Swan Song for Somebody?

With the Pennsylvania primary happening tomorrow (FINALLY!!!), will whomever loses bow out of the race? We know that both candidates have pledged to stay in the race through the last primaries, but if somebody loses by double digits tomorrow, do you think it would be a good time for them to bow out?

I think that if the difference in percentage points between the two candidates is less than double digits, both Obama and Clinton should stay in, though that would be much to my chagrin, as I'm tiring of the process at this point. However, a double digit win in PA could swing the momentum heavily to one candidate, and minus anymore gaffes, could be the nail in the coffin for the loser.

So could tomorrow be the time to throw in the towel? Thoughts?

Fractures,

“What the Democrats have to worry about are fractures within.” In his article published in The New York Times last Tuesday April 8th, Bob Herbert pointed to the danger for Democrats to be as torn as they could not be united enough to win the general elections. Meeting with Hillary Clinton’s supporters, the journalist noted that in case she would lose they will vote for Barack Obama: “I hope Hillary gets the nomination,” he said. “But if she doesn’t, I’ll vote for Obama without any trouble. We can’t stand another four years of Bush, and that’s what McCain would be.”
Fractures are Democrat supporters’ main fear. As Herbert said, “the big question is whether the losers in the fight for the nomination will wholeheartedly support the winners.” The journalist recalls what happened in 1968 when Richard Nixon won the presidential election: “the party was unable to get its act together in 1968 and unite behind Hubert Humphrey, thus opening the door for Richard Nixon. The ramifications of that bitter election are still being felt.”
What the journalist forgot to mention is that as I mentioned it earlier in this blog, the campaign has lasted too long already and neither the US democracy nor the candidates have anything to gain in this long, too long primary campaign. Every single day of campaign now adds to the debit of each candidate and dig in a little more the gap between Democratic candidates.

Look out Democrats...

On the front page of today's New York Times there was a huge article about Senator McCain's campaign and how they have downplayed the fact that McCain's youngest son, Jimmy McCain, is a Lance Corporal who enlisted at just 17 into the Marine Corps. I recommend that everyone read the article because it is really interesting to see this side of McCain - the concerned father of a soldier. It certainly made an impact on me since McCain is currently the only candidate advocating that we stay in Iraq to attempt to finish what we started; his opinions and feelings on the subject are not only rooted from his own experiences in Vietnam, but also because he was able to visit his son in Iraq and see for himself the strides that were being made. Granted, he visited in a period of relative calm, but speaking to the soldiers firsthand has made him firm in his belief that we need to stay overseas much longer than his opponents are predicting.

The Times notes that both the McCain family and campaign did not want this article to run. Indeed, the campaign has not wanted to exploit Jimmy McCain, the McCains' strongest tie to the war, and so has purposefully attempted to keep his service somewhat of a non-issue. I find this to be highly admirable, and while it irks me that the Times ran the article against McCain's wishes, I also am now shaking in my Democratic boots. I've tended to disregard the sentiment that McCain had any chance of winning the Presidency, simple because the Democrats have such strong candidates this election. Furthermore, the entire American populace has become jaded with Republicans running our nation. On the other hand, this article juxtaposes the catfights that are occurring in the Democratic camps with the calm and confidence that is now circling the Republican nomination and I have to admit, with all of the controversy and immaturity that is expected to erupt during the DNC, I can now see McCain emerging as the top candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html

Enough is enough...

With all the current discourse that is taking place regarding whether or not Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, I cannot help but notice that the Democrats are acting more and more like their mascot – the proverbial “donkey” (I don’t really feel comfortable using the term I’m thinking of on the blog, but I trust that you can figure out what I mean). It really irks me that, once again, my political party is fighting amongst itself and, in my mind, weakening its chances at unity in the national election.

Over break I had a discussion with my aunt in which she was absolutely certain that no matter what, Senator McCain would secure the presidency. According to her, the fact that Obama and Clinton supporters were so polarized against each other meant that McCain would easily steal Democratic votes from the losing candidate’s campaign. After reading an article released by the Associated Press yesterday, I am now actually coming around to my aunt’s position.

