid his salary of $435,000. By doing this, they made sure Everett qualified for the NFL's three and out pension; which guarantees he'll let a pension of $1410 a month for the rest of his life based on years of service. In addition, he'll get disability of $18,700 a month as long as his back doesn't heal (of course it won't), a lump sum payment of $75,000 -- and full medical benefits and dental benefits for him and his family for five years.
In other words, while fate dealt him a cruel hand, his employer made sure he would be taken care of. That's what all companies, not just sports teams (and most don't, as I stated) should do. My only beef is that he doesn't get the medical for life; but $20,000 a month will be more than enough to take care of his worries -- plus he should have no trouble getting a job as a play-by-play announcer for any team or network.
His case is a hard one but it proves the point why America needs universal coverage. Insurance companies look for any excuse to cut off their customers, especially when a spinal cord injury happens. The Bills organization put their foot down -- not just for themselves but for all American companies. I agree, enough is enough. We certainly wouldn't do the same if an athlete, or anyone else, in Canada was dealt the same hand Everett was -- that is, we wouldn't let them rot; we'd make sure they got the best treatment possible no matter how much it cost our public health care system.
And we need to make sure that everyone is entitled to the same kind of gold-plated LTD and rehab that less than 10% get as part of their benefits package, in both countries.
On a more personal level, I also salute Everett himself. He proved spinal cord injuries can be beaten -- and medical science should make all efforts to ensure all of the paralyzed can walk again. Let's burn all the wheelchairs, and get rid of them permanently.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tight End Kevin Everett, a third round draft pick in 2005, was looking forward to a breakout season last year when during the season opener's second half opening kickoff, he collided into Denver's Domenik Hixon and severed his third and fourth vertebrae. Paralyzed from the neck down, many thought he'd never walk again. This was a truly awful scene -- people in the normally boisterous crowd were just silent and many bars across North America even more so.
Most teams would just cut their losses -- especially a team which haven't had a few good seasons. Not the Bills. Thanks to a quick acting sports medicine team in the ER as well as extensive rehab in Houston, Everett is walking on his own.
He was officially released today -- technically, placed on the waived / failed list. But the Bills did something else which makes me want to stand up and cheer.
The team made a point of putting him on the reserve injury list last year, and he was paid his salary of $435,000. By doing this, they made sure Everett qualified for the NFL's three and out pension; which guarantees he'll let a pension of $1410 a month for the rest of his life based on years of service. In addition, he'll get disability of $18,700 a month as long as his back doesn't heal (of course it won't), a lump sum payment of $75,000 -- and full medical benefits and dental benefits for him and his family for five years.
In other words, while fate dealt him a cruel hand, his employer made sure he would be taken care of. That's what all companies, not just sports teams (and most don't, as I stated) should do. My only beef is that he doesn't get the medical for life; but $20,000 a month will be more than enough to take care of his worries -- plus he should have no trouble getting a job as a play-by-play announcer for any team or network.
His case is a hard one but it proves the point why America needs universal coverage. Insurance companies look for any excuse to cut off their customers, especially when a spinal cord injury happens. The Bills organization put their foot down -- not just for themselves but for all American companies. I agree, enough is enough. We certainly wouldn't do the same if an athlete, or anyone else, in Canada was dealt the same hand Everett was -- that is, we wouldn't let them rot; we'd make sure they got the best treatment possible no matter how much it cost our public health care system.
And we need to make sure that everyone is entitled to the same kind of gold-plated LTD and rehab that less than 10% get as part of their benefits package, in both countries.
On a more personal level, I also salute Everett himself. He proved spinal cord injuries can be beaten -- and medical science should make all efforts to ensure all of the paralyzed can walk again. Let's burn all the wheelchairs, and get rid of them permanently.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Change a-comin' in Mississippi?
West Virginia has its primary today and while it's safe to say Hillary Clinton will win big it may be somewhat closer than polls suggest. I say somewhat because while there's no way Barack Obama will win that state, if he can keep the gap within 20 points it will be a moral victory for him and a Pyrrhic one for her.
But even if she wins by the 2/3 majority expected, her net gain in delegates will be just 10 -- peanuts. Very few (except her and Terry McAuliffe, maybe) are expecting she'd actually get 85% and with it a clean sweep.
However, I suggest that a race we should all keep an eye on today is the runoff by-election in Mississippi's 1st district, which includes the cities of Columbus, Corinth, Grenada, Southaven and Tupelo. (See map here.) Like some other southern states like Louisiana, there's a second round ballot if no one gets 50% in the first, like in France. The district has been traditionally Democratic but switched Republican during the Gingrich revolution, ending a 122 year winning streak. Now, there's a strong chance it may go back to the Dems.
How bad has it gotten for the GOP? Put it this way: The district tends to vote Republican about 10% more than the national average. In the first round ballot three weeks ago, though, the donkey came within 400 votes of winning it all. Even Dick Cheney was sent in to campaign there -- yes, Dick, and he's not exactly popular down there either.
The Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, has been guaranteed a seat on the Agriculture committee if he wins and in a mostly rural district that could be a huge boon as the farm bill is being negotiated.
