RantDuJour

Aside from the fact that Democrats are voting in droves and at rates that far exceed Republicans, there are other signs that Democrats are in for a good year.

 One good sign is the amount of money that the Democratic presidential candidates have been able to raise vs the amount of money that the GOP presidential candidates have been able to raise.

According to Kos, Democrats have been raising money hand over fist ($99.6M for Obama and $98.7M for Clinton) and the GOP, well, not so much ($65M for Romney, and $39.9M for McCain). Romney has had to “loan” himself $35M to run. And, McCain has had to take out a $4M life insurance policy on himself. Obama, meanwhile, is advertising in 20+ states simultaneously and, I’m sure, Clinton is doing the same.

Regardless of what happens on Tuesday, neither Romney nor McCain will have any money. They will raise whatever they can. But, they will be dying trying to get to the Republican National Convention in Sept 4th.  The RNC has no money to give to him before that. The NRCC has no money to give to him. The NRSC has no money to give him. Whoever the candidate is, he’ll have no money to advertise for the remaining 7 months before he gets some money.

OTOH, whomever has won the Democratic nomination, will have a virtually unlimited amount of money.So, he/she will be advertising for 7 months without any real opposition. The problem with Edwards was that he chose to take matching funds. That meant that he was limited by federal laws on how much that he could spend. Neither Clinton nor Obama took matching funds. They can spend as much money as they want.

It’s an interesting phenomenom and may be enough to win the election right there. Remember ‘96? Clinton started advertsing very early. He was under the radar for months before Dole started advertising. And, Dole had money. By the time that Dole started advertising it was too late. Clinton won without a problem. He might have won anyway, but it made it a lot easier this way.

It is hard not to see the same thing happening this year. Of course, the GOP has their convention the week after the Democratic convention. So, there will be no real honeymoon. It might not matter.

No Responses »

It amuses me greatly to hear Limbaugh continue, day after day, to rip into McCain. McCain is a rock-ribbed Conservative. He anti-choice, pro-war, smaller-government conservative. He is perfect for Limbaugh. Unfortunately, he also believes in Global Warming and limiting political hit ads during the heat of a campaign by 3rd party groups. Those two items, above everything, have really launched Limbaugh into his spittle-rattling mode.

However, if/when McCain gets the nomination, regardless of what some of his base believes, he’ll get identified with the rightwing, straight-talker regardless, and that’s where he’ll stay. And, then, he’ll add to that several statements during the heat of the campaign where he says something really stupid, which he does all the time. And, the media, which run the themes of these campaigns, will realize what a doddering old man he is.

I think that it’d be best in this case for Obama to be the nominee. The stark difference between Obama and the doddering, dithering McCain is pretty obvious to most. Obama will be able to spin circles around the moronic pundit class that opine on most things of which they have no idea. I listened to the beltway monster queen last night on John Stewart’s show. And, at the end, she said something which was among the most incredible of things that she and the beltway have ever said. John asked her who was smaller, Bush for his continuing to call the Democratic party “Democrats”, among other things, or Clinton for his actions in South Carolina. It’s as close to a rhetorical question as it gets. However, this *itch said that Clinton was smaller.

These people will never get over their Clinton loathing. And, they hate to be called racists. So, perhaps for the beltway crowd, Obama is best. Even whats-her-face, seemed to agree that he’s a great candidate.

Either way, the gop is history.

No Responses »

I hear from many Democrats that the rightwingers are praying that Clinton is the nominee. I hear it from Stephanie Miller every day.

They are wrong.

Limbaugh has been defending Obama against Clinton for weeks now. He has been ripping Clinton daily. He takes time out from his anti-McCain rants to be nice to Obama. I just heard that rightwing blowhard on CNN, Bill Bennett, say the same thing. He was nice to Obama and “tough” on Clinton. If these people wanted Clinton to be the nominee, they’d be attacking Obama. There is no way that they’d be attacking Clinton if they really wanted Clinton to be the nominee.

Frankly, I think that both candidates give the wingers ample areas to attack. But, being that the wingers are closet-(and sometimes not so closet) racists, I am sure that they feel that Obama makes for a better attack target. As I said in my previous post, we are a nation that is very conflicted about race. Obama running will really drive some of this out in the open.

Luckily, I believe that both Gop candidates (Huckabee isn’t real) are very vulnerable. Even without the current antithesis towards the GOP (nobody likes the GOP), both McCain and Romney are very vulnerable. I’m thinking that I prefer McCain to be the nominee, despite the beltway media’s love of him (Matthews last night: “You’re in my heart”). He is as doddering as Dole. He makes these incredibly stupid statements, (”We’ll be in Iraq for 100 years”. “Bomb. Bomb. Bomb Iran”) It’ll be a campaign of faux pas on his part. Further, his deep love of war will shine through to a nation that is very tired of ward. He will get trounced.

