Tag Archives: Politics

Democrats vs. Democrats

I bet nearly all of you are aware of the death-match that the two Democratic presidential contenders are caught up in.

It’s amazing how bad things have gotten over the last little while. As the race picked up and more and more of the rest of the field began dropping out, things really came to a head in South Carolina. That seems to be the point where the racial baggage caught up to the campaigns and things really started to go sour.

From then on, voters were faced with an increasingly vitrolic campaign. One side accusing the other of the stupidest little transgressions. Both of them…exaggerating their accomplishments at times. Most notably, you all probably remember Clinton going on the offensive several times, accusing Obama of plagarism, or of lying in his mailings, exaggerating his role as the University of Chicago (he didn’t.) and then came the whole Reverend Wright scandal. On the other hand, Obama’s been pushing back, calling Clinton out about her “mispeak” regarding her trip to Bosnia.

All of those are stories in and of themselves, but the latest news seems to be gripping the political community tightly. Recently, increasing amounts of people seem to be calling for Hillary to drop out due to the fact that she stands very little chance of beating Obama in terms of pledged delegates. The Democratic Party’s superdelegates are all that stand between Obama and the nomination. These superdelegates are not encumbered with the results of the primaries, and can actually vote however they want. They consist of very important people from all over the US. Governors, party bigwigs, that sort of thing.

Nancy Pelosi, the current speaker of the House, decided it was wise to voice her opinion on the whole matter. She came out and stated that superdelegates should respect the popular vote, and cast their votes accordingly. That way, if Clinton has more primary votes, the superdelegates should respect it and vote for her. The thing is, it’s pretty much impossible for Hillary to catch up in terms of the popular vote, especially if the Florida and Michigan delegates are not seated. Since the race is so tight between Obama and Clinton, there’s no way one of them will get enough pledged delegates to actually win. That’s why the superdelegates are just so damn important.

Clinton was obviously mad. Since she probably won’t get enough regular delegates, having someone ask the superdelegates to not vote as they want and instead follow the pledged delegates, is tantamount to endorsing Obama. So her backers, some of the most influential names in the Democratic Party (and especially some of the biggest financial backers) decided it was a good idea to ‘warn’ Pelosi.

20 of them sent Pelosi a letter implicitly threatening to withhold their financial backing from the Party. These 20 people had given $24 million to the party in the last year.

“We have been strong supporters of the DCCC,” the group wrote in its letter to Pelosi. “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.”

This is just god-awful reasoning and a terrible publicity move. The most damaging thing possible would be for the superdelegates to overturn the popular vote because it suggest to the American voters that their vote does not matter. If my vote was overturned so that unaccountable “superdelegates” chose whoever they wanted, I probably wouldn’t vote for them in the general election.

This implied threat has already caused a pretty big backlash in the Democratic party. Obama supporters are up in arms, and the reputably influential blog MoveOn.org has come straight out out and essentially declared war against the Clinton backers. In their response letter, sent out to MoveOn supporters, CNN says this about what they had to say:

“It’s the worst kind of insider politics — billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters,” wrote organizers in an e-mail to the group’s members. “But when we all pool our resources, together we’re stronger than the fat cats. So let’s tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute.”

Unreal. No one wins in a situation like this, besides John McCain. So hopefully they can sort this out. In truth, superdelegates seem like a pretty bad idea. The whole point of the primary is to let the rank-and-file of a party pick their candidate. To go through this whole process and then completely ignore it is a slap in the face. I’m sure Clinton’s backers approach this with the best of intentions, but they must realize that this can only hurt Clinton’s chances, and/or the chances of the eventual nominee.

Bhutan becomes newest democracy

Bhutan becomes newest democracy

This is pretty big news. Hot on the heels of Kosovo declaring itself independent, Bhutan, a hundred year old monarchy has brought itself forward as a democracy.

What’s most incredible about this story is that it is the King that is pushing this forward. Think about it. The absolute monarch of a nation is pushing to dilute his power and bring authority to his citizens.

And this isn’t one of those situations where the people were pushing for changes. Just listening to the interviews shows that. Under the latest King, the economy was doing better than ever before. More and more people were being lifted out of poverty.

Beyond that, the previous system had provided medicine and education to the nation. This is a country where internet was only allowed somewhat recently, and it already outperforms its neighbours (India, Pakistan) in terms of economic growth and transparency.

“His Majesty is like our father. We all prefer our father,” said Karma Tsheweng, a 35-year-old mechanic.

But Tsheweng and hundreds of thousands of others nonetheless lined up at polling stations across the Land of the Thunder Dragon to vote Monday, excited at getting to try something new, but nervous about what may happen after they’ve traded their Precious Ruler for politicians.