What has the Republican candidate, Greg Davis done? The Obama card, of course -- even though Childers has never met Obama and is also pro-life and pro-gun. Childers isn't entirely innocent, though: He's claimed Davis is a carpetbagger since his hometown of Southaven is a suburb of Memphis (literally, the two cities are across the state line from each other). If Davis wins, he'll probably get a crappy committee assignment -- say, the Library of Congress or the District of Columbia. That too will weigh on the minds of voters in MS-01 today.
When even the main paper in Memphis (the Commercial Appeal) endorses the guy not from the immediate region, you know the GOP is in trouble.
A loss in the 'burbs of Chicago, in Baton Rouge -- and possibly in northwest Mississippi too? People are really hungry for change if the Republicans can't win the easiest contests of all. A Dem win -- or even a very close loss -- would put that state in play for the fall Presidential contest and we all know Clinton has already given up on Old Miss. Not Obama, I would think.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But even if she wins by the 2/3 majority expected, her net gain in delegates will be just 10 -- peanuts. Very few (except her and Terry McAuliffe, maybe) are expecting she'd actually get 85% and with it a clean sweep.
However, I suggest that a race we should all keep an eye on today is the runoff by-election in Mississippi's 1st district, which includes the cities of Columbus, Corinth, Grenada, Southaven and Tupelo. (See map here.) Like some other southern states like Louisiana, there's a second round ballot if no one gets 50% in the first, like in France. The district has been traditionally Democratic but switched Republican during the Gingrich revolution, ending a 122 year winning streak. Now, there's a strong chance it may go back to the Dems.
How bad has it gotten for the GOP? Put it this way: The district tends to vote Republican about 10% more than the national average. In the first round ballot three weeks ago, though, the donkey came within 400 votes of winning it all. Even Dick Cheney was sent in to campaign there -- yes, Dick, and he's not exactly popular down there either.
The Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, has been guaranteed a seat on the Agriculture committee if he wins and in a mostly rural district that could be a huge boon as the farm bill is being negotiated.
What has the Republican candidate, Greg Davis done? The Obama card, of course -- even though Childers has never met Obama and is also pro-life and pro-gun. Childers isn't entirely innocent, though: He's claimed Davis is a carpetbagger since his hometown of Southaven is a suburb of Memphis (literally, the two cities are across the state line from each other). If Davis wins, he'll probably get a crappy committee assignment -- say, the Library of Congress or the District of Columbia. That too will weigh on the minds of voters in MS-01 today.
When even the main paper in Memphis (the Commercial Appeal) endorses the guy not from the immediate region, you know the GOP is in trouble.
A loss in the 'burbs of Chicago, in Baton Rouge -- and possibly in northwest Mississippi too? People are really hungry for change if the Republicans can't win the easiest contests of all. A Dem win -- or even a very close loss -- would put that state in play for the fall Presidential contest and we all know Clinton has already given up on Old Miss. Not Obama, I would think.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Is Obama an apostate?
Hermann Goering said if you repeat a lie often enough, eventually enough people will believe it so it becomes universal truth. In the age of the Internet; and when most of the networks are controlled by right-wing interests, routinely stamp on editorial independence, and fail to disclose conflicts of interest (especially at Fox News) -- the lies spread even faster and are more enduring.
This partly explains Barack Obama's difficulties in rallying rural white voters to his camp. While most will be brought over come fall (I and many others hope), one out of seven Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim. Even though the facts demonstrate this is patently false -- he is a practicing evangelical Christian, a modern day champion of what we call the Social Gospel or liberation theology (albeit with a high degree of self-reliance, à la Bill Cosby) -- once people's beliefs are fixed they are usually fixed for life. Prejudices are learned and often very hard to unlearn.
But the concerns may not be so misplaced after all. It may not matter what Christians think but rather what Muslims think, especially in the developing world.
An op-ed piece in today's NYT points out that because Obama's father was a Muslim at the time of the future Senator's birth, he automatically became a Muslim. It didn't matter that his mother was a Christian because Islam does not allow for "half-Muslims." Nor does it matter that Obama had any say in the matter, or any self-defined religion until about twenty years ago. Moreover, when Obama was baptized into Christianity, he became an apostate and under sharia, the penalty for irtidad ... is death, preferably by stoning.
The implications? People in the Third World seem genuinely enthusiastic that a son of Africa could be the next US President. When they (at least in Muslim parts of the world) find out he's a Christian, they're going to go nuts. The notion that John McCain has put forward that he's the favourite candidate amongst "Islamic" terrorist groups must be tossed out, based on the thesis put forward by the op-ed writer.
It gets worse:
This partly explains Barack Obama's difficulties in rallying rural white voters to his camp. While most will be brought over come fall (I and many others hope), one out of seven Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim. Even though the facts demonstrate this is patently false -- he is a practicing evangelical Christian, a modern day champion of what we call the Social Gospel or liberation theology (albeit with a high degree of self-reliance, à la Bill Cosby) -- once people's beliefs are fixed they are usually fixed for life. Prejudices are learned and often very hard to unlearn.
But the concerns may not be so misplaced after all. It may not matter what Christians think but rather what Muslims think, especially in the developing world.
An op-ed piece in today's NYT points out that because Obama's father was a Muslim at the time of the future Senator's birth, he automatically became a Muslim. It didn't matter that his mother was a Christian because Islam does not allow for "half-Muslims." Nor does it matter that Obama had any say in the matter, or any self-defined religion until about twenty years ago. Moreover, when Obama was baptized into Christianity, he became an apostate and under sharia, the penalty for irtidad ... is death, preferably by stoning.