Romney, OTOH, is a chameleon. He has flipped every single on of his positions. I expect that he’d flip a few more during the general. And, while it’d be fun to call him on all of his changed positions, and it would make for an easy target, there are people that don’t pay close enough attention to pick up on more-internal stuff like that.

Another advantage to running against McCain is that, according to DailyKos today, he is really out of money. He has no extra bank. He’s got to go to the people who he allegedly hates and get money. Further, there are a large number of arch-conservatives who will stay at home. While he may pick up Independents, I’m confident that the lengthy campaign will show how tired a story he is and even the beltway media will start to turn on him.

Either Clinton or Obama can and will raise unlimited funds. So, while the media will attack mercilously, they can and will defend themselves. Clinton more than Obama.

No Responses »

Back from the abyss again! It’s a wonder that I can’t get myself to write into this thing more often. I have plenty of thoughts, rants, if you will. But, getting around to updating the blog is just too much work. I dont’ know why. But, anyway, here I am back. And, with yet another vow to keep at it. My subject for this evening is the state of the Democratic race for president.
I am a huge John Edwards fan. I recognize that he’s made some changes in his positions since last he ran. Hearing him defending the war on Tim Russert’s show back in 2004, I think, was really hard. Having the Obama and Clinton supporters list out, painfully, each and every time that Edwards turned his back on his positions 4 years ago was also really tough. However, I accept his apologies. I accept that he has changed. I accept that he was representing a red state at the time and isn’t representing anything now. And, most importantly, I love what he’s saying right now. He has carved out such great positions that I just can’t turn my back on him.
And, that leads me to my current dilema. Since Edwards isn’t going to win, who would I prefer to see as the Democratic nominee? It actually is a tougher question that I thought that it’d be. There are so many interesting and unique areas to consider.
The pros are actually pretty easy.
Hillary has the toughness. She has experience with the wars with the gop and the media. (An assumption that I have going into this is that the media will be much more antagonistic towards a Democratic nominee and president than they have been with bush and whomever is the GOP nominee.)

Both Hillary and Obama have positions that I’m in favor of, pretty much across the board. They’re both strongly pro-choice (Obama’s ‘present’ votes notwithstanding), pro-environment (pro-idea-of-global-warming), pro-fair-taxes (i.e. more progressive than they are now), pro-the-right-kind-of-spending (i.e. infrastructure). They both don’t agree with me on what to do in Iraq. They are both more conservative and will take baby steps to get us out of there. But, out they both will go. So, that’s ok.
So, essentially, in terms of positions, it’s almost impossible to get a chisel between them. I’m a great fan.

What does that leave? What else is there? Electability. Effectiveness in office. Style points. The ability to convince the electorate that he/she is going the right path. Anything else? Can’t think of what it could be.

In terms of electability, I think that it’s a toss-up. Clinton inspires great, and unfocused, dislike. People just don’t like her. People who should like her, don’t. Even as she has moved to the right over the last 8 years, people still don’t like her. The media hates her. They will be ripping her unfairly the entire general election. It will be like Gore all over again.
However, Obama is black. In my cloistered world here in the Bay Area, CA, that has no real significance, positive or negative. However, as we go deeper and deeper into the middle of the country that lack of racism vanishes. Are we really ready to elect an African American for president? I am not so sure. In my world, the answer is simple, in a heartbeat, he would be elected. However, I don’t think that even the blue counties in the middle of the country would support him fully. I would like to think that just the racist rightwing would vote against him. If that were really the case, then he’d win in a landslide.

However, I don’t believe that. Further, he’s got the awkward problem of his name Barak Hussein Obama. The problem that his father was muslim. That again is no problem for my area. I’d vote for a Muslim (even though Obama is not). But, again, I don’t think that most would. There are the rumors that are categorically fake that he is a Muslim. Those can’t be ever be fully beaten back. And, then, there is the issue that he went to grade school in Indonesia. Again, that’s not a problem for me. But, again, it is a problem for more of the uneducated masses.
These questions are a problem.
Once in office, I believe that Obama will be more effective than Clinton. He is just such a tremendous speaker. I don’t like him triangulating. But, Clinton does it too. So, I can’t say anything. I don’t like his attempt to run above the rabble of partisanship. Because it’s not going to work.
I worry that Clinton will be treated like Carter when she gets into office. However, I have to remind myself that she has worked effectively with republicans before. So, maybe she can get things done.
But, if she can, so can Obama.
Of course, neither of them can get anything done if the Senate is not veto-proof and the gop continue their obstructionistic ways.
And, that leads to my final conclusion. Obama is running as Clinton, Bill did in 1992. Bill was a “New Democrat”. He believed in a “Place called Hope”. He talked about reaching across party lines. What happened the second that he got into office? Actually, what happened before he even got into office during his transition? The GOP lined up dead-solid against him. And, they didn’t move. They filibustered his ($20B) stimuls plan. They voted in lock-step against his budget. Every single gop representative voted against his budget. This was despite the fact that he tried to get some gop members to vote with him. But, for the gop, the orders came down, don’t support anything that he does. Hillary’s health plan disappeared due to no support. The gop didn’t even try. The Democrats thought that they’d be in office forever. Wtih the ‘94 election, that turned out to be wrong. Clinton had to work with obstructionistic and stupid Gop congresspeople for the rest of his term.
It only got worse from there.

