Delegate Contest May Lead To "Thief-in-Chief"

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The above photo made the rounds between election day 2000 and the installment of George W. Bush in the White House. I think it's kind of cute yet rather biting in its humor. It was directed at those who felt (and still feel) that the election was stolen from Al Gore. 2000 confirmed two things for me; our electoral system is a mess, and Florida voters can't fill out a ballot with both hands and a flashlight.

It came back to me as I considered the current state of the Democratic primary race. For now, debates and posturing have given way to the brass tacks of political conventions; delegates. So, the party that pointed out (rightly, in my opinion) that the election of 2000 was tainted, is now faced with its own internal quandary.

As I write this I hear on the radio that Hillary Clinton, in a response to a question about the momentum of Barack Obama, said that the people should be allowed to speak. Politics, however, seems to make many contradict themselves in short order.

If, as many predict, the delegate count is fairly even come convention time, the question arises as to which candidate the "superdelegates" should back. In this Sen. Clinton probably has the edge.

Also, there can be the pesky problem of delegates "won" in state caucuses getting lost on their way to the convention. Walter Mondale did it to Gary Hart's delegates in 1984, and it could happen again.

Finally, there is this somewhat sleazy feel to the "primaries" of Michigan and Florida. The DNC punished the states for moving their elections forward against the wishes of the party. The elections in those two states were categorized as irrelevant because.....long ago.....it was assumed that the nomination would be sewed up without them.

Now they loom on the horizon as a test of the fairness of the Democratic Party. If the three factors above are manipulated by either candidate, then the electoral thievery so condemned eight years ago will perch on the roof of the party and its nominee.

Fudging a bit is normal in elections. So is baby-kissing, butt-kissing, and shaking hands with people who make you want to bathe in GermX afterwards.

But outright theft; no. Going into a Fall campaign with a millstone around one's neck is not good politics.

There is not much point in being captain of a sinking ship, especially if you're the one who scuttled it in the first place.
**********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

"Ask Not What I Will Do For MY Country; Ask What My Country Can Do For Me"...Hillary Clinton's Mantra

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Hillary Rodham Clinton has now won the New Hampshire Primary. 8,000 voters put her 3% over Barack Obama. The MSM, despite pulling another 1948 poll debacle, is continuing its sandbox gossiping. Mainly by not concentrating on a few facts.

It was NOT a two-person race. John Edwards pulled 48,000 votes. Bill Richardson, 13,000. It is a fair question to ask what the result would have been if those two candidates' voters had only Clinton or Obama to choose from.

However, Hillary Clinton is back in the saddle, thanks to something that while not exactly intangible, doesn't smell so good. In fact, it stinks. Maureen Dowd hit the nail on the head when she wrote:

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

Dowd is among many who have questioned the whimpering "woe is me" scene that showed Clinton as "human." So Holy mother of pearl, after all these years the iron maiden produces tears in public. All I saw was an iron maiden who can produce tears.

For the core remains, and that core is so Clintonesque, so predictable, that I have a hard time with people not seeing it. Bill and Hillary Clinton are political siamese twins; inseparable, joined at the hip in a life-long pursuit of political office and the power (and money) that accompany it. They are particularly skilled at converting YOUR hope into their goals.

Here's what's really weird about our political situation as it stands: the Republican Party is far to the right of where it was 40 years ago. Thanks to the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintons, the Democrats are far to the right of what they were 40 years ago.

So in essence, Hillary Clinton is a moderate Republican wanting to be president. But there are exceptions; there always are. When it comes to authoritarianism and using the power of the state to control the private lives of citizens, then Clinton is on the barricades with the rest of the self-righteous Constitution shredders.

The pundits are saying that women put Clinton over the top; that gender is a factor. Some hint that there might be a "closet" anti-black vote in New Hampshire also. I do take hope that in lily-white Iowa race did not matter. And being so close to Dr. King's birthday, and the unfortunately beaten into the ground "I have a dream" speech, it IS worth remembering his words on content of character instead of the color of one's skin.

Or their gender. To ignore character is foolish and a great disservice to the republic. And voters should take a long, hard look at the choices they have, while they still have them.

This nation is heading for the shallows, if not the shoals. Rough times are ahead, and if the Democrats nominate a candidate who cannot stop thinking of themselves long enough to think of their country, then God help us all.

One thing is for sure; Hillary Clinton may have shed a few tears in New Hampshire, and those tears may have garnered her those critical 8,000 votes. But once she is seated in the Oval Office not one tear will she shed for four years.

No, you and I will be the ones crying.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Richardson Calls it as it is…

Picture Courtesy of Bill Richardson for President

I’m beginning to really like Bill Richardson. I like his in your face approach and telling it like he sees it. By no means is he a candidate for President that will continue the mistakes of George Bush but he tells you exactly what and how to end the Iraq War.

Bill sat down with the Associated Press on Wednesday and spoke his mind on many issues but he was pretty clear on where he stands on the troops involvement under his administration if elected President. You need to read the whole piece to get the gist of what I’m getting at but come back here for the rest of this piece. Over at the New York Times they have this interesting read on Bill Richardson…

Richardson: US Troops Add to Iraq Unrest
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 19, 2007
Filed at 5:59 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson on Wednesday called for the U.S. to end the war in Iraq, arguing that the troops exacerbate the sectarian violence and the billions spent could be used for health care and other needs.