Women have remained steadfast, passionate and strong supporters of Clinton, and many have voiced their outrage that so many of her male colleagues are now asking her to step aside for the “greater good” of the Democratic party. They feel that Clinton is being asked to bow down due to her gender and, like many women have before her, being asked to sacrifice her goals for the seemingly greater goals of a man. While I agree with their point to an extent, I see the negative implications of these sentiments for the party as whole: if Obama loses the highly valuable women’s vote, where will the Democrats be come November?

Furthermore, with every new Obama surrogate that comes forward calling for Clinton to leave the race, the more the Democrats appear to be a party that is unable to be unified, and therefore unable to yield a candidate that is capable of leading our nation. As of right now, I wish that certain people in the political sphere would just stop talking and allow the race to play out as it was meant to. Stop the mudslinging and let the remaining electoral votes and the DNC figure out who is the right candidate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23869576/

Race and its (Positive) Effect on the Presidential Race

So even though I haven't really been pleased with the coverage of race in this year's Presidential race (i.e., I'm clearly ignoring part of my identity by voting for either Obama or Clinton, Obama isn't black/white enough, the Dems have unresolved issues with race still, Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, etc.) outside of Obama's speech on race, which I personally thought was so on-point and thought-provoking, I'm posting this interesting article on what it is to be of mixed-race in America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/31race.html

Race is such a complex issue in America, even almost 40 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I think is why I was so disgusted with the media trying to make it seem like I as a black woman was conflicted about who I should vote for based on physical characteristics. It's also disheartening to see/hear instances of someone thinking that they've been discriminated against but are automatically dismissed because people think that since there are no Jim Crow signs up anymore or that we're in southern California that racism doesn't exist. At the same time, there are some individuals who allege race discrimination at every corner, which I also think is bad because it does diminish the instances where discrimination does in fact occur.

But this is precisely why we need to have more candid discussions about race in America, and why I hope these discussions don't end on Nov. 5. We ALL make judgments about people based on their ethnicity, skin color, how they wear their hair, etc., but before we can really embrace our differences, we should try to understand why some of our differences are sensitive areas for some.

That's your public service announcement for the day. No more holding of hands and singing Kumbaya from me. I promise ;)

If Living in LA Isn't Enough Hollywood For You....

...apparently Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Brad Pitt, and Hillary Clinton is a distant cousin of Angelina Jolie, Alanis Morrissette and Celine Dion. Obama is also apparently related to President Bush!

Now, who said the Dems are anything less than one big, happy family?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-candidates-genealogy,1,7910826.story

::rolls eyes and exits stage left::

If Obama Was a White Man.....

....he DEFINITELY wouldn't be where he is right now! Much like how Hillary probably wouldn't be where she is had she not married Bill Clinton...

Geraldine Ferraro has said that Obama would not be in the privileged position he is currently in now if he was anything but a black man...Because everybody knows being a black man in America is one of the most privileged types of people one can be ::rolls eyes::

Here's the article:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_if_obama_was.html

Let's be 100% real...Geraldine Ferraro has totally lost her mind with this comment. Yes, she was the first woman to be a serious presidential candidate when she was chosen to run for VP in '84, but one could, and should, argue that the same argument she's making about Obama could be made about her run as well. Ferraro had less experience in politics than Obama does now, she received the benefit of being the 'stand-out' candidate because she was a woman, and she was no better qualified for her position then than Obama is now. So what exactly is she talking about?

Boy, when things don't go right for the Democrats, the race/gender/class card seems to get played with the absolute quickness. This really smacks of the old saying that Democrats really don't do anything for black people because they know black people will vote for them anyway.

Maybe if I change my affiliation, they'll decide my vote is worth fighting for again.

