BloggingBarack.com

Worse than staying silent on the matter - Obama has now declared that he is going to support, YES, SUPPORT!, the FISA Amendments act that according to the ACLU:

The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Clearly Obama is afraid of standing up to McCain on this issue for fear of being accused that he won’t protect the country, and instead has proven he can’t protect our constitution. My friend Danielle always told me there would be something Obama would disappoint me on - I just never thought it would be on such a critical issue. So, Senator Obama, that hundred bucks I was going to give you this month - it’s going to the ACLU instead.

It’s been a while since writing my last post…..again.  But what brings me out this time around is Obama’s baffling, and quite frankly disgusting, silence on the The FISA Amendment Act.  This is the one that gives immunity to the telco’s that were criminally spying on American citizens - violating the constitution.

As my friends know, one of the main things I like about Obama is the fact that he taught constitutional law.  This, I felt, was likely to result in someone more likely to understand, defend, and protect our beloved constitution.  Senator Obama’s silence right now is disturbing, not just because he isn’t leading the charge against this reckless bill, but that it’s eerily similar to his silence on the vote that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist Organization.  Back in November, I wrote about how I discussed this vote with Steve Hildebrandt at a debate watch party.

He assured me that the Senator Obama only missed the vote because he had to make the  tough decision between meeting with voters and being in Washington, DC.  I believed him then; and I am left wondering now.

Senator Obama, as the presumptive Democratic Nominee, it is your duty to lead the fight against this bill.  You cannot claim to protect our constitution if you sit idly by and watch this bill pass - even if you vote against it.  You cannot claim to be a leader if you are unable to find 40 other Senators to stand with you against this bill and at least filibuster it.

Is there ever anything more urgent than protecting our constitution?  Where is the fierce urgency of now right now senator?

A little too excited for writing tonight, but I keep thinking of this song!

With each day it becomes clearer Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination, her supporters’ desire to maintain some amount of control over the presidential race is seen as they begin to suggest Clinton has somehow “earned” a spot on the general election ticket. This suggestion is another argument from her camp that she somehow “deserves” a role in the executive branch. The argument for a unity ticket goes against the grain of what many of us have seen anecdotally, misunderstands the movement Obama has created, and inappropriately suggests that having Clinton as a VP has only upside potential without any significant downside.

The first lie about a unity ticket is that it would help bring the party together. What will bring the party together is a clear contrast between the ideas of Barack Obama and John McCain. Having Hillary on the ticket will muddy the waters when it comes to defining our view on foreign policy, Iraq, and now the economy thanks to the gas tax argument. Instead of clearly staking out the democratic position, a unity ticket is likely to make both Hillary and Obama supporters feel as if they’ve compromised their beliefs and confuse swing voters about where exactly we stand on the most critical issues that face our nation.

The second lie about a unity ticket is that it’s the only way Hillary’s supporters are going to be appeased. Generally speaking, people vote for the top of a ticket. There are very few people that would vote for Obama with Hillary on the ticket but for McCain if she were left off. To suggest that Hillary’s supporters would somehow coalesce around Obama only if Hillary is on the ticket gives them little credit and also assumes Hillary would only work to support Obama if she were on the ticket. Both assumptions are false, and if Hillary hopes to be a leader in the Democratic Party she will have no choice but to do so.

The third - and probably the biggest - lie is that it could only help, and wouldn’t do any harm. Indeed the exact opposite is true. Obama does indeed struggle with some voters and he is going to need to work very hard to win them over - something I believe can be done. But Hillary also turns off a LOT of people. So many in fact that there are independents who find Obama refreshing but would quickly lose their affection for him if his “heartbeat away for the presidency” choice was the same person they have so viled for the past 15 years. Both Clinton and Obama talk about how their differences are small when compared to McCain. This is true - but it doesn’t mean it makes the most sense for them to be together either. There are a number of people that would be a much better fit with Obama to clearly stake out why he won, how the party is going to move forward, and what his movement represents.

For the record, my favorite veep candidate is Bobby Kennedy Jr. He was/is a Hillary supporter so he could help bring the party together, he’s committed his life to environmental advocacy and would likely excite the democrats so quickly we’d forget about Clinton within a week. I should note, I understand it’s somewhat bazaar that I like Kennedy for a VP candidate given my issues with the two family rule our country will have endured for the past 28 years. However, as JFK was president more than 45 years ago and was in office less than three years, I don’t think the situation is at all the same.

Obama/Kennedy ‘08 - has a nice ring to it.

With each day that passes, the desperation with which Hillary Clinton is trying to win over superdelegates grows conversely with her chances of winning the nomination. Other than rolling out her newest campaign slogan (I’m White!) there is only one area where the Clinton campaign feels they can make a legitimate argument. This is the popular vote. Now first, it’s important to understand that in order for Hillary Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote you need to count FL and MI. Keep in mind, according to their math she gets votes in MI and Obama gets none due to his name not being on the ballot. Then Clinton must win dramatically in Puerto Rico, a territory that doesn’t even get to vote in the presidential election. Only at this point can Clinton hope she will overtake Obama in the popular vote. Other than the obvious flaws with this scenario - mainly the required suspension of disbelief that there isn’t a single soul in all of MI that would vote for Obama - there is the less commonly argued point that the popular vote doesn’t mean squat in our elections.