The implications? People in the Third World seem genuinely enthusiastic that a son of Africa could be the next US President. When they (at least in Muslim parts of the world) find out he's a Christian, they're going to go nuts. The notion that John McCain has put forward that he's the favourite candidate amongst "Islamic" terrorist groups must be tossed out, based on the thesis put forward by the op-ed writer.
It gets worse:
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
Obama's Secret Service code name is "Renegade." In more ways than one apparently, in some people's minds.
Overall, Obama is still the better candidate because growing up with Muslim influences he would be a better bridge to the other side of the world than Hillary Clinton would. But, he'd really better watch his back now.
On the other hand, he could use his influence and office to point out that the Arab oil-rich states' reliance on sovereign wealth funds does not qualify for the Islamic injunction to quarter tithe -- exposing the "Islamic" governments for how un-Muslim they are; and that as a result the foreign aid is being cut off until further notice.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Ex L & O star caught with gun at airport
After the character of Lenny Briscoe (the late Jerry Orbach) left Law and Order, I kind of got attached to his replacement Joe Fontana (Dennis Farina). Fontana was much tougher than his exterior (and his Porsche) suggested; and he had an almost encyclopedic knowledge of history and pop culture which he used to help solve cases. He left after, I think, just two seasons which I kind of thought sucked.
Yesterday, Farina (a real life ex-cop) was going through security at LAX intending to fly a plane to Chicago, when officials found a loaded and unregistered handgun in his briefcase. He was reported to be "very apologetic and cooperative" to the LAPD, as they took him in to the detachment in Van Nuys.
Farina's defense appears to be he "totally forgot" about the gun being in the briefcase.
Excuse me ... he remembers that the Knights Templar were the first group to be given diplomatic immunity by the Pope, centuries before the concept was enshrined by treaty -- and yet he forgets about a gun?
On the upside, his new movie What Happens in Vegas opens this week. Any publicity is good publicity ... I suppose.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Yesterday, Farina (a real life ex-cop) was going through security at LAX intending to fly a plane to Chicago, when officials found a loaded and unregistered handgun in his briefcase. He was reported to be "very apologetic and cooperative" to the LAPD, as they took him in to the detachment in Van Nuys.
Farina's defense appears to be he "totally forgot" about the gun being in the briefcase.
Excuse me ... he remembers that the Knights Templar were the first group to be given diplomatic immunity by the Pope, centuries before the concept was enshrined by treaty -- and yet he forgets about a gun?
On the upside, his new movie What Happens in Vegas opens this week. Any publicity is good publicity ... I suppose.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Not that it means much ...
... since I have no prospect of ever becoming a father. But to all the mothers and mothers to be out there, Happy Mother's Day.
Hooray for (McAuliffe's) New Math!
This is truly bizarre. I'm not sure if you've heard but Terry McAuliffe, the former DNC Chair who's now running the Hillary campaign, is trying to push the goalpost back a bit. He says the real magic number isn't 2025, but 2209 (if you include Florida and Michigan). This, in spite of the fact that four years ago when Michigan then attempted to have its primary before New Hampshire, McAuliffe threatened Michigan with a 50% penalty.
What's changed between then and now? Rules are the rules. Even if you put those two states back in you still have to have a 50% penalty -- the rules all the states agreed to last year -- the magic number is 2117; and by any math Obama would still beat that number too once the primary season is over (counting in the cross-overs and add ins that are certain to flood his way).
Maybe McAuliffe believes that American kids should once again be taught "New Math."
I mean, seriously. This from a team that once tried to say that oral sex when performed by a woman is sex, but when performed by a man isn't.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What's changed between then and now? Rules are the rules. Even if you put those two states back in you still have to have a 50% penalty -- the rules all the states agreed to last year -- the magic number is 2117; and by any math Obama would still beat that number too once the primary season is over (counting in the cross-overs and add ins that are certain to flood his way).
Maybe McAuliffe believes that American kids should once again be taught "New Math."
I mean, seriously. This from a team that once tried to say that oral sex when performed by a woman is sex, but when performed by a man isn't.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
"I have a family and a wife, and a dog and a cat"
Stephen Maher writes an excellent column in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald about Maxime Bernier, whose previous experience with public affairs before PMS was elected was a book defending a flat tax proposal (which influenced quite a bit of Mario Dumont's thinking on the issue).
It got me to think that, the whole bit about Maxime Bernier trying to brush off his previous relationship with his ex-girlfriend Julie Couillard as nobody's business even though she was once connected (by marriage) to a biker gang member is beyond perplexing. It is everyone's business because as a Cabinet minister -- and in particular foreign affairs -- he has access to some of Canada's most important secrets.
Why does it matter?
Well, some backtracking, and once again I refer to the Watergate scandal.
A few months before the infamous break-in at the DNC, a letter came out which among other factors helped to torpedo the campaign of Edmund Muskie. It was of course the "Canuck letter," which insulted French-Canadians living in America. Months later a reporter at the Washington Post admitted to Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward that Nixon's communications director, Kent Clawson, told her that he wrote the letter as part of a dirty tricks campaign to make sure George McGovern would run against Nixon -- since Muskie was a sure-fire winner and McGovern was sure to lose.
