Posts with the tag clinton

DNC Makes Their Decision

sekai.no.kakumei — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:05:52 EDT

After a lot of debate and controversy about Florida and Michigan’s delegates, the DNC decided to reinstate the delegates to the party convention, but at half-vote as penalty for moving their primaries. Here’s the breakdown:

→ Clinton receives 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving her 87 votes.

→ Obama receives 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving him 63. This lessens his lead over Clinton from 202 to 174.

Clinton's New Strategy

Nick — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:50:41 EDT

These comments are not meant to endorse either of the two candidates for the Democratic nomination. They simply point out my thoughts on the recent uproar over Jeremiah Wright and the Clinton campaign's response.

"Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination" -- New York Times

A couple of days ago, the New York Times put out a Political Memo titled "Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination." The article analyzes the waning chance of Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for President. With the popular vote and delegate count in Mr. Obama's advantage, only around ten contests to go, and a growing concern for weakened party unity if the contest were to last up to the Democratic National Convention, there is little room for error on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Recognizing this, Clinton's campaign has shifted the focus onto Obama's relationship with his pastor Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has made racially charged criticisms and harsh condemnations of U.S. behavior. NYT reports that Clinton's campaign hopes that in the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, scrutiny of Obama's past will uncover more doubts "that would underscore Mrs. Clinton's warning to Democrats that they were rallying around someone who was untested and unvetted," (NYT).

Therefore, the Clinton campaign is not going to emphasize her superior policies or her thirty-five years of experience. They surely will not make the argument that she is the more effective leader of one of the most participative and scrutinized elections in U.S. history. Rather, the Clinton machine will focus on what is truly important: Obama's relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

"Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election," (New York Times).

Unfortunately for Clinton, framing Obama as unreliable due to his relationship with his outspoken pastor is weak at best. This reality, to which the Clinton campaign is trying hard not to give any credence, can easily be seen by asking a few questions.

First, is Obama's association with a pastor who made anti-American comments worse than Clinton's vote for the resolution to use force in Iraq (a concrete vote enabling us to get where we are in Iraq today? Or, association with pastor critical of U.S. policies?)?

Secondly, does the fact that Pastor Wright has made inflammatory anti-American remarks mean that Obama holds the views expressed in those remarks? Unless there exists a proven, omnipotent process of pastor-to-layperson osmosis of views, this writer would have to say no. After all, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other government officials sat through each one of George W. Bush's State of the Union Addresses. Does it follow that they all agreed that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq should have been defined as an axis of evil?

A third question to ask in order to vet the Clinton campaign's logic: does Clinton have associations with shady or controversial persons, and if so, does that mean she is "untested and unvetted" as well? If Clinton's argument that Obama is "untested and unvetted" due to his association with Pastor Wright is capable of holding water, then in order for her to be tested and vetted, which Mark Penn deems a process that "will make a big defference," Clinton cannot have associations with controversial figures. Unfortunately, she does, but perhaps friends convicted in the Whitewater scandal don't count because they are associations that have passed the "controversial threshold," which means--as everyone knows--they have been known for at least seven years.

Despite the characteristically hollow nature of the argument that is to form the foundation of the Clinton campaign's new strategy, you can be sure that they will advance it anyway.

The Clinton campaign should stick to making the argument the Hillary is ready to be president. Focusing on Obama's pastor's incendiary sermons does not create a dialogue with the American people that can create the ideas and motivation needed to accomplish the goals we should be setting for ourselves.

Way To Go Dems; Listen To The MSM And Hand The Election To The GOP!

Justanothercoverup — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:33 EDT

For the past seven (7) years, the Mainstream News Media has favored the Bush administration and has refused to publish facts and report upon issues that are critical to the survival of Democracy in America. Their bias and downright refusal to honestly report the facts rather than spin and propaganda has been well documented - yet because it’s election time, in spite of a track record that indicates the MSM is as much to blame for our downward spiral into fascism as the President himself - Democrats on both sides of the isle are buying into the havoc the MSM is creating within the Democratic party itself, which is evidenced by John McCain’s rise in the polls which indicates he is polling ahead of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s obvious I don’t understand the politics of Presidential elections as I watch the GOP pull ahead on matters the public has already condemned LINK, however, as long as we give credence to a MSM that has actively hid the truth from the American people for seven long years and are hell bent on distracting the public from the real issues this nation faces while they create havoc within the Democratic Party - I see the ultimate consequence of our infighting resulting in another loss to the warmongers that are intent on destroying America. Have we forgotten the damage the MSM has wrought upon America? The Enablers Of Fascism, The Mainstream News Media

Firedoglake published an Op-Ed that reveals the MSM’s influence on the Presidential campaign as it pertains to the Obama/Clinton debacle - and when we realize that much of the indignation and hyperbole of this controversy has been created and fanned by the MSM, we should also understand that it’s not by accident, but meant to influence the election and help to place another GOP candidate in the White House!

