Maurice Clemmons is suspected of shooting four Seattle police officers to death in a Tacoma coffee shop.
According to an article by The New York Times:
In 2000, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas granted clemency to Mr. Clemmons after he had served 11 years of a 95-year sentence for robbery and burglary convictions on charges prosecuted when he was 17.
I wonder how this will affect Gov. Huckabee's chances in 2012?
President Barack Obama plans to accept an invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame. However, some religious organizations are mounting a campaign to discourage his attendance.
You can fight this unfortunate effort by signing the following petition:
Visit www.ObamaCatholics.com, or email ObamaCatholics@gmail.com for an e-mail embedded form!
One of my favorite features on both The New York Times and CNN.com is their interactive Electoral Vote Map, which I have probably played around with hundreds of times by this point.
However, when I was driving home today from our local (non-campaign affiliated) Obama office for South Texas Democrats, some tumblers in my mind clicked, and I realized a nightmare scenario was, in fact, quite possible.
How Barack Obama and John McCain can end up tied:Assumption 1 - John McCain wins (almost) all the toss-up states.This is probably the least likely part of the scenario, because even if McCain makes a significant comeback, it is unlikely that he will overturn Obama leads in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri, which is required for an Obama win to be anything but inevitable.Assumption 2 - Barack Obama wins North Dakota.While in any other election this would be extremely unlikely, considering Bush won this state both times by more than 20 percentage points, recent polling puts Obama up by 2 percentage points (Oct. 7), in an even tie (Oct. 15), or down by only 1 percentage point (Oct. 29).Assumption 3 - John McCain wins Pennsylvania.I would like to say this is an unlikely scenario, but my previous blog post outlines my personal belief that this is the ONLY state to watch on Tuesday. If Obama holds the Democratic-leaning Keystone State, he wins. If McCain does win this state, well, that's why I call it a nightmare scenario!Assumption 4 - John McCain wins New Hampshire.While recent polling (www.fivethirtyeight.com) might make this an unlikely assumption, New Hampshire has reportedly the "largest group of independent voters" in the nation, and may contain a disproportionately large number of undecided voters, thus proving polling unreliable.Also, if you believe in omens, which I typically don't, this was the state that resurrected John McCain's campaign earlier this year.Outcome: A 269 to 269 tie in the Electoral Vote.
How Barack Obama and John McCain can end up tied:
Assumption 1 - John McCain wins (almost) all the toss-up states.
This is probably the least likely part of the scenario, because even if McCain makes a significant comeback, it is unlikely that he will overturn Obama leads in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri, which is required for an Obama win to be anything but inevitable.
Assumption 2 - Barack Obama wins North Dakota.
While in any other election this would be extremely unlikely, considering Bush won this state both times by more than 20 percentage points, recent polling puts Obama up by 2 percentage points (Oct. 7), in an even tie (Oct. 15), or down by only 1 percentage point (Oct. 29).
Assumption 3 - John McCain wins Pennsylvania.
I would like to say this is an unlikely scenario, but my previous blog post outlines my personal belief that this is the ONLY state to watch on Tuesday. If Obama holds the Democratic-leaning Keystone State, he wins. If McCain does win this state, well, that's why I call it a nightmare scenario!
Assumption 4 - John McCain wins New Hampshire.
While recent polling (www.fivethirtyeight.com) might make this an unlikely assumption, New Hampshire has reportedly the "largest group of independent voters" in the nation, and may contain a disproportionately large number of undecided voters, thus proving polling unreliable.
Also, if you believe in omens, which I typically don't, this was the state that resurrected John McCain's campaign earlier this year.
Outcome: A 269 to 269 tie in the Electoral Vote.
What happens then?
Well, one might have to look all the way back to the election of John Quincy Adams, who lost the popular vote, and the electoral college to Andrew Jackson, but was selected over him by the House of Representatives.
It is true that if the outcome of the electoral college ended in a tie, the decision would be placed in the hands of a Democratic House of Representatives.
Constitutional scholars can take it from here ...
Based on everything I have seen, and from what John McCain's own campaign efforts show, Pennsylvania will decide whether this election is close, or a total blowout!