When Woodstein confronted Clawson about this, he hung up and called the female reporter. The reporter offered to let Woodstein listen in. Clawson told the reporter, "I have a family and a wife, and a dog and a cat." Meaning, if it was found out he had a contact with the reporter, however innocent, it could be made to look worse than the letter. Later when Woodstein's boss Ben Bradlee asked Clawson if he wrote the letter (which he did), Clawson repeated the same cryptic statement. Bradlee replied he didn't care what Clawson or the reporter did, all he cared about was what Clawson said to the reporter.
The lesson is clear. Everyone you get involved with, even thirty years ago, is public business when you are an executive or legislative official. When you let slip something you shouldn't about a past transgression, it will come back to haunt you. Given the past and present Canada -- and in particular Québec -- has had with biker gangs, it is totally understandable why this isn't just mere gossip.
Biker gangs and Al Qaeda have one important thing in common: The illicit trade in drugs. So let's just suppose for a minute, entirely hypothetically, that during pillow talk Bernier let slip some key information about operations about Canada's military and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan (for example, scheduled troop movements); and said girlfriend then passed on that information to her biker gang handler who then through their underground network passed it on to Al Qaeda and their partisan allies the Taliban. The Taliban then used this information to ambush a platoon of Canadian service personnel during a "surprise" attack.
Imagine if it went back to Bernier. There would be no question about it -- Bernier would be charged with violating the Official Secrets Act; and the girlfriend with much worse, up to and including high treason.
When it comes to our national security, everything is on the table. It's as simple as that. And it is every one's business. Harper should have run a background check when picking his Cabinet members -- because even the most elementary would have discovered such a blatant conflict of interest.
Maher thinks Bernier will be demoted to international trade. I'd go further and kick Bernier out of Cabinet all together.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It got me to think that, the whole bit about Maxime Bernier trying to brush off his previous relationship with his ex-girlfriend Julie Couillard as nobody's business even though she was once connected (by marriage) to a biker gang member is beyond perplexing. It is everyone's business because as a Cabinet minister -- and in particular foreign affairs -- he has access to some of Canada's most important secrets.
Why does it matter?
Well, some backtracking, and once again I refer to the Watergate scandal.
A few months before the infamous break-in at the DNC, a letter came out which among other factors helped to torpedo the campaign of Edmund Muskie. It was of course the "Canuck letter," which insulted French-Canadians living in America. Months later a reporter at the Washington Post admitted to Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward that Nixon's communications director, Kent Clawson, told her that he wrote the letter as part of a dirty tricks campaign to make sure George McGovern would run against Nixon -- since Muskie was a sure-fire winner and McGovern was sure to lose.
When Woodstein confronted Clawson about this, he hung up and called the female reporter. The reporter offered to let Woodstein listen in. Clawson told the reporter, "I have a family and a wife, and a dog and a cat." Meaning, if it was found out he had a contact with the reporter, however innocent, it could be made to look worse than the letter. Later when Woodstein's boss Ben Bradlee asked Clawson if he wrote the letter (which he did), Clawson repeated the same cryptic statement. Bradlee replied he didn't care what Clawson or the reporter did, all he cared about was what Clawson said to the reporter.
The lesson is clear. Everyone you get involved with, even thirty years ago, is public business when you are an executive or legislative official. When you let slip something you shouldn't about a past transgression, it will come back to haunt you. Given the past and present Canada -- and in particular Québec -- has had with biker gangs, it is totally understandable why this isn't just mere gossip.
Biker gangs and Al Qaeda have one important thing in common: The illicit trade in drugs. So let's just suppose for a minute, entirely hypothetically, that during pillow talk Bernier let slip some key information about operations about Canada's military and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan (for example, scheduled troop movements); and said girlfriend then passed on that information to her biker gang handler who then through their underground network passed it on to Al Qaeda and their partisan allies the Taliban. The Taliban then used this information to ambush a platoon of Canadian service personnel during a "surprise" attack.
Imagine if it went back to Bernier. There would be no question about it -- Bernier would be charged with violating the Official Secrets Act; and the girlfriend with much worse, up to and including high treason.
When it comes to our national security, everything is on the table. It's as simple as that. And it is every one's business. Harper should have run a background check when picking his Cabinet members -- because even the most elementary would have discovered such a blatant conflict of interest.
Maher thinks Bernier will be demoted to international trade. I'd go further and kick Bernier out of Cabinet all together.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Obama takes superdelegate lead
Hillary Clinton's hope that the Democratic Party's superdelegates would overturn the will of the people and install her as the rightful (in her and Bill's mind) Queen of the United States has all but been eliminated. Today, Barack Obama picked up eight more PLEOs today -- some uncommitteds, the rest defections from Clinton -- and he now leads her in that important count. Depending on who's counting, Obama is now between 160 and 166 delegates away from going over the top. If enough cross over, the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon on the 20th will be irrelevant.
I still think the idea of superdelegates is wrong, but the point wasn't to stop a populist like Obama from currying public favour and giving new energy and ideas to a moribund party. It was to stop extremists like Lyndon H. LaRouche from hijacking the party.
What is noteworthy is since March 4 -- the Ohio primary (which she won) and the Texas two-step (which they split) Mrs. Clinton has picked up a net of only 17 delegates, and only started gaining ground after Pennsylvania. Obama, despite a few hiccups, has gained 65 -- and even after loses managed to get more of the superdelegates than her -- for example, her win in Penn got her eight supers but he got 16.