The Media’s Race Problem

By: David Neiwert Thursday March 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Probably the most remarkable aspect of the recent feeding frenzy about Barack Obama’s so-called “pastor problem” — besides the agility and smarts that Obama has displayed in handling it — is not as much what it reveals about the state of race in America as what it reveals about the state of the American media.

The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.

No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.

It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.

Hacktackular Howie Kurtz, the Post’s “media critic,” in his column today — while notably failing to critique the media for its performance — essentially admitted that this was a media-driven frenzy:

[I]t wasn’t until last week, when Fox News and ABC News bought DVDs of Wright’s sermons from the church, that the simmering controversy reached full boil. The recordings have long been sold by the church, but journalists did not seek them until now.

Kurtz’s description also encapsulates the blinkered bias that was at play in not just the discussion leading up to Obama’s speech, but in the general response to it:

To their credit, the network newscasts ran four or five sound bites to evoke Obama’s broader argument that while the anger of older blacks like Wright, 66, is understandable, the country needs to move beyond the racial wounds of the past. But Obama, 46, is trying to win the Democratic nomination, so the anchors kept returning to one core question.

“Is it enough to reassure white voters?” ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked.

“Does it make too many white voters uncomfortable?” asked CBS’s Katie Couric.

Their entire preoccupation, indeed, was with how Wright’s remarks might discomfit whites — while never examining the deeper questions of whether white complacence about race might be something worth challenging, as well as their own roles in failing to make that challenge. MUST READ ARTICLE!

It was only a few months ago that Progressives and Liberals across the country reacted in utter disgust as the MSM marginalized Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Ron Paul - and whether we like it or not, it was the MSM that decided, not the American people, which candidates were acceptable to participate in the Presidential elections. Have we forgotten so fast that the MSM has been the leading purveyor of propaganda in the United States? When we examine and condemn their past behavior, why then are Americans now giving so much credibility to their obvious meddling in the election process by doing their best to promote and exacerbate the fractures that are rising within with the Democratic Party? Who ultimately benefits from the MSM “stirring the pot” and promoting an air of indecisiveness and confusion within the Democratic Party?

The answers to the above questions are obvious, and while we have to watch the news to collect some details, Liberals, Progressives, Independents, and especially Democrats need to take whatever the MSM has to offer as it pertains to Democratic candidates with a grain of salt and remember it’s been the MSM that has supported this illegal and corrupt Presidency from the beginning - and I believe they are up to their old tricks, and unfortunately, many in the electorate are buying their manipulations of the news hook, line, and sinker - without remembering who they are and what their ultimate goals are - and that’s to install another GOP President in the White House! From what I’ve been witnessing, their campaign to create unrest and disenfranchisement among Democrats is working as planned, and it’s up to the American people to wake-up and realize the MSM isn’t our “friend” - but represents the GOP by and through their corporate masters!

William Cormier

When solutions... are not

Tommaso — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:57:19 EST

The beginning of the presidential race was extremely exciting for climate change fanatics, with all the democratic contenders trying to one-up each other and McCain taking back the Republican lead despite his calls for higher fuel efficiency and climate protection.

But my enthusiasm gave way to frustration as I looked into each candidate's platforms. Edwards was the only candidate calling for moratorium on coal and no nuclear. Barrack Obama and Hillary continue touting the 'clean coal' bandwagon while McCain claims that nuclear, and nuclear alone, will solve the climate crisis. Just in case you have been giving in to the brainwashing by the cutzie 'clean coal' commercials on CNN, or McCain's rhetoric on nuclear, let me explain why, as youth, we should be up in arms about these solutions... that are not.

If you read one article on the Election...

PreparationG — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:44:33 EST

...Read this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama. I'm sure many of you have already enjoyed this piece by Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic, but of everything I've read about this much-talked-of contest, it's the best. It's about how one candidate has the ability to fundamentally disrupt the now petty arguments we've been having as a nation since...well, since around 1961--the year Obama was born, but just a few years before Hillary cut her teeth entrenching herself, very vocally, on one side of these arguments.

Perhaps it should not be expected that we have a President of the next generation already--we've only had 2 Baby Boomers, and before that we had no less than 5 elected members of the "Greatest Generation." But last night, Hillary said something that really stuck with me. One of her biggest applause lines was "It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush." If you think about it, this endorses a terribly anti-progressive view of the future, a cyclical one actually. By Hillary's logic, after her presidency (which could extend until 2017), we'll be no further as a nation than we were in 1989, and still mired in the exhaustive debates of the Boomer generation that Sullivan details in his article.