No Responses »

I figure that a guy that has gone 0 for 8 in presidential elections is enough of a joke that nobody need really talk to or about him. But, funny story here, the Beltway is a world unto itself.  So, Shrum has been doing the rounds, even The Daily Show had the guy on. Of course, Stewart doesn’t suffer fools gladly, so I don’t think that Shrum got as much a free ride as other places. I listened to him on some CNN show (aren’t they all really the same?) And, his responses really focused on why I dislike him so much.

He was commenting on the Democratic debate. He ripped into Edwards for not being nice. I swear to god, his complaint boiled down to that. He felt that all the candidates should be nice to prepare themselves for the national general election. This reminded me that both Gore and Kerry had conventions that didn’t rip into bush. And, both conventions gave neither Gore nor Kerry any bump at all. On the other hand, bush let his people rip without impunity during both conventions. Not only did the networks love it (no surprise there, they’re all in the rightwing pocket) but bush got a huge bump out of both of his conventions.

Clearly, Shrum was the catalyst behind both Democratic candidates being nice. And, just as clearly, the American public had no clue what a disaster bush was. The Beltway media didn’t help. They just tossed the guy softballs and made excuses for him. It was up to Gore and Kerry to highlight in the clearest possible way, the differences between Bush and sanity. They failed. Shrum failed. And, nobody has called Shrum to account. Compare Gore and Kerry’s conventions with Clinton’s convention. Clinton ripped Bush Sr. and Dole BigTime. Even thought the Beltway media ripped him, it made a big difference in the election

I can only pray that the Democrat who wins the primary is aware of the disaster that is the last couple of elections. That’s why when I look for a primary candidate, I look for someone who can fight and who doesn’t mind mixing it up. That immediately rules out Clinton and Obama. Clinton is running this milquetoast campaign, which I hate. And, Obama is afraid to mix it up. Edwards jumped in in the early part of the last debate and ripped both Obama and Clinton, despite having some weaknesses in the area of the war himself. Clinton gave a lame response, something about Edwards being on the outside. *yawn* Obama’s response was on point (you voted for the war and I voted against it) but way out of date and completely irrelevent to the point being made (you just limped up to the vote, waited until the last minute, and said nothing about bush’s illegal war.)

I don’t think that Obama or Clinton will fight, though Clinton with her husband’s help, might. I think that Edwards has learned from his lame responses to the war back in 2003/2004. He is really carving out a path that requires some sharp words. And, as a former trial lawyer, he has that skill set.

I dont’ think that anyone else in the race has a chance.

No Responses »

“Raise your hands”. “How many of you think that Wolf “I am a rightwing tool” Blitzer is a dweeb?”

God, do I hate the raise your hands motif. What possible point could there be to having such a simple black and white question and response? There are no easy answers, except to Wolf and his beltway media pals. For her response to Wolf, I applaud Clinton for telling Wolf to piss off. Although, it was presumptious of her to speak for everyone.

The media, of course, thought that it was presidential and that Clinton took the initiative. Blech.

What is presidential is not saying that ‘we are safer now than we were in 9/11′, which is what Clinton said. It’s clear to me that, aside from her triangulating and trying to have it both ways problem, the bigger problem is that she is a hawk.  Based on that one response alone, I have categorically ruled out voting for Clinton. The fact that she has other issues that I have problems with (see afore-mentioned triangulation and both ways problems.)

I like Obama. But, I’m not ‘in love’ with him. He speaks well, and he’s on the ‘right’ side of most issues, though he’s voted with Clinton on just about every issue.

Another thing that I didn’t like about Clinton was her continuing to say, despite all evidence to the contrary, that all the Democratic candidates agree on all issues and that they’re just disagreeing with bush. That’s not the case. There are plenty of differences between the candidates. This was yet another example of Clinton being very annoying and inaccurate. She did that a few times during the debate.

My favorite candidate, Edwards, did very well, I thought.  He had a nice line, widely quoted, about how Obama and Clinton sneaked up to the voting area and voted against the Iraqi war funding at the last minute. Obama came back with a non-sequitor that Edwards was 4 1/2 years late. Yawn. Try to address the point, dude. And, Clinton made a lame comment about how people on outside (pointing to Edwards) not really having the standing to comment on what people on the inside are doing. It was yet another annoying response by Clinton.