This isn’t to say that it shouldn’t matter, and indeed we really should figure out how the hell to hold an election in this country; but it is to say that Campaigns strategize based on the rules that determine elections. Unfortunately I wasn’t blogging in 2000, but I never complained about Gore having the popular vote and still losing. I of course complained loudly that we couldn’t just re-count all the FL votes and figure out who won.

Ironically, to argue that the popular vote does matter actually disenfranchises huge chunks of voters around the country. The reason is simple - people are smart, they watch the news, they read newspapers, and yes, they look at polls. I promise you, there were tens of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands) that didn’t vote in Illinois, or NewYork for that matter, because they knew their home state senator would win in a landslide - and that their vote was highly unlikely to earn any more delegates for their preferred candidate. To suddenly tell all these people that the rules have changed and that the number of individual votes does matter is the definition of disenfranchisement.

If the popular vote were meant to determine the nominee, candidates would simply camp out in NY, LA, Chicago, Miami, and a few other cities and call it a day. There is a reason the process is set up this way. It is by no means perfect - but changing the rules at the end of the race isn’t going to be bought by anyone. It would be akin to a baseball team claiming they won a game because they had more hits than the other team - even though the other team had more runs.

Hillary Clinton knows this, and the superdelegates know this too. But unfortunately for her this also means that barring a political nuclear bomb - Obama is going to have a lead in elected delegates when this is all over - even if all of Florida and Michigan’s delegates are sat. For the best analysis I’ve seen anywhere look at Obama’s Pledged Delegate Scenario’s on FiveThirtyEight. What this all means is that Hillary has lost - at least amongst voters.

Unwilling to accept this reality she has begun her shadow campaign - arguing that democracy does not work and that voters know not what they do.

Andrew Wicklander

Say No to Hillary for VP - Sign the Petition!

Posted using ShareThis

Hillary Clinton’s supporters are understandably upset. They have a candidate they believe in and they are hurt that she appears to have lost the nomination. In their grief however, they are making some ridiculous statements; mainly that Obama is unelectable because he failed to win over white working class voters in large numbers. Interestingly, this argument is both inaccurate and ironic. In addition to what follows below, I still believe everything I wrote back in January about why Obama vs. McCain is a good matchup for dems.

First, Obama failed to win over these voters when running against Hillary Clinton. This does not necessarily say anything about how he will fare with them when running against McCain - whose self professed ignorance on economic issues shouldn’t win white working class voters over very easily. The irony is that the argument being made by Hillary Clinton supporters is essentially: these people won’t figure out they’ll get screwed by McCain. After weeks of calling Obama out of touch and elitist, it’s somewhat bazaar to now have Clinton supporters arguing that this entire group of people isn’t going to be able to figure out what’s in their best interest. Hillary’s supporters are looking at what happened in 2004 when analyzing how these voters will react in a general election, not understanding that many of them realize they were essentially tricked in 2004. Again, patronizing the very people they supposedly defend.

Moreover, they say nothing about the fact that Hillary has consistently lost amongst almost all African Americans. To them, this is apparently insignificant - even though African Americans are more consistently democratic than any other demographic group in the nation. Their literal argument is that some white people matter more than all black people. It’s baffling.

Lastly, and most importantly, Obama hasn’t yet begun to campaign against McCain. The one thing we have seen consistently from Obama throughout the course of the primaries and Caucuses is that wherever he’s campaigning he does better than before he was campaigning. When he’s the nominee facing McCain in debates, on the road, on television, indeed on every measure, he will be better. This is all in addition to the massive ground game that Obama has built up. One benefit of this primary season is that Obama has built a grassroots network in ALL 50 STATES. Unlike Senator Clinton who thought she could win by Super Tuesday with big spending on TV commercials, Obama planned on going the distance in both the large and small states. As a result, he has a network of volunteers and donors throughout the country. Adding to this the fact that he has plentiful funds to dispatch workers wherever the battlegrounds begin to take shape, Obama and his supporters should feel very good about a general election against McCain.

Hillary Clinton has been a formidable candidate. But it is now clear Senator Obama will have won more states, more votes, and more delegates. Clearly, he is electable, and he will be elected the Democratic nominee.

I’ve received requests from some friends of mine to outline what Obama has accomplished during his time in Public Office.  Let me first start out by saying that I feel this is a loaded question designed to make him look lightweight when compared to McCain or Clinton.  It’s the kind of question that seems to indicate ideas don’t matter as much as accomplishments.  I disagree with this - for Bush’s ideas were far worse than any of his previous actions.  Only when he obtained the power of the White House did his true evil shine through.  But alas, I will address this question since people keep asking about it.  Forgive my tone, but I’m more irritated than normal today with Hillary again moving the goal line.   And frankly, unless Obama wins in Indiana tonight I’m starting to truly fear Clinton will steal this election  so I’m crabby as it is.