One of the most interesting things about this whole experience is that so many of the citizens themselves seem to be doubtful. They wonder how all these politicians can actually be better, or do better, since they all seem so petty.

In a nutshell,

“Why do we need these people and their arguments?” asked 48-year-old Kinzang Tshering after listening to one candidate make his spiel days before the vote. “They tell us they are better than the other ones. How should I know which one is better?”

Insane. Absolutely mad. How can any nation expect this? What’s funny is that it’s the truth anywhere you live. All these politicians bring in their arguments, and there really is no way for anyone to know who is better.

No matter what, welcome to the World’s Newest Democracy. They’ve already understood some of democracy’s biggest challenges.

The Worst Ever?

George W Bush

Has the Bush presidency been the worst ever? The Toronto Star tackles the issue.

John McCain’s Double Talk Express

Obviously take it with a grain of salt since all political videos are created with a certain set of biases.

This is clearly no exception and 4080Records does not endorse it by any means. It could be inaccurate, it could be outright wrong or conveniently edited. Still, it’s a pretty interesting look at a man who claims to speak “Straight Talk”.

This video compares John McCain’s various statements over time. To be fair, I can’t honestly fault him for the Iraq thing. It’s clearly a misstatement for him to claim that he always knew it wouldn’t be easy. But it is more important for politicians to come to terms with the way a situation like Iraq is now then for them to be right about the way they viewed it before. I’d way rather have him change his mind on this issue than have him stick to the line that everything is peachy in that area of the world.

Either way, take a look.

DMX is an idiot

XXL Magazine has run an interview with good old DMX that paints him in a less than stellar light, at least from a political perspective.

Seriously, I’ve never been a big fan of anything DMX stands for, or really any of his work besides some of his short lived acting stints in various bad action movies.

Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.

You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!

Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!

Barack.
What the fuck is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?

Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?

Yeah.
What the fuck?! That ain’t no fuckin’ name, yo. That ain’t that nigga’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here.

You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.

I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The nigga’s name is Barack. Barack? Nigga named Barack Obama. What the fuck, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuckin’ name. Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bullshit. Stop that bullshit” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuckin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no damn Barack.

So you’re not following the race. You can’t vote right?
Nope.

Is that why you’re not following it?
No, because it’s just—it doesn’t matter. They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. It doesn’t really make a difference. These are the last years.

But it would be pretty big if we had a first Black president. That would be huge.
I mean, I guess…. What, they gon’ give a dog a bone? There you go. Ooh, we have a Black president now. They should’ve done that shit a long time ago, we wouldn’t be in the fuckin’ position we in now. With world war coming up right now. They done fucked this shit up then give it to the Black people, “Here you take it. Take my mess.”

Right, exactly.
It’s all a fuckin’ setup. It’s all a setup. All fuckin’ bullshit. All bullshit. I don’t give a fuck about none of that.

We could have a female president also, Hillary Clinton.
I mean, either way it doesn’t matter. I don’t care. No one person is directly affected by which president, you know, so what does it matter.

Yeah, but the country is.
I guess. The president is a puppet anyway. The president don’t make no damn decisions.

The president…they don’t have that much authority basically?
Nah, never.

But Bush pretty much…
You think Bush is making fuckin’ decisions?

He did, yeah, he fucked up the country.
He act like he making decisions. He could barely speak! He could barely fuckin’ speak!
Can’t be serious. He ain’t making no damn decisions.

Well Barack has a good chance of winning so that might be something.
Good for him, good for him.

Seriously, I quickly lose patience for people with such a pessimistic view of things. It’s just so…boring. And how eloquent that DMX can ramble on for minutes about how he can’t believe his name is Barack.

Plus, I can’t really even understand half the stuff he’s been saying. Even the most uneducated or uninformed person in the US has some semblance of understanding of the election. You can’t walk 10 feet without seeing Barack’s face on something or hearing his name being broadcast, even if you’re a somewhat celebrity like DMX.

So yes, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Rough Rider himself is a doofus.

Teen sterilization? Yikes.

The Daily Mail, a UK daily paper has come up with one of the most controversial solutions I could ever dream of to solve the teenage pregnancy conundrum.

That solution? “Temporary” sterilization. I know, it sounds completely ridiculous. But this is the idea that Dawn Primarolo has come up with. Described as “long term contraception”, this would render teenagers sterile from the ages of 12-17. It consists of an inter-uterine implant that would prevent pregnancy.

It i a pretty shocking proposition, and one I hope never makes it past the stupid little concept stage. Teen pregnancy may be a problem, but I highly doubt that this is the appropriate solution.