Edwards talked about getting out of Iraq, helping poverty in America, becoming a good ambassador to the world again, working with the world on Global Warming. Edwards talked about getting bold. All of these issues were consistent with what I saw when I saw him in San Jose last week.

Oh, good, I’m listening to Bob Shrum on Chris Matthews show. He doesn’t think that Edwards is doing well. Almost by definition that means that Edwards is doing well.

On the other side, I think that Kucinich and Gravel have used up their 15 minutes. Both are a complete waste. Democrats who call up rightwing spin to attack the entire Democratic party suck.

The other controversial moment in the debate came when Wolf asked Edwards about his ‘bumper sticker’ comment, i.e. the war on terrorism is a bumper sticker phrase. He defended it, not well, IMO for people who don’t know what the subject is. But, Clinton’s response was just scary. She laid into the 9/11 phrasebook and said that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that we’re safer. While a line like that makes the entire beltway media and rightwingers drool, it’s not a true statement. Neither part is true. I’ve already talked about the joke that the we’re safer now than at 9/11. (i.e. terrorist activities are up dramatically since 2001, recruiting is up dramatically since we invaded Iraq, etc.) It’s also not true that we’re fighting a war on terrorism. Where is Osama? Where is the head of the Taliban? Where are we fighting terrorists? Nowhere. Our military is completely tied up in the Iraqi civil war.

Shrum just pissed me off again.  Saying that attacking other Democratic candidates is not a good way to go. That’s a whole new post that I will get to. For now, I’m glad that he’s ‘retired’. What a joke. He’s cost Democrats elections and has not a clue that he’s responsible.

2 Responses »

John Edwards visited San Jose, CA this evening. He was at San Jose State University for a public speech ($15). I sent him my contribution and then showed up for the speech. I arrived by 5 and Edwards showed up by 5:30. He talked until 6, shook hands until 6:30 and then was gone.

It was an interesting crowd. It was a smallish room that was filled. I estimate that there were roughly 700 people there. There were people of all ages and types. It appeared to me that there were more women than men. There wasn’t a lot of diversity however. It was a primarily white and asian audience. People were dressed in everything from suits to shorts. I didn’t see a lot of students, aside from the volunteers. The vast majority of people looked like they had just come from work.

So, at 5:15 we get a speech by a local politician. He thanks all of the other politicians in attendence. There were probably 2 or 3 dozen other local politicians. It was a very impressive showing in my book. I don’t know what else the guy said because it really wasn’t important.

Edwards shows up and starts speaking at 5:30. He’s got his rolled up sleeves and no tie motif thing going. He starts his speech talking about the fund Iraq vote that passed last week. He hits his favorite line that Congress should have continued passing the same funding with the requirement of bringing the troops home again and again after bush vetoed the bill. I agree with this, however, it wasn’t, I believe, possible. So, while it’s a good line and Congress should have done it, the votes weren’t there. And, since he isn’t in Congress, it’s easy for him to say.

Moving beyond that point, after a 10 minute riff on Iraq, he says, ‘The first thing that I”ll do as president, on the first day, is to close Guantanamo, stop torture, and stop the government from spying on Americans.’ Works for me!

He talked about traveling the world as an ambassador. Talking to the people, rather than the ‘leaders behind closed doors’. He wants to help improve the imagine of America around the world.  He talked about how since the world basically hates us (my words), we can’t lead on anything. We have to improve our standing in the world before we can lead.

And, leading was really a theme for Edwards. He talked about being bold. And, some of his ideas require serious boldness.

He talked about ending poverty in America in 30 years. He talked about the living wage. A family that is working shouldn’t be starving. He talked about improving unions so that they have strength again.

He implored people in the audience to work towards getting someone they like elected. He didn’t say himself. He talked about how just voting isn’t enough. It should be. But, it isn’t. People have to work.

He finished up with a quote by Ghandi. I doubt that I remember it. It went something like ‘you have to be the change. You can’t watch the change.’ Meaning that you have to work for change rather than just being a passive observer.

He started shaking hands. I missed him on both sides of the room. But, it was fun seeing him up close. I took some pics with my phone that I’ll upload later.

All in all, it was a good experience. My problem with him is probably not unique to Edwards. He has great plans and great ideas, but the Democratic party is timid and the Republicans are obstructionist. Anything that he gets passed will have to passed over the GOP’s dead body (better sooner than later) and with less than a unanimous Democratic vote. I have to know how he’s going to convince a reluctant Congress to go along with his very bold ideas. He talks about cutting back bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. No biggee there because I think that those tax cuts have an end of life. But, enforcing a living wage will not get any gop votes and will lose Democratic votes. Possibly getting more protection for the unions might get through the Democrats. Health care for the poor will face a very tough fight.

More on this later.

No Responses »