Excellent speech from Al Gore!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
A tribute to Tim Russert.
On Friday, June 13, we unexpectedly lost Tim Russert. Flags were lowered to half-staff in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. On an extended special broadcast on NBC, numerous journalists paid their respects and special comments were given by John McCain, the Clintons, and Barack Obama. The President interrupted a news conference in Paris to pay tribute to Russert. Today, "Tim Russert" is the #1 search on Google.
Think about how many broadcast journalists would be treated as such an American hero, the news of whose death would garner such importance from the President, a person who, while not an elected public official, would receive the honor of flags being lowered. Think about who could garner glowing tributes from such different people as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, alike, people who share nothing in common except a respect for Tim Russert.
Tim Russert provided tough but fair journalism which trickled into every aspect of what we, the American people, come to know about our candidates, our elected officials, our politicians. Election debates will not be the same. Meet the Press will not be the same. American politics and even voting will not be the same for any of us.
Think about how many broadcast journalists would be treated as such an American hero, the news of whose death would garner such importance from the President, a person who, while not an elected public official, would receive the honor of flags being lowered. Think about who could garner glowing tributes from such different people as Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, alike, people who share nothing in common except a respect for Tim Russert.
Tim Russert provided tough but fair journalism which trickled into every aspect of what we, the American people, come to know about our candidates, our elected officials, our politicians. Election debates will not be the same. Meet the Press will not be the same. American politics and even voting will not be the same for any of us.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
It has been a good week.
Major news organizations project that Barack Obama has earned the Democratic nomination for President:
After Obama has won the final primary contest in Montana, he gives a victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday, June 3:
On Saturday, June 7, Hillary Clinton announces her endorsement of Barack Obama for President:
It has been a good week.
After Obama has won the final primary contest in Montana, he gives a victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday, June 3:
On Saturday, June 7, Hillary Clinton announces her endorsement of Barack Obama for President:
It has been a good week.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
If you see a faded sign at the side of the road that says 15 miles to the... audio book...
I didn't watch The Daily Show yesterday, but I'm catching a rerun, right now. I'm so glad that I didn't miss this, altogether. Otherwise, I would have missed the B-52's version of Scott McClellan's audio book!
The end of the Democratic primary elections.
Today - finally - marks the end of the Democratic primary elections. Today, Montana and South Dakota will vote. They are the last remaining primaries. It was starting to seem like it would never end, wasn't it? Sure, we still have some time until the convention and who knows what the news will be between now and then? But there will be no more suspense about vote tallies from the general public. That's one thing that we can put comfortably behind us!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Puerto Rico results.
Today, Hillary Clinton has won 38 delegates and Barack Obama has won 17 delegates from Puerto Rico. That brings the totals to 2,070 for Obama and 1,915 for Clinton, as of June 1.
Two more primaries to go! Montana and South Dakota will vote on Tuesday. Obama needs 48 more delegates to win; Clinton would need 203 delegates. Montana will award 25 more delegates and South Dakota will award 23 more delegates. And then, it's onward to the convention in Denver!
Two more primaries to go! Montana and South Dakota will vote on Tuesday. Obama needs 48 more delegates to win; Clinton would need 203 delegates. Montana will award 25 more delegates and South Dakota will award 23 more delegates. And then, it's onward to the convention in Denver!
Michigan and Florida rulings.
The Democratic National Committee has reached an agreement regarding seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. Delegates will be awarded half votes.
I disagree with the ruling. While I don't take the disenfranchisement of voters lightly, I still do not believe that the votes should be counted.
The problem that I have is this: Why are the voters of Michigan and Florida taking the DNC to task when they should be holding their state governments accountable? It was, after all, their state governments, their elected representatives, who were responsible for the disenfranchisement of their votes.
According to rules set by the party (well in advance of the 2008 primary season and well in advance of knowing who the choices in candidates would be), no states except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were allowed to hold their primaries before February 5. This was not some kind of secret; officials in all states were aware of this. Both Michigan and Florida chose to break this rule, moving their primaries in advance of this deadline, and were warned that if they did so, their delegates would be stripped at the national convention. Yet, both states did so, anyway.