Perhaps the leadership is smarter than we've given them credit for. They realize that the time has come to pass the torch to the next generation. They also realize that it's a no-brainer that the Dems will win in the fall; but the real battle will be four years hence and who can win re-election. In other words, they're looking ahead. Most of the supers now realize that Clinton will have no chance in 2012 given her total lack of charisma, but Obama may have the charm and persuasiveness needed to fend off the coming crisis.
Clinton shouldn't feel too bad, though. She will continue to serve America just fine -- as leader of the Democrats in the Senate pushing through Obama's appointments to the Executive and the court system. No way she's going to be veep or in any Cabinet post. People have had enough of this generation of Clintons. It's time for Bill and Hillary to prepare Chelsea for a Senate run in two years time when she's 30 years old, the minimum age for membership.
It'd be nice to see a mother and daughter team in the world's most important debating chamber.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I still think the idea of superdelegates is wrong, but the point wasn't to stop a populist like Obama from currying public favour and giving new energy and ideas to a moribund party. It was to stop extremists like Lyndon H. LaRouche from hijacking the party.
What is noteworthy is since March 4 -- the Ohio primary (which she won) and the Texas two-step (which they split) Mrs. Clinton has picked up a net of only 17 delegates, and only started gaining ground after Pennsylvania. Obama, despite a few hiccups, has gained 65 -- and even after loses managed to get more of the superdelegates than her -- for example, her win in Penn got her eight supers but he got 16.
Perhaps the leadership is smarter than we've given them credit for. They realize that the time has come to pass the torch to the next generation. They also realize that it's a no-brainer that the Dems will win in the fall; but the real battle will be four years hence and who can win re-election. In other words, they're looking ahead. Most of the supers now realize that Clinton will have no chance in 2012 given her total lack of charisma, but Obama may have the charm and persuasiveness needed to fend off the coming crisis.
Clinton shouldn't feel too bad, though. She will continue to serve America just fine -- as leader of the Democrats in the Senate pushing through Obama's appointments to the Executive and the court system. No way she's going to be veep or in any Cabinet post. People have had enough of this generation of Clintons. It's time for Bill and Hillary to prepare Chelsea for a Senate run in two years time when she's 30 years old, the minimum age for membership.
It'd be nice to see a mother and daughter team in the world's most important debating chamber.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What will it take to get rid of Than Shwe?
More than a week after a cyclone hit Burma, and the thugs who rule the country still refuse to allow international aid to come into the country. They're more concerned with their own security and power; somehow fearing that their regime will be overthrown and the rightful PM of the country, Aun Sung Suu Kyi, will be put in power.
If there is a trigger for the moment Than Shwe and company forfeited their right to rule, it is over this. When Iran was devastated by an earthquake back in 2003, it accepted aid from the United States even though the two countries don't even recognize each other's right to exist. There is simply no excuse to allow upwards of a million people to die simply because it is convenient for the leadership to do so.
The response of the US government in the Katrina disaster was appalling, but at least most of the refugees in that crisis eventually got some assistance, albeit in the form of food stamps and trailers filed with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. They were able to have something to begin to get back on their feet, even if it was peanuts. Here, on the other hand, it seems Than would rather the people drown or die from starvation.
Oh, did I also mention that the cyclone also wiped out the rice crop in Burma, which will make our food prices go even higher? What fucking piece of shit those assholes are.
If the Burmese authorities won't do their job, then unfortunately the UN will have to use the extraordinary powers it does have to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. If it means getting rid of Than, having him die in "mysterious" circumstances will more than make up for the millions he's murdered. Man, if I had that kind of scratch I'd offer $10 million for his assassination. Really, I would.
The people in Burma need help and they need it now no matter what Than may think about that. Handing out DVD players instead of food is not the way to generate positive public relations.
Unless, of course, Than hired Hill and Knowlton as his PR firm. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, they also represent Kuwait (remember "Nurse" Nayirah?) and Mainland China amongst other undesirable governments; and formerly, the Church of Scientology.
UPDATE (9:04 am EDT, 1304 GMT): BBC World TV just reported that 38 tons of food aid from the UN's Food Program was seized by the junta. Really, really fucking bastards!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
If there is a trigger for the moment Than Shwe and company forfeited their right to rule, it is over this. When Iran was devastated by an earthquake back in 2003, it accepted aid from the United States even though the two countries don't even recognize each other's right to exist. There is simply no excuse to allow upwards of a million people to die simply because it is convenient for the leadership to do so.
The response of the US government in the Katrina disaster was appalling, but at least most of the refugees in that crisis eventually got some assistance, albeit in the form of food stamps and trailers filed with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. They were able to have something to begin to get back on their feet, even if it was peanuts. Here, on the other hand, it seems Than would rather the people drown or die from starvation.
Oh, did I also mention that the cyclone also wiped out the rice crop in Burma, which will make our food prices go even higher? What fucking piece of shit those assholes are.
If the Burmese authorities won't do their job, then unfortunately the UN will have to use the extraordinary powers it does have to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. If it means getting rid of Than, having him die in "mysterious" circumstances will more than make up for the millions he's murdered. Man, if I had that kind of scratch I'd offer $10 million for his assassination. Really, I would.