I expect right and left wing activists to unite against such a proposal for a variety of reasons. I can’t imagine right wing activists, who abhor the thought of sex education and the promotion of condom use because it “promotes promiscuity” to agree to something like this. And left wing activists should be up in arms about the threat to civil liberties. This is something the government should likely stay out of.

Fay Weldon, the author of the article suggests that this could have benefits across the British economy. No children as teens means that “silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.” It’s a pretty terrible statement to make, especially from a self-professed feminist.

Weldon address the concerns I listed above, and states that it won’t promote promiscuity because girls these days are no longer afraid of pregnancy and already are having sex with wanton abandon. I think that is possibly one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard. For one, it shows how out of touch adults can be with the younger generations. Kids these days do make bad choices. Sometimes. There are far more people out there who do not. And there are those who are responsible for whatever events transpire in their live and go on to lead productive lives. Having a child or getting pregnant does not affect an individuals self-worth or ability to contribute to society. To even suggest such a thing is ludicrous.

Weldon is insane. That’s all there is to it. Read this excerpt from her article.

Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.

The council will offer a free home away from nagging parents. They will have independence, sexual freedom and no more humiliating exams to try to pass – because, more than likely, their education will fall by the wayside.

Nowadays, ask some girls why they want a baby so badly and they will say vaguely: “Oh, I want to fulfil myself.”

Once, they would have confidently said of the father: “I love him. And I want a bit of me, a bit of him, to go on for all eternity.”

It’s not like that any more. Love is seen as little more than a neurotic dependency to the young.

How pessimistic can one person be? Geez. She seems to think that teenagers have no sense.

I’m still of the opinion that education programs are the way to go. Safer Sex programs have done a tremendous amount to reduce the transmission of STIs and to reduce pregnancy. I truly hope that Weldon is attempting to bring this issue to light and playing a bit of the devil’s advocate. But to be honest, I really can’t tell. Perhaps that droll British wit is too much for me, but if she is even remotely serious, I think she needs to be sat down and lectured for a while.

Do endorsements really matter?

Endorsements in the Presidential Primaries

or How the Kennedys are their own primary

These days you can’t throw a harpoon without hitting a story about how someone is endorsing one or the other of the presidential candidates. Everyone seems to be getting in on this deal. Starting way back when people were guffawing about how good old Chuck Norris endorsed Mike Huckabee, and witnessed a barrage of endorsements from every direction. Stallone endorsed the Huckster’s rival, John McCain. Hulk Hogan has recently chimed in support of Obama too. Before you knew it, everyone wanted to get in on this: from Oprah stumping for Barack Obama, to all kinds of ridiculous celebrities chiming in. I can’t see how it’d make that much of a difference, because I don’t think many people want to take their political advice from someone who kicks people in the face for a living. But then again, I could be wrong, since Norris seems to have given Huckabee the bump to win in Iowa.

Still, how much can an endorsement really matter, if it’s not from a political celebrity? Oprah does have the reach, with her millions-of-suburban-women audience, which could really help Obama. Clinton was polling strongly among women, so anything that takes some of that away can’t hurt. But then again, what about backlash? The fact that the woman-powered Oprah didn’t endorse the first female presidential candidate has definitely upset some people, and may result in some serious determination among the Clintonites.

This isn’t to say that celebrities don’t have a storied history in politics. Regan was a film star, after all. And he’s had more press during this election than half the other candidates (despite the fact that he’s not running, or alive.) I mean, let’s face it. Besides the occasional joke about Kucinich, and the internet’s fixation with Ron Paul, if you weren’t one of the top 4 Republican candidates, or Top 3 democrats, you pretty much didn’t count. People were invoking Regan’s name left and right (pun intended). And let’s not forget good old Arnold in California. Another film star-turned-politician who has enjoyed enormous popularity.

But if you aren’t one of these people, why would your endorsement matter? If you remember from the 2004 election, Bruce Springsteen wasn’t enough to save John Kerry‘s campaign. So why all the fuss?

Okay, so for a second let’s ignore the movie and music celebs. What about respected authors and nobel laureates? Will they swing the vote? We can ask the Democrats. Toni Morrison, a nobel prize winner, has come out and endorsed Obama. Maya Angelou, on the other hand, went ahead and endorsed Hillary Clinton. You would think that this has to have some effect on some segment of American society. But the effect has yet to be felt. The Salon article linked above provides a pretty interest take on the situation.