Anyway, back to Obama.  First, Obama’s voting record has a good score card with the ACLU which may not mean much to a lot of people, but for those of us who still think the constitution matters it’s important.  Second, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  After having a president who continually looked for loopholes in the constitution, it would be refreshing to have a president who actually understood the words and the meaning of the constitution.  Does anyone even believe Bush has ever read the constitution from start to finish?   I doubt it.  As for his legislative accomplishments, below is a list of Obama’s 2007 legislative successes - via Grassroots Mom on Daily Kos.  For more thorough analysis, please read her entire diary.

S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as “National Summer Learning Day”.

Some of these are significant, like nuclear threat reduction (S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764) while others are fluff like National Summer Learning Day.  In my opinion, none of these matter as much as his coming out against the Iraq war, his experiences as a community organizer, or his knowledge and understanding of the constitution.  For a more well spoken analysis of Obama’s legislative accomplishments, check out Claire McCaskill on Hardball.  You can also see the moron who went on TV without understanding a single thing Obama has accomplished.

So, while I re-iterate that Obama’s legislative record matters little to me when compared to his life experiences, I hope this post provides you with some information you are interested in if you’re considering supporting Obama.

Senator Obama, close the door to the Vice Presidency. Speak with conviction. Speak with Clarity. Do it now. You have the opportunity to show people your toughness and you are not taking it. I am writing now as a supporter, a campaign contributor, and someone who drove to Springfield to watch you announce. Let me put it bluntly: You have not convinced me that you will turn down the VP slot - even if you receive more elected delegates.  This has in turn caused me to question whether you will put the ideals of our country ahead of the party should you have to choose between the two. That is how high the stakes are right now - and if you think the party is more important than the country I know not the man I have been supporting.

I do not want to hear from anyone about what is good for the party; indeed the moral high ground here is fighting for the majority - however slim it may be. I want you to be willing to fight for our democracy, even if it means things will get a little messy in Denver. How can we expect you to lead us in the fight on terrorism, if you are not now coming out with all the force necessary to fight for freedom at home?

I don’t want to hear you say you aren’t running for VP - I know this. I don’t want to hear you talk about the oxymoronic statements by the Clinton camp that you aren’t experienced to be President but could possibly be VP - I know this too. I want to hear you CLOSE THE DOOR the Vice Presidency if you have more elected delegates and the popular vote. I don’t want to hear you say we shouldn’t assume you would take the VP slot. I want to hear you say you will not take it.

The only thing that could betray your supporters more than Senator Clinton stealing the nomination is you authorizing her to do so. CLOSE THE DOOR NOW!

This is what Barack Obama should be saying RIGHT NOW:  “Should I win more pledged delegates than Senator Clinton, I will fight with everything I have to secure the democratic nomination.  And in the almost certain event that I will have more pledged delegates at the end of this primary season - under no circumstances will I seek or accept the position of Vice President.  Only in the triangulating, Clintonian logic could one believe that  the will of the voter is diametrically opposed to what is best for the Democratic party - as my opponent Senator Clinton seems to be suggesting.”

This is of course unless Obama is hoping to be Vice President.   Why do I say this?  Because for the second time in a week now, Senator Clinton has hinted at the two of them being on a ticket together.  And as Hillary has picked up momentum with her TX and OH wins, this whole thing is simply starting to look like a tie to many people.  Even though Obama is almost assured to win the majority of pledged delegates, a case can indeed be made for why a Clinton/Obama ticket would be good for the Democratic party.  Think about it from the standpoint of only the Democratic Party - and only in the terms of the corporation that they are, always looking out first for their own interest.   Wouldn’t it be in their interest to have a Clinton/Obama ticket?  Wouldn’t it  give them a chance at holding onto the white house for 16 years?

The point however is that the voters are more important than the party - and if you don’t believe this then I have a whole lot of other issues with you that I won’t get into.  And in the absence of Obama rejecting the VP slot, there are a lot of superdelegates that are likely to tell themselves that they’re doing what’s best for the party by putting Clinton at the top of the ticket.   Make no mistake about it - this is nothing short of us being told to wait our turn.  Pardon me for my level of distrust of the Democratic party - but I remind you it’s these people that allowed us to get into Iraq and still can’t get us out.

The other reason Obama should say this is because there are likely some swing voters that may lean towards Hillary if they think they can get both of them by voting for her.  This doesn’t necessarily mean they think she’s better - but conventional wisdom seems to be that Clinton might pick Obama, but that Obama wouldn’t pick Hillary.  So the voter that votes for Hillary because they think they may get a Clinton/Obama ticket isn’t voting for Hillary so much as they’re voting to get two for one - nothing more than identifying a bargain at the supermarket.

Do this now Senator Obama - because there are people that think they can get both of you - but only if you lose.