The Keystone State, for reasons that I can't quite determine, perhaps due to a large number of rural voters in less diverse Western parts of the state, has turned from a strong Obama state, to a leaning Obama state, and today a new poll was released that placed John McCain within striking distance of a crucial upset here.
The Strategic Vision poll, which conducted a survey of a rather large sample size (1200+) shows an Obama/McCain split of 49/45, with 5 percent undecided! You can read more about the polling in Pennsylvania here. (www.fivethirtyeight.com)
Why is Pennsylvania such an important state? It contains 21 Electoral Votes (equal to the total number of congressional representatives and senators), which means it is John McCain's biggest chance to fight back from his projected electoral deficit. Just for comparison, that's more than the total for Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico combined! (FYI - 19 EV)
If you are compelled to make calls for Obama, or even to hop on one of the many buses leaving for key battleground states, make plans to head for Pennsylvania, because by 8 PM Eastern Time on November 4, when polls close there, we'll know pretty quickly whether Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, or any other state for that matter, really counts for anything.
Why do I say this: If you go to The New York Times website, and play with their interactive electoral vote map, or try CNN.com, for a more Obama-friendly version, you will see that John McCain can win every true swing state (Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and North Dakota) and still lose the election, so long as Obama holds on to 'leaning Obama' states, including Pennsylvania.
This is a reflection on the recent Wall Street bailout plan, and a few signs of human suffering that have been overlooked by elected officials.
* Note * If you want to cut straight to the chase: read the boxes below for a taste of what Americans are enduring in this current economic recession.
It is an appeal for politicians, the supposed keepers of the public voice, to do their job, and seek out the stories of real Americans suffering under the weight of such tragic life events as bankruptcy and home foreclosure.
Perhaps politicians have, for far too long, given their title an unfortunate negative slant. The meaning of the word politician, as given by the Online Etymology Dictionary, comes from the latin word politicus, which means "of citizens or the state, civil, civic," and from the Greek word politikos, "of citizens or the state." To sustain this meaning today requires that politicians must stay in contact with the actual citizens they represent on paper. This is surely the real motivation behind those who charge candidates with the capital crime of 'elitism' - simply that they fear elites will not serve faithfully as a voice for the common citizen.
When they speak, politicians are often inclined to balance their rhetoric between two extremes, selective statistical analysis and compelling but unsupported anecdotes. The rule goes something like this:
If you find a single fact that is on your side, give 'em "just the facts!"If not, introduce them to your new friend ... (insert name of hardworking average joe / jane)
If you find a single fact that is on your side, give 'em "just the facts!"
If not, introduce them to your new friend ... (insert name of hardworking average joe / jane)
And while the recent and continually unfolding economic crisis has been repeatedly discussed in bland financial terms, real Americans are upset that stories of human suffering are being tucked into the inside pages of small town newspapers, or buried in the middle of long and tedious technical tomes on the bailout plan.
Here are some telling anecdotes gleaned from other sources, that should be front page news:
This first has now become a national story, but I fear the sensationalist instinct in journalists will end up dishonoring this woman.
From NewsChannel5 in Ohio. AKRON, Ohio -- A 90-year-old homeowner who was about to be foreclosed on shot herself when Summit County sheriff's deputies attempted to serve her with a foreclosure eviction, according to Summit County Sheriff's Department officials.Officials said when the deputies knocked on the front door of the home located in the 1100 block of Lacroix Avenue they did not get an answer. They heard a banging noise coming from the second floor of the home.A neighbor arrived and said he was concerned about the homeowner, so he got a ladder and entered the home through a second-floor bathroom window. She was found in her bedroom.The homeowner likely shot herself.
From NewsChannel5 in Ohio.
AKRON, Ohio -- A 90-year-old homeowner who was about to be foreclosed on shot herself when Summit County sheriff's deputies attempted to serve her with a foreclosure eviction, according to Summit County Sheriff's Department officials.
Apparently, the woman is in critical condition at a local hospital. But what's more shocking is that Fannie Mae, her mortgage company (the one We - the U.S. taxpayer - bailed out earlier in September) then decided they would drop her loan, and give her the house. While this seems merciful, and is clearly designed to offset negative publicity, is that now the way to secure our homes? Is that a rule Fannie Mae will commit to? If you shoot yourself, we'll give you your house, no questions asked?