Before the Michigan primary on January 15, the prominent candidates (including Hillary Clinton) pledged to remove their names from the ballots and abstain from campaigning, in order to respect the integrity of party rules. The Michigan ballots ultimately listed four choices: Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or "uncommitted." With Kucinich and Gravel in relative obscurity, Clinton won, and "uncommitted" came in second. (Kucinich came in third and Gravel came in fourth.) Barack Obama and John Edwards, the other popular choices, weren't even listed on the ballot and had not campaigned.
Two weeks later, Florida held its primary on January 29. Obama and Edwards were listed on the ballot, but had not campaigned in the state, unlike Clinton. Again, Clinton won.
With two candidates remaining in the race, the question is, would the results have been different for Obama, had his name been listed on the Michigan ballot? Would the results have been different in Florida if he had actively campaigned there? You can bet that it would have been, but in hindsight, there is no way to know exactly how the results would have been different if this or that. Reaching an agreement in order to award delegates to Clinton and Obama rings false and renders that voting process fairly meaningless, anyway.
But the answer is not to fault the DNC. If voters want the rules changed, then they should protest their own elected representatives' choices. These representatives need to answer directly to their voters, both because of the moral standard of civic duty and because of the self-centered standard of their own personal political careers (after all, if the people who vote for them to keep their jobs are unhappy, then they won't be keeping their jobs). These representatives are a part of the party and it is then up to them to use their influence to change party rules. And sure, private citizens should absolutely also write letters to party officials in Washington, D.C. to express their dissatisfaction with party rules.
This is the process of political change. We work within the system to expose the flaws of the system. But if rules regarding a specific process can be changed in the midst of that process, then the rules are meaningless. It's like playing a board game and changing the rules as soon as you start to lose. Any elementary schooler can tell you how unfair and how little sense that makes.
I disagree with the ruling. While I don't take the disenfranchisement of voters lightly, I still do not believe that the votes should be counted.
The problem that I have is this: Why are the voters of Michigan and Florida taking the DNC to task when they should be holding their state governments accountable? It was, after all, their state governments, their elected representatives, who were responsible for the disenfranchisement of their votes.
According to rules set by the party (well in advance of the 2008 primary season and well in advance of knowing who the choices in candidates would be), no states except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were allowed to hold their primaries before February 5. This was not some kind of secret; officials in all states were aware of this. Both Michigan and Florida chose to break this rule, moving their primaries in advance of this deadline, and were warned that if they did so, their delegates would be stripped at the national convention. Yet, both states did so, anyway.
Before the Michigan primary on January 15, the prominent candidates (including Hillary Clinton) pledged to remove their names from the ballots and abstain from campaigning, in order to respect the integrity of party rules. The Michigan ballots ultimately listed four choices: Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, or "uncommitted." With Kucinich and Gravel in relative obscurity, Clinton won, and "uncommitted" came in second. (Kucinich came in third and Gravel came in fourth.) Barack Obama and John Edwards, the other popular choices, weren't even listed on the ballot and had not campaigned.
Two weeks later, Florida held its primary on January 29. Obama and Edwards were listed on the ballot, but had not campaigned in the state, unlike Clinton. Again, Clinton won.
With two candidates remaining in the race, the question is, would the results have been different for Obama, had his name been listed on the Michigan ballot? Would the results have been different in Florida if he had actively campaigned there? You can bet that it would have been, but in hindsight, there is no way to know exactly how the results would have been different if this or that. Reaching an agreement in order to award delegates to Clinton and Obama rings false and renders that voting process fairly meaningless, anyway.
But the answer is not to fault the DNC. If voters want the rules changed, then they should protest their own elected representatives' choices. These representatives need to answer directly to their voters, both because of the moral standard of civic duty and because of the self-centered standard of their own personal political careers (after all, if the people who vote for them to keep their jobs are unhappy, then they won't be keeping their jobs). These representatives are a part of the party and it is then up to them to use their influence to change party rules. And sure, private citizens should absolutely also write letters to party officials in Washington, D.C. to express their dissatisfaction with party rules.
This is the process of political change. We work within the system to expose the flaws of the system. But if rules regarding a specific process can be changed in the midst of that process, then the rules are meaningless. It's like playing a board game and changing the rules as soon as you start to lose. Any elementary schooler can tell you how unfair and how little sense that makes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