''We're a nation that spends $5.5 billion in cancer research -- that's two weeks of the Iraq war,'' Richardson told The Associated Press. ''It shows the misguided priorities.''

''We are being bled dry by an invasion that is costing us $500 billion so far -- $500 billion,'' he said, stressing the cost. ''And it's detracting from American security objectives in dealing with terrorism, with nuclear proliferation, with energy independence.''

In an hourlong interview with AP editors and reporters, the New Mexico governor argued that all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.

''There's no question there's tribal and ethnic hatreds,'' Richardson told The Associated Press. ''But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.'' - New York Times

I have to agree with the Governor that tribal differences in Iraq will be there no matter who’s troops are stationed in Iraq. What draws my attention to the comments today by the candidate is that he will end our involvement in Iraq, and nobody will stop him from pulling our troops out of the wasted policies of the “Mo Money” for me and my buddies war.

One thing that is certain, the next President of this nation will have to fix many problems that the Republican lead Congress ignored. The gravy train that leads directly to the United States Treasury will no longer have a dotted line through “Friends of Bush/Cheney” before being spent on behalf of the American people.

From the other side of the political game we call Presidential elections, the Republicans and the leaders in the party are riding shot gun on the Bush nightmare. “Fight them over there or fight them here.” is a joke. When Bush changed the battle front away from Afghanistan he lost his poker bluff. Mitt and Rudy are just sitting down at the big boys table of poker and they are about to lose their shirts politically.

Bill Richardson is talking the talk and people are listening from both sides of the aisle once more. The Governor has some interesting points and if given the time to speak about his positions and people willing to read them, he has a damn good chance of being the next President of the United States.

Papamoka

IN THE QUEST TO BE FIRST, ARE WE WINDING UP WITH SECOND BEST?

Picture courtesy of the White House

By Michael Linn Jones

There is that old story about a Texan braggart on a tour of New York City. His guide is a native New Yorker, and he tells the Texan that their next stop is the Empire State Building.

Looking up at the skyscraper from the sidewalk, the Texan exclaims, "Why hell, we have outhouses in Texas bigger than that."

The New Yorker replies, "Yeah, and you need 'em, too."

Being Americans, we have this affinity....no, a need to be superlative in things. Best, biggest,longest, highest....and first. First on the moon; first in flight; first in production, and so on. And now....first in the nomination process for the office of the President of the United States.

Conventions used to produce the candidates. In those "smoke-filled rooms" so pilloried by those who demanded a change. Power to the people and all that.

For the Democrats, 1968 was the last year of the party bosses deciding who got what. The primary system was beefed up and then inevitably manipulated. It was supposed to be (and to a great extent was) a winnowing process that took place over months. Numerous states had their primary elections in a loose order; one that allowed that most precious commodity in elections...time. Time is needed to take a second or even third look at a candidate.

But no more. It was odd how in 2004 the Democrats had their nominee decided so soon. It was a bogus "winner take all" event that finally vindicated Harry Truman's opinion that primaries were bunk.

But, in for a penny; in for a pound. This time around numerous states are advancing their primary dates sooner and sooner, so as to be......first. What the 2008 Democratic primary election is now resembling is the Thunderdome from Mad Max. "Eight candidates enter; one candidate leaves." I wouldn't be shocked if they had Tina Turner sing the theme song at the convention next year. It would be appropriate.

Every pollster is aware of the 1948 gaffe when "Dewey Defeats Truman" was used as crow for journalists to eat after the truth came out. The "experts" stop listening to the people and only listened to each other. In a nutshell, that's how they missed the mark so badly in 1948.

But not to worry. The system is being manipulated so that "the people" will be herded into only one corral, and very quickly at that. Options will disappear long before there is any truly close examination of the candidates. The experts can finally be afforded the luxury of listening only to each other.

So now, in September 2007 we are being given the clear choice for the Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton. That inevitability mantra is one of the things that annoys me about her candidacy.

More and more it appears to be an enthronment rather than an electoral process. It will take place not in a smoke-filled room, but rather in a smoke-free room. In fact, a low cholesterol, high fiber, flatulence (and hence Co2) free room.

As a Democrat, I don't feel like I've got any choice, but more an instruction from the Democratic National Committee. The wheel seems to have turned full circle from the American Revolution. Mel Gibson's character Benjamin Martin makes a comment in the film THE PATRIOT: "Why trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

It's a good question. Tryanny with a smile is tyranny just the same. If Senator Clinton is as intelligent as she is supposed to be, might she not ask herself if in reaching her ultimate goal she will cast aside any claim to historical relevance?

In the end, the 2008 campaign will be the dirtiest yet.

And so will the governing that follows.

Kind of makes one nostalgic for those smoke-filled rooms sometimes.

Michael Linn Jones

Cross Posted at Michael Linn Jones and the Gun Toting Liberal