Here's the update on that story from CNN.com:
Fannie Mae said it will set aside the loan of a woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home. Fannie Mae foreclosed on the Akron, Ohio, home of Addie Polk, 90, after acquiring the mortgage in 2007. Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon. On Friday, Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith said the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her. "We're going to forgive whatever outstanding balance she had on the loan and give her the house," Faith said. "Given the circumstances, we think it's appropriate."
Fannie Mae said it will set aside the loan of a woman who shot herself as sheriff's deputies tried to evict her from her foreclosed home.
Fannie Mae foreclosed on the Akron, Ohio, home of Addie Polk, 90, after acquiring the mortgage in 2007.
Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon.
On Friday, Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith said the mortgage association had decided to halt action against Polk and sign the property "outright" to her.
"We're going to forgive whatever outstanding balance she had on the loan and give her the house," Faith said. "Given the circumstances, we think it's appropriate."
But, while it was among the more dramatic stories that captures the anguish of this financial crisis, today's story isn't an anomaly. In July, a much less talked about story that was eerily similar ran in the Boston Globe.
The Boston Globe By Michael Levenson Globe Staff / July 24, 2008 TAUNTON - The housing crunch has caused anguish and anxiety for millions of Americans. For Carlene Balderrama, a 53-year-old wife and mother, the pressure was apparently too much. Police say that Balderrama fatally shot herself Tuesday afternoon, 90 minutes before her foreclosed home was scheduled to be sold at auction. Chief Raymond O'Berg said that Balderrama faxed a letter to her mortgage company at 2:30 p.m., saying that "by the time they foreclosed on the house today she'd be dead."The mortgage company notified police, who found her body at 3:30 p.m. The auction had been scheduled to start at 5 p.m., when bidders showed up at the house and found it surrounded by police cruisers.
The Boston Globe
By Michael Levenson
TAUNTON - The housing crunch has caused anguish and anxiety for millions of Americans. For Carlene Balderrama, a 53-year-old wife and mother, the pressure was apparently too much.
Police say that Balderrama fatally shot herself Tuesday afternoon, 90 minutes before her foreclosed home was scheduled to be sold at auction. Chief Raymond O'Berg said that Balderrama faxed a letter to her mortgage company at 2:30 p.m., saying that "by the time they foreclosed on the house today she'd be dead."
The mortgage company notified police, who found her body at 3:30 p.m. The auction had been scheduled to start at 5 p.m., when bidders showed up at the house and found it surrounded by police cruisers.
Now, how about another topic, say healthcare. I came across this small anecdote, buried in a story written by The New York Times explaning why Democrats might have a chance in Florida.
From: In Florida's Economic Pain, Obama Gains GroundRepublicans, like Chris Hart, 48, [have] begun to sour on Mr. McCain. “Every time you turn around, he flips,” Mr. Hart said. A front-desk clerk at a local Y.M.C.A, he said he was also motivated by his need for health insurance, which had recently forced him to buy antibiotics at pet stores because it was cheaper than the pharmacy. While not sure that Democrats could get him the coverage he needed, Mr. Hart said he wished Mr. McCain focused more consistently on the issue. “I was in the Navy, in aviation like John McCain, so I feel like I’m getting punched by one of my own,” Mr. Hart said.
From: In Florida's Economic Pain, Obama Gains Ground
Republicans, like Chris Hart, 48, [have] begun to sour on Mr. McCain.
“Every time you turn around, he flips,” Mr. Hart said. A front-desk clerk at a local Y.M.C.A, he said he was also motivated by his need for health insurance, which had recently forced him to buy antibiotics at pet stores because it was cheaper than the pharmacy.
While not sure that Democrats could get him the coverage he needed, Mr. Hart said he wished Mr. McCain focused more consistently on the issue. “I was in the Navy, in aviation like John McCain, so I feel like I’m getting punched by one of my own,” Mr. Hart said.
What is our country coming to where folks who need medicine buy it on the cheap at pet stores? And 90 year-old residents have to shoot themselves twice to avoid foreclosure?
You can decide on your own. I'm supporting Obama, and advocating for a return to ethics-based legislation. In short: Are we doing what's right?