The people in Burma need help and they need it now no matter what Than may think about that. Handing out DVD players instead of food is not the way to generate positive public relations.
Unless, of course, Than hired Hill and Knowlton as his PR firm. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, they also represent Kuwait (remember "Nurse" Nayirah?) and Mainland China amongst other undesirable governments; and formerly, the Church of Scientology.
UPDATE (9:04 am EDT, 1304 GMT): BBC World TV just reported that 38 tons of food aid from the UN's Food Program was seized by the junta. Really, really fucking bastards!
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
What is Cindy McCain hiding?
If Cindy McCain thinks her vow "never" to reveal her income -- from a beer distributing company -- is going to settle the issue, it won't.
One of the minor (but not insignificant) reasons why John Kerry lost the US presidential contest four years ago was the intransigence of his wife, Teresa Heinz -- in refusing to discuss the scope of her wealth, which conservatively is in the ballpark of $1.2 billion. As the widow of Sen. John Heinz III she wound up with a bonanza, a big chunk of the Heinz ketchup fortune.
There's no evidence she's lived a life of sloth (despite having five houses with Kerry); quite the contrary, she is known to be a very generous person -- for example, she donated $20 million towards the construction of a performing arts centre in Pittsburgh. Certainly she is not like Paris Hilton or Angelina Jolie Voight, just two women who believe they're entitled to their entitlements by birthright and who give money to charity (and in the latter case, adopt children) just for show.
But the fact is Mrs. Kerry does have quite a lot of money, she manages at least two sizable charitable endowments and she's still coy about what her draw is from that and any possible contacts with the federal and state (Pennsylvania) governments. People are entitled to a certain amount of privacy; but the venire of that privacy strips away quite a bit when you, your spouse or your sibling is a public official. The income she has disclosed indicates she gets most of her money at present from tax-free municipal bonds and pays a tax rate of just 12%-- another red flag, when most Americans pay a marginal rate of 33% (when income taxes and social security are combined).
The voters fully expect complete disclosure of one's assets and sources of income, for both the candidate and the candidate's immediate and extended family, to ensure any conflicts of interest will be on the table.
If one thinks this is an unreasonable concept then imagine the humiliation an already unpopular Jimmy Carter had to endure when his brother, Billy (as in Billy Beer), was found to be a lobbyist for the government of Libya. While this was technically not illegal at the time, many people correctly questioned both Billy and Jimmy's judgment.
Michelle Obama has had no problem revealing her income. Neither has Bill Clinton although he's reticent about the sources, which by anecdote include some pretty nasty dictators and their financial backers.
So what's Cindy's problem? At least Heinz admits she's kind of fast and loose with the tax rules. No such luck from Mrs. McCain who won't reveal penny one. Is the reason why she won't disclose her income is that she hopes that John will repeal the federal beer tax? Because she certainly would have the connections already to make that happen. Whether she realizes it or not, she's increasingly become a liability for her husband's campaign -- and, for the record, the age difference has nothing to do with that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
One of the minor (but not insignificant) reasons why John Kerry lost the US presidential contest four years ago was the intransigence of his wife, Teresa Heinz -- in refusing to discuss the scope of her wealth, which conservatively is in the ballpark of $1.2 billion. As the widow of Sen. John Heinz III she wound up with a bonanza, a big chunk of the Heinz ketchup fortune.
There's no evidence she's lived a life of sloth (despite having five houses with Kerry); quite the contrary, she is known to be a very generous person -- for example, she donated $20 million towards the construction of a performing arts centre in Pittsburgh. Certainly she is not like Paris Hilton or Angelina Jolie Voight, just two women who believe they're entitled to their entitlements by birthright and who give money to charity (and in the latter case, adopt children) just for show.
But the fact is Mrs. Kerry does have quite a lot of money, she manages at least two sizable charitable endowments and she's still coy about what her draw is from that and any possible contacts with the federal and state (Pennsylvania) governments. People are entitled to a certain amount of privacy; but the venire of that privacy strips away quite a bit when you, your spouse or your sibling is a public official. The income she has disclosed indicates she gets most of her money at present from tax-free municipal bonds and pays a tax rate of just 12%-- another red flag, when most Americans pay a marginal rate of 33% (when income taxes and social security are combined).
The voters fully expect complete disclosure of one's assets and sources of income, for both the candidate and the candidate's immediate and extended family, to ensure any conflicts of interest will be on the table.
If one thinks this is an unreasonable concept then imagine the humiliation an already unpopular Jimmy Carter had to endure when his brother, Billy (as in Billy Beer), was found to be a lobbyist for the government of Libya. While this was technically not illegal at the time, many people correctly questioned both Billy and Jimmy's judgment.
Michelle Obama has had no problem revealing her income. Neither has Bill Clinton although he's reticent about the sources, which by anecdote include some pretty nasty dictators and their financial backers.
So what's Cindy's problem? At least Heinz admits she's kind of fast and loose with the tax rules. No such luck from Mrs. McCain who won't reveal penny one. Is the reason why she won't disclose her income is that she hopes that John will repeal the federal beer tax? Because she certainly would have the connections already to make that happen. Whether she realizes it or not, she's increasingly become a liability for her husband's campaign -- and, for the record, the age difference has nothing to do with that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The 41,000
As a second generation Canadian, I am a direct product of immigration. Were it not for a welcoming country, I probably would have been born into a repressive state -- if I had been born at all. Which is why I find so offensive the news that the federal government has not been able to keep track of 41,000 people who have been ordered deported. It is as if they have completely disappeared.