You can also imagine the familiar cultural parameters of a dialogue between party nominees John McCain, who was tortured for 6 and a half years in Vietnam, and Hillary Clinton, the conflicted former protester and wife of a draft dodger.

Arcade Fire Member Backs Obama

Ali M Latifi — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:39:30 EST

Since when did Pitchfork become such a beacon of political commentary?

Check out this story from today's Pitchfork about Arcade Fire's Win Butler and his thoughts on everyone's favorite dueling democrats Obama and Hilary.

Arcade Fire's Win Butler Disses Hillary, Backs Obama

Some Hip Hop Stars Are About More Than Just Bling : Lupe Fiasco & Rhymefest on Hilary and Obama

Ali M Latifi — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:45:59 EST

Obama or Hilary, which would say more for American progress? Its a question that people have been throwing around for a long time including two of the greatest MCs of the time - Lupe Fiasco and Rhymefest.

Clinton Global Initiative and Think MTV, together!

Jenny Odegard — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:55:54 EDT

Campus Progress's own Erica Williams (our Issue Campaigns Manager) gave her perspective on youth activism at the Clinton Global Initiative's new youth movement.

Bono, Shakira, Alicia Keys, and others got together to launch the campaign and to inspire youth acitivsts to get involved with a variety of causes. A lot of what was said ties in closely with what we do here at Campus Progress, especially the key message about youth mobilization.

The Clinton Presidency That Wasn't

Josh Eidelson — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:48:00 EDT

Had the chance while I was back East for Rosh HaShanah to read George Stephanopoulos' memoir, which I guess is a lot like you'd imagine it to be. Not to give away the ending, but Stephanopoulos closes with the image of Bill Clinton delivering his State of the Union in the thick of impeachment, and his final sentence is:

Wondering what might have been - if only this good president had been a better man.

This perspective on Clinton - that the great potential of his presidency was spoiled by his sex scandal - is pretty popular, but I don't see a lot to support it. What were the big domestic or foreign policy initiatives that Clinton would have been able to push through in the last two-and-a-half years of his presidency if not for Monica Lewinsky? What's the political strategy that would have overcome the hostility of Bob Dole's Senate and Newt Gingrich's House to get them through?

Sure, the Lewinsky scandal drew a lot of public, media, and congressional attention. But it's wishful thinking to imagine that otherwise that airtime would have gone to important public policy. Bill Clinton spent much of the time he was being impeached at higher popularity than any of his peers at the same point in office. Like his wife, he did a deft job of parlaying Republican attacks into anti-anti-Clinton feeling. And if not for the impeachment overreach, it seems unlikely that the Democrats would have bucked history in 1998 by taking back House seats.

The story of a progressive savior that could have been if not for his adulterous appetites has a fun Greek tragic flair to it, but there's not a lot to back it up. And it has the unfortunate effect of perpetuating the idea that a brilliant politician could have triangulated his way to big progressive reforms if only he'd passed up that blue dress.

Live from YearlyKos: Saturday

John O-R — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:22:51 EDT

Well the big event is here... the Presidential Dispatch.

I'm going to live blog it... and after that I'll give some more great swag & trend updates, like I did in yesterday's blog (you can find it here).

Follow me after the flip... and if you're live blogging it too & on your laptop, or watching from home, just drop a note in the commentz.

Forget Spielberg, Obama's Got Oprah!

Cara Boekeloo — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:12:19 EDT

She's singlehandedly turned around the publishing industry. Can she do the same for politics? The Harpo Productions maven (I remember how proud I was when I realized her company was her name backwards) announced yesterday that she was opening her Santa Barbara-area estate to host a four-star fundraiser for Obama on September 8, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Withdrawal from Iraq--blaming the victim

Heather_B — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:03:38 EDT

I keep harping on politicians' quickness to fault the Iraqi people themselves for the chaos wrought by invasion and occupation. It's an abhorrent excuse, and its bipartisan popularity is sickening.

This morning Hillary Clinton was booed by the "hard left" (nice touch, ABC) at the Take Back America conference for passing the buck on Iraq:

"The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government, which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people."

Clinton's not the only Democratic Presidential candidate to rationalize much-needed withdrawal by putting the onus on those suffering most...

My First Entry

Eugene Resnick — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:41:14 EST

Well this is the first entry for me on this blog. I'm quite excited! So what is going on right now....Obama is being attacked from all sides and it seems like the Republicans are trying to kill their own candidates. Can some candidate please stand up and say, "I support full marriage equality." No, G-d forbid a candidate would support the actual foundations of this country: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.