While it might have been enough for Sen. John McCain to meet Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once and only once before making his decision to endorse her as the best qualified person to serve second-in-line to the Presidency, I believe American voters will be a slight bit more demanding.
In a response to CNN reporter Dana Bash, seen here, Gov. Palin reacted to questions about her experience."I've appreciated the thirteen years in elected office that I've had to give me some good experience, and to get ready for this job; it's been good experience," Gov. Palin said.
In a response to CNN reporter Dana Bash, seen here, Gov. Palin reacted to questions about her experience.
"I've appreciated the thirteen years in elected office that I've had to give me some good experience, and to get ready for this job; it's been good experience," Gov. Palin said.
First of all, adding up her years of elected office, from serving as a City Council member and Mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 6715), to the first 20 months (we can round it up to two years) of her term as Governor of Alaska, gives only 12 years of elected office. Perhaps she should correct that error before she is labeled as someone who doesn't even know how much experience she has.
Well, whether it is 12 or 13 years of experience, it certainly sounds like a lot, but just what does that experience include?
City Council, City of Wasilla, AlaskaSarah Palin spent four years serving in this role, from 1992 to 1996.The 1990 population estimate for Wasilla was 4,029.For perspective, consider that in 1998, just two years after Palin left her City Council seat to serve as Mayor of Wasilla, winning candidates for the City Council were elected with slightly more and less than 350 votes. View election results.
City Council, City of Wasilla, Alaska
Sarah Palin spent four years serving in this role, from 1992 to 1996.
The 1990 population estimate for Wasilla was 4,029.
For perspective, consider that in 1998, just two years after Palin left her City Council seat to serve as Mayor of Wasilla, winning candidates for the City Council were elected with slightly more and less than 350 votes. View election results.
So, to add to the tally, 4 years experience.
Mayor, City of Wasilla, AlaskaSarah Palin spent six years serving in this role, from 1996 to 2002.The 2000 population estimate for Wasilla (US Census) was 5,469.For perspective, consider that in 1999, when she won reelection to her second term as Mayor, with a noteworthy 74 percent of the vote, only 909 people out of 1,235 cast their ballots for Palin. View results here. Her town covers just more than a dozen square miles. How this prepared her for the vice-presidency, I do not know - it will certainly be something for her to explain.
Mayor, City of Wasilla, Alaska
Sarah Palin spent six years serving in this role, from 1996 to 2002.
The 2000 population estimate for Wasilla (US Census) was 5,469.
For perspective, consider that in 1999, when she won reelection to her second term as Mayor, with a noteworthy 74 percent of the vote, only 909 people out of 1,235 cast their ballots for Palin. View results here. Her town covers just more than a dozen square miles. How this prepared her for the vice-presidency, I do not know - it will certainly be something for her to explain.
So, to add to the tally, 6 years experience, for a total of 10 years, or 83 percent (a clear majority) of her self-proclaimed experience.
Governor, State of AlaskaSarah Palin was inaugurated, and served her first day of office in December of 2006.John McCain, and the Republican Party, have already begun to argue that Gov. Palin's service as a chief executive adds unique experience to the campaign ticket. For perspective, consider that in 2000, the US Census ranked Alaska 48 out of 50 in population, with less than 623,000 residents. At current, the population is estimated at less than 700,000. This means that Gov. Palin serves less American citizens than the mayors of 16 U.S. Cities. See list here.
Governor, State of Alaska
Sarah Palin was inaugurated, and served her first day of office in December of 2006.
John McCain, and the Republican Party, have already begun to argue that Gov. Palin's service as a chief executive adds unique experience to the campaign ticket.
For perspective, consider that in 2000, the US Census ranked Alaska 48 out of 50 in population, with less than 623,000 residents. At current, the population is estimated at less than 700,000. This means that Gov. Palin serves less American citizens than the mayors of 16 U.S. Cities. See list here.
So that gives us another 2 years (again, if we round up), for a total of 12. Where did Gov. Palin gain an extra year of elected office? I have no idea. Perhaps she considered her appointed position as head of the Commission on Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation as a year of elected office, but that claim would only open her up to further criticism for over-asserting a thin resume, especially since she resigned that post in protest.