Of course, they haven't. They've just gone underground. The real numbers may be even higher.
This has been an ongoing problem, but for the Harper government to just dismiss this as "Liberal corruption" is once again to evade the issue. The buck stops with whoever is currently in power, and the Conservatives need to explain things.
Those who have no business being in Canada should be promptly shown the door after due process has taken its course. The fact people working their way through the immigration and citizenship process legally wind up paying for those who have outstayed our welcome or have abused the process is sickening.
Some of the problems, it seems, could be traced to bugs in a computer system. Aren't we supposed to have IT pros to work out those problems? While I have written previously in this column about my opposition to some of the reforms Diane Finley is trying to shove down Canada's throats, I do support getting tough on lawbreakers. The few who abuse the system make other immigrants look bad, and the last thing we need is to slam the door shut like the Lou Dobbs Klan are so hell bent on doing south of the border.
However, if it means integrating immigration and law enforcement -- such as with the UK's Home Office, or the Schengen Information System in much of Europe -- then so be it. Often times, we need to flag trouble makers before they enter the country, not try to track them down when often it's too late.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Of course, they haven't. They've just gone underground. The real numbers may be even higher.
This has been an ongoing problem, but for the Harper government to just dismiss this as "Liberal corruption" is once again to evade the issue. The buck stops with whoever is currently in power, and the Conservatives need to explain things.
Those who have no business being in Canada should be promptly shown the door after due process has taken its course. The fact people working their way through the immigration and citizenship process legally wind up paying for those who have outstayed our welcome or have abused the process is sickening.
Some of the problems, it seems, could be traced to bugs in a computer system. Aren't we supposed to have IT pros to work out those problems? While I have written previously in this column about my opposition to some of the reforms Diane Finley is trying to shove down Canada's throats, I do support getting tough on lawbreakers. The few who abuse the system make other immigrants look bad, and the last thing we need is to slam the door shut like the Lou Dobbs Klan are so hell bent on doing south of the border.
However, if it means integrating immigration and law enforcement -- such as with the UK's Home Office, or the Schengen Information System in much of Europe -- then so be it. Often times, we need to flag trouble makers before they enter the country, not try to track them down when often it's too late.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
If Tim Russert says it's over it's over
A real nailbiter last night in Indiana -- but Clinton won that state, albeit very narrowly, just 23,000 votes. Obama's strong showing in the urban parts of Lake County, the last major area to report (six hours after the polls closed) was offset by Clinton's rural vote.
However, North Carolina was a different story as Obama won by 14% and picked up all of the popular vote lead he lost in Pennsylvania a fortnight ago. While women were still very much for Hillary in both states, the exit polls indicated many more women were put off by her negative campaigning than in earlier states. The speeches last night were also telling for me -- Barack was much more "Presidential" and conceded Indiana right at the top hours before it really was over, and clearly gave his first general election speech; while Hillary didn't grant her corresponding concession until almost the end. She was putting on a brave face and vowing to fight on, but she clearly came out the "bitter" one. On CNN, one commentator -- David Gergen -- noted Chelsea almost seemed distraught on camera, as if she knows the end is nigh.
Interestingly Hillary later cancelled all public appearances today -- both network TV shows as well as campaign stops. Tim Russert, who's been against the Democratic party since a century before he was conceived, stated firmly that Barack can now be viewed as the presumptive nominee -- because even if Florida and Michigan are seated he will still have a majority of elected delegates. The battle is now for the PLEOs but with such a convincing win in a Red State with increasing Blue State qualities -- which Hillary has claimed as her monopoly -- he's finally proven he can put swings states into play.
I expect most of the remaining uncommitteds to swing to Obama in the next two weeks, making the primary in Kentucky on the 20th unnecessary; so America can get on to the real election with Obama and McCain.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However, North Carolina was a different story as Obama won by 14% and picked up all of the popular vote lead he lost in Pennsylvania a fortnight ago. While women were still very much for Hillary in both states, the exit polls indicated many more women were put off by her negative campaigning than in earlier states. The speeches last night were also telling for me -- Barack was much more "Presidential" and conceded Indiana right at the top hours before it really was over, and clearly gave his first general election speech; while Hillary didn't grant her corresponding concession until almost the end. She was putting on a brave face and vowing to fight on, but she clearly came out the "bitter" one. On CNN, one commentator -- David Gergen -- noted Chelsea almost seemed distraught on camera, as if she knows the end is nigh.
Interestingly Hillary later cancelled all public appearances today -- both network TV shows as well as campaign stops. Tim Russert, who's been against the Democratic party since a century before he was conceived, stated firmly that Barack can now be viewed as the presumptive nominee -- because even if Florida and Michigan are seated he will still have a majority of elected delegates. The battle is now for the PLEOs but with such a convincing win in a Red State with increasing Blue State qualities -- which Hillary has claimed as her monopoly -- he's finally proven he can put swings states into play.