When the DNC Attacks...NOT on Fox

A few weeks ago a posted about how frustrated I was about the lack of McCain attacks from the DNC while the RNC was hitting and hitting hard. Finally they have decided to fight back! Yesterday Jonathan Martin posted a DNC video that is being blasted out this weekend. The video ties McCain to Bush in a very tight, succinct and convincing manner. The full video is below. The strength of McCain is his reputation as a "Maverick" and a "Straight-Shooter" and certainly not a Bush Republican. However in the last few years he has sold his soul to the Bush administration in hopes of securing the nomination, he has now done just that. Except Bush approval ratings are in the tank and McCain is going to need to seperate himself from the failed Bush policies. The first video is the DNC video I mentioned earlier and the second is from a group called the "Campaign to Defend America". For your viewing pleasure...

Democrats Candidate Unknown: Good or Bad?

While Obama seems to be on the path to claiming the Democratic nomination, it is amazing that we are entering March with such a tight race. Although I have not closely observed many elections, this is the first election I can remember where there is not a clear distinction of who will be the Democratic candidate. This issue led to a discussion within my group of friends. Our question to each other is how this will impact the Democrats campaign for presidency. The conclusion of our conversation showed both pros and cons to the current situation.

Pros:

• The Democratic Party can begin exposing weaknesses in John McCain's campaign and policies. The Republican Party still does not know who they need to target.
• The Democratic candidates are getting more exposure.
• The Democratic candidates are gaining valuable debate experience that will help them prepare for debate during the general election.
  

Cons:

• The Democratic Party is losing time to unify itself between the primaries and the election.
• Obama and Clinton are criticizing one another so much that the Republicans do not have to worry about attacking either candidate.
  
• More exposure leads to more chances to make mistakes that can come back and hurt the candidates later on.
  

Do you think that the Democrats close Primary race is harming or helping the party? Why or why not?

Is This Really Obama's "Real" Race Problem?

We've talked a little bit about the Bradley effect in class regarding Obama, but the following article seems to expand a little bit more on the issue (or does it?). The argument made in the article is that the real race issue with Obama will be with white liberals, whom the author says basically practice de facto racism. There have also been arguments made that the liberal media is so quick to call politicians of color, most notably Obama, "eloquent" or "articulate", words that are rarely used to describe a white counterpart. This argument claims that using these words in particular to describe people of color implies the idea that despite Obama being president of the Harvard Law Review (which indicates some level of familiarity with the English language, one would think), it's still surprising to meet/hear a person of color who has a firm grasp of the language.

Here's the link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_race_problem_whi.html

Does the article of the author have a valid point? In light of the polling inconsistencies in New Hampshire, are we to believe that if Obama doesn't win big tomorrow, that the Bradley effect is the reason why?

The Dark Side Of "The High Road"

Wednesday, Obama used Hilary Clinton's continued use of husband's image of a bridge to the future against her. He said that another Clinton presidency would be a step back to the past: "I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century ... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One." Hilary often claims she's better prepared to govern with her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton, in a play on the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope." "It's not hopeful and it's not what we should be talking about in this campaign. I would certainly, through you, hope we could get back to talking about the issues, drawing the contrasts that are based in fact that have a connection to the American people," Clinton said.

She then assured voters that she would take "The High Road" in these matters. I assume that means she will continue to use just as much word play to get in a smiling insult ever time her abilities are questioned rather than disputing the claims made against her.

Edwards is out. Who benefits?

This morning Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards dropped out of the race. Edwards, who failed to win a primary and finished third in his home state of South Carolina never really gained much traction. The real question is, where do his votes go?
Some argue that Edwards represented the anti-Hillary vote and therefore a lot of his votes will go to Obama. Others believe that Edwards was splitting the white votes with Clinton and with him out, Hillary picks up a solid block of votes. His votes will probably split between those two (though I'm sure that pollsters could breakdown by state and Congressional district what this does) and therefore they become moot.
If this race remains undecided by the convention an Edwards endorsement could be the deciding facotr in the race. Thus making him the kingmaker for the Democrats. If Edwards endorses the eventual winner he will probably be the next Attorney General.
The Politico has a good port-mortem of the Edwards campaign.