Overall we see the inconsistency of Sen. John McCain writ large, in his choice for Vice-Presidential nominee. He claims he is a maverick, yet in his race for the White House, he has forced himself into a very typical conservative Republican mold. The problem - he doesn't buy into his own transformation, and he is liable to launch character attacks in true Republican fashion one day, then back out and assert he is not in this campaign to get personal.
This is his major flaw, the dual identifies of Sen. McCain, and the odd and surprising selection of a political novice, who likely has not been properly vetted (she is currently under investigation for the firing of her recently-divorced, former Brother-in-Law as a state trooper), may cause further embarassment for Sen. McCain as the campaign intensifies.
This choice says less about experience, however, than it does about judgment. Sen. McCain has taken a roll of the dice, and that kind of uncertainty, and inconsistency (why have we not heard Gov. Palin's name mentioned once throughout this process?) do not bode well for a McCain administration.
As we begin to look forward to the general election, while casting an eye back to the long, still unfinished, contest for the Democratic Party nomination, it is common to search for a conclusion to this lengthy narrative.
Why is it that the "inevitable" candidate went the way of the "unsinkable" Titanic, submerged by the very weight (of history, experience, status) which gave her such great prominence?How is it possible that a relatively unknown upstart should display such impertinence and, dare I say it, audacity, as to challenge and defeat the Clintons on such familiar electoral terrain?
Why is it that the "inevitable" candidate went the way of the "unsinkable" Titanic, submerged by the very weight (of history, experience, status) which gave her such great prominence?
How is it possible that a relatively unknown upstart should display such impertinence and, dare I say it, audacity, as to challenge and defeat the Clintons on such familiar electoral terrain?
One common response to these questions is that Hillary Clinton is rooted in the past, sorrounded by decades-old loyalists, while Barack Obama is eager to inspire a future generation of politically-charged citizens.
Her premise is that if people look back and recall with fondness her husband's tenure as President, they will see that there is no better choice but to try to return to the glory of the past.
His premise is that such nostalgia glosses over the failure of Democrats to enact needed changes during that era, and an inability to sustain majorities in the Senate and House. For Barack Obama, the only way forward is, well, forward - into the unknown, but armed with judgment, and the patience to gather information from all angles before making a lasting decision.
So it is appropriate that today, May 27, 2008, according to The New York Times delegate counter, Sen. Obama has gathered a total of 1971 delegates, to Sen. Clinton's 1776.
While her delegate total reflects the year of our nation's founding, a date worthy of recollection, but unlikely to shed light on our current struggles, he is standing in the middle of an era of change, the year 1971, several years into an increasingly unpopular war, and ready to throw out a leadership hell-bent on governing in whichever way they please, irrespective of the means, be they dishonest or unprincipled.
Throughout the last several months, I have watched Sen. Barack Obama's lead in delegates (both pledged and unpledged) steadily grow. With delight I have begun to count up to that magical number, 2,026, the delegates needed for Sen. Obama to claim the nomination, and begin his march to Pennsylvania Avenue.
(It is worth noting that Sen. Clinton, perhaps clinging to a tradition of numerology, prefers another, slightly more inflated figure.)
There was 1865, the end of the Civil War, and the beginning of reconstruction. Here I recalled my surprise and near disbelief when I learned that Sen. Obama was one of only three black Senators elected to office since reconstruction. (The other two? Ed Brooke: 1966-1978, and Carol Moseley Braun: 1992-1998)
There was 1936, the year John McCain was born, in the time before Penicillin, ZIP Codes, the nation of Israel, and the states of Alaska and Hawaii even existed.
There was 1941, the year of Pearl Harbor, when good judgment was at its peak demand, and poor judgment (this time, in NOT going to war) was threatening the stability of the entire Western world.
Then there was 1968, the height of the turmoil of the 1960's, when a nation mourned the loss of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who died in June, yes JUNE, while still campaigning for the Democratic Party nomination for president.
And of course, 1971. And soon it will be 1972. Then 1992. Then 2001. Then 2008.
At at that time, or rather, at this time, we will have to think long and hard about the future, including 2026. And, if we are lucky, 2209.