The two writers do match their chosen candidates, then. Angelou, with a well-known and colorful life story featuring odds overcome and the triumph of the human spirit, has been embraced as an icon of middlebrow empowerment. With her, you know exactly what you’re getting because you’ve gotten it so many times before, and yet you can congratulate yourself for (mildly) bucking the system. Electing Clinton would make history, but it also promises to bring a familiar presence back to the White House.

Like Obama, with his Harvard degree and pristine, international sleekness, [Morrison] seems too good and too smart for us, the sort of American appreciated by foreigners with obscurely discriminating standards. The electorate famously prefers guys they can imagine dropping by for a barbecue over intimidating intellectuals, but that insecurity has been biting us in the ass for the past eight years.

Step right up and claim your Kennedy. We’ve got plenty to go around.

I think the best part of the election so far has to be the Kennedys. In terms of the Democratic Party, they’re pretty much the royal family. It’s hard to find a family with more clout with the party and it’s members. Maybe it’s because so many of them are so involved in politics, but their endorsements may really have the chance to swing the Democratic primary for Obama or Clinton.

It seems like they have divided pretty evenly into two camps. But the way it has broken down is fascinating, full of seemingly innocent moves and hidden motivations. On the one side, in the Obama camp, we have Sen. Ted Kennedy, currently the second longest serving US Senator, his son Patrick (A US Congressman), and his niece Caroline. If her name doesn’t sound familiar, don’t worry. While she is accomplished in her own right, the fact that she is the daughter of President JFK may carry more weight. Especially because Obama’s camp loves to compare him to JFK. This really can’t hurt his campaign, despite the controversy that has dogged Teddy Kennedy in the past.

Not to be outdone, the rest of the Kennedy clan has sprung into action. Three of RFK’s kids have come out to back Clinton. They seem to focus on the very things their father ran against, the idea of trusting the establishment versus trusting an untested idealist. And they use very un-Kennedyesque language:

The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues.

So what could force a dynasty like the Kennedy’s to split so evenly? On one side we have the daughter of a former President, and on the other we have the children of a Former-almost-President. Well there are some pretty pessimistic theories floating around. Instead of the regular talk of people being motivated by the need to participate in public discourse, we have accusations of selfish motives. People say that Teddy endorsed Obama because Clinton had given LBJ credit for fathering the civil rights movement, instead of crediting JFK . Apparently, this is also a reaction for the negative tone the primary took in South Carolina. Political rockstar Bill Clinton, whose obligatory endorsement for his wife has given her a pretty big boost, may have done some harm by taking the offensive and going after Obama. So Kennedy pushed back, and punished the Clinton’s by endorsing their rival.

And RFK’s kids? Surely they can’t be politically motivated! But yet, people are aiming to dismiss his support for Clinton as purely a political move. If she wins and becomes President, she’d have to resign her seat as a Senator. And who’s nicely placed to take over a seat that was once occupied by his father? RFK Jr. Personally, I think that sounds a bit far fetched, but in this day and age it’s quite hard to tell.

Oh but the story does not stop here. Even the Republicans aren’t safe from the Kennedy touch. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is extremely influential in California, happens to be married to a Kennedy-member, Maria Shriver. And his recent choice to endorse John McCain could be the last little bit necessary to get McCain to triumph over Romney. If McCain wins California, which is likely with the Governator on board, that is a huge step on the way to the presidential race.

And Edwards? Or Giuliani?

The former competition plays a really unique role in this election as well. On both sides, the race is pretty close. We have a Romney-McCain showdown, and an Obama-Clinton duel. So, the third/fourth/fifth/nth candidates who drop out of the race, their support may just make the difference. I’d say even more so on the Democrat side. Edwards has polled pretty well, and his stance as a defender of the poor and of labour may resound with the Democrats. So whoever way he chooses may well secure the nomination. It’s a tricky thing, because Edwards is a really strong candidate for a running mate, and he probably doesn’t want to risk alienating either of his potential tickets to the White House. Obama clearly wants the endorsement, and hasn’t really been shy about saying so.

Giuliani’s endorsement of McCain may not really have that big of an influence, but even if it helps McCain secure the delegates from New York, it can’t hurt.  Still, his poor showings so far seem to suggest he may not be that much of a help, after all.

So do endorsements matter?

The answer, in short, is yes.  Endorsements matter a heck of a lot in the 2008 Presidential Election.  I don’t really think people care what Hulk Hogan has to say, and thankfully everyone has ignored Roseanne Barr’s foray into politics, but we shouldn’t discount everyone else just yet.  The Kennedy primary should be closely watched, because it’s as likely as not that the Democrats may have to spend more time campaigning there then they would in some of the smaller states.

And keep your eye on Edwards.  Out of anyone here, I think he holds the fate of the election in his hands (or rather, in his delegates).

-A