I expect most of the remaining uncommitteds to swing to Obama in the next two weeks, making the primary in Kentucky on the 20th unnecessary; so America can get on to the real election with Obama and McCain.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Fun with Zogby
Sorry ... but Weird Al once thought "Fun with Dirt" would make a great TV show. Since many of you pointed out Zogby correctly noted Clinton's late break in Pennsylvania two weeks ago (which Zogby claimed he "quadruple checked"), I have to note a couple things I spotted today regarding a similar and unexpected trend in another state; Indiana.
Josh Marshall has some commentary about the Hoosier State, where Zogby still has Obama in a two point lead (rolling average over two days) but that in the last phone blast yesterday he led Clinton 47-41. This seems to contradict SurveyUSA which has Clinton 54-42. (North Carolina is a differnet story; Obama has a clear 51-37 lead).
JM writes:
Zogby was pretty dead on about the state by state in 2004 -- missing out only on Ohio, although actually most pollsters did underestimate the religious right's GOTV operation there. Why he had problems with the 2008 races until recently is something you'll have to ask Zogby. But here's why I think he may be on to something today:
I'm not sure if the various other pollsters have included those who went to advance polls -- where Obama has done consistently well everywhere in the US. (Turnout at early polling for these states was about 30%, itself a record.) Zogby has factored this in which leads to his surprising prediction. But here's Zogby's commentary about the various cross-tabs in both Indiana and North Carolina so you can decide if he's an outlier yet again.
The sum game for Hoosierville is a bit of a reversal of fortunes -- Obama now leads among Catholics and Clinton leads among Protestants, a total reversal from Pennsylvania just two weeks ago. Clinton has a solid lead in the south while Obama holds Indianapolis; leaving the north the battleground -- not the conventional wisdom. The story, however, is among older voters where Obama seems to have finally made a breakthrough and has a very slim lead.
They're the ones hurting the most with the increase in gas prices and may be thinking a middle class tax cut of $1000 -- about $20 less in withholding taxes each paycheque -- is actually worth more than a $30 pump one time "holiday" that GWB is going to veto anyway. If that $20 helps them get to and from work that'll be a big factor in their thinking as they vote.
However, Clinton does have impressive GOTV ops, as good as if not better than Obama's. That's something all pollsters, including the Zogster, can't get a handle on; as is who will actually vote and who's lying to the outbound phone banks. We should get a better picture starting around 6 pm Eastern.
UPDATE (3:12 pm EDT, 1912 GMT): Just to be clear, I stand by my prediction yesterday that Clinton will win Indiana; but in light of a last minute surge by Obama it will be a lot closer to the four point spread I think it will be. Meanwhile, my colleagues at Democratic Space are saying Obama will beat Clinton in NC 54.7-45.3 while Clinton will win IN 52.5-47.5 --both calls are roughly in the ballpark I think it will be too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Josh Marshall has some commentary about the Hoosier State, where Zogby still has Obama in a two point lead (rolling average over two days) but that in the last phone blast yesterday he led Clinton 47-41. This seems to contradict SurveyUSA which has Clinton 54-42. (North Carolina is a differnet story; Obama has a clear 51-37 lead).
JM writes:
I fondly remember my own personal Zogby epiphany moment. I don't recall who my interlocutor was. But I told this person that the thing with Zogby was that he relatively frequently nailed final totals right on the nose, even if pretty frequently his numbers were way off. To which my friend very wisely responded, "Josh, that means he sucks." And I thought, "Hmmm, I guess that's right."
Zogby was pretty dead on about the state by state in 2004 -- missing out only on Ohio, although actually most pollsters did underestimate the religious right's GOTV operation there. Why he had problems with the 2008 races until recently is something you'll have to ask Zogby. But here's why I think he may be on to something today:
I'm not sure if the various other pollsters have included those who went to advance polls -- where Obama has done consistently well everywhere in the US. (Turnout at early polling for these states was about 30%, itself a record.) Zogby has factored this in which leads to his surprising prediction. But here's Zogby's commentary about the various cross-tabs in both Indiana and North Carolina so you can decide if he's an outlier yet again.
The sum game for Hoosierville is a bit of a reversal of fortunes -- Obama now leads among Catholics and Clinton leads among Protestants, a total reversal from Pennsylvania just two weeks ago. Clinton has a solid lead in the south while Obama holds Indianapolis; leaving the north the battleground -- not the conventional wisdom. The story, however, is among older voters where Obama seems to have finally made a breakthrough and has a very slim lead.
They're the ones hurting the most with the increase in gas prices and may be thinking a middle class tax cut of $1000 -- about $20 less in withholding taxes each paycheque -- is actually worth more than a $30 pump one time "holiday" that GWB is going to veto anyway. If that $20 helps them get to and from work that'll be a big factor in their thinking as they vote.
However, Clinton does have impressive GOTV ops, as good as if not better than Obama's. That's something all pollsters, including the Zogster, can't get a handle on; as is who will actually vote and who's lying to the outbound phone banks. We should get a better picture starting around 6 pm Eastern.
UPDATE (3:12 pm EDT, 1912 GMT): Just to be clear, I stand by my prediction yesterday that Clinton will win Indiana; but in light of a last minute surge by Obama it will be a lot closer to the four point spread I think it will be. Meanwhile, my colleagues at Democratic Space are saying Obama will beat Clinton in NC 54.7-45.3 while Clinton will win IN 52.5-47.5 --both calls are roughly in the ballpark I think it will be too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)