Act Now! - Contact superdelegates Rep. Jim Matheson, Karen Hale, and Helen Langan, to express your desire that these Utah representatives follow the clear majority of Utah's democrats in supporting Barack Obama for President.
**NOTE** The campaign has asked supporters not to contact superdelegates; to leave that for campaign staff, and well, Sen. Obama himself, to handle. While I think this is a very sensible policy, I also believe it is well within bounds for the constituents of representatives, both in public and party office, to express their views on important issues. Especially in the case of Rep. Jim Matheson, the volume of correspondence received by a member of the House is so great that correspondence will likely not be received directly by the Rep., but instead processed, reviewed and referred by staff - so, therefore, it is less likely to negatively affect the superdelegate approach.
On February 5, Barack Obama swept Utah's Democratic Party primary by nearly 20 percentage points (57 percent for Obama, 39 percent for Clinton).
Two of Utah's superdelegates, party officials Wayne Holland and Bill Orton, already support Sen. Obama, according to The New York Times. Rep. Jim Matheson is still undecided.
However, the two superdelegates who are currently counted in the clinton camp, Karen Hale and Helen Langan, have publicly expressed their hesitation, and have left open the possibility of a switch to supporting Sen. Obama.
Here's what they have to say, according to The New York Times delegate tracker:
Karen Hale, Party official, Utah Has said that she is considering switching her support to Mr. Obama because some party insiders believe the excitement of an Obama candidacy will boost the chances of Utah Democrats running in state races. "I'm conflicted. There has been a lot of pressure to change my vote."Helen Langan, Party official, Utah "It is a really tough decision. I feel an obligation that my vote reflect the way Utah Democrats voted. Most of us didn't expect to find our votes mattering so much this time."
Karen Hale, Party official, Utah
Has said that she is considering switching her support to Mr. Obama because some party insiders believe the excitement of an Obama candidacy will boost the chances of Utah Democrats running in state races. "I'm conflicted. There has been a lot of pressure to change my vote."
Helen Langan, Party official, Utah
"It is a really tough decision. I feel an obligation that my vote reflect the way Utah Democrats voted. Most of us didn't expect to find our votes mattering so much this time."
These certainly are encouraging statements, both of which were made well after the Feb. 5 primary. So a healthy number of responses from Utah Democrats encouraging them to consider supporting Obama just may tilt the balance, and help make the difference!
A simple phone call, letter, or email, expressing your support for Obama, and your desire for Utah's superdelegates to support Obama, should be enough to give notice that we are paying attention.
Sample script: "My name is _______, and I am a Utah resident, a Utah Democrat, and a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama. I feel it is important to express my desire for you, (name of delegate), to join the majority of Utah Democrats, who voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Obama in the primary, in supporting his campaign for the presidency. I believe Sen. Obama will best serve my community, our state, and our nation because _______. Thank you, and have a good day.
Act Now!
Contact Jim Matheson:
Rep. Jim MathesonClick here to send an email, or send a letter or make a call:
Rep. Jim Matheson
Click here to send an email, or send a letter or make a call:
240 East Morris Avenue #235 South Salt Lake, UT 84115Phone - (801) 486-1236Fax - (801) 486-1417321 North Mall Dr., #E101B St. George, UT 84790 Phone - (435) 627-0880Fax - (435) 627-1473Carbon County Courthouse120 East Main StreetPrice, UT 84501Phone - (435) 636-3722Fax - (435) 613-1834
240 East Morris Avenue #235 South Salt Lake, UT 84115Phone - (801) 486-1236Fax - (801) 486-1417
321 North Mall Dr., #E101B St. George, UT 84790 Phone - (435) 627-0880Fax - (435) 627-1473
Carbon County Courthouse120 East Main StreetPrice, UT 84501Phone - (435) 636-3722Fax - (435) 613-1834
Contact Karen Hale:
Karen Halekaren.hale@slcgov.comCommunications DirectorCity of Salt Lake, Mayor’s Office451 S State Street, Room 306 Salt Lake City, UT 84111Phone: 535-6244
Karen Hale
karen.hale@slcgov.com
Communications Director
City of Salt Lake, Mayor’s Office
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 535-6244
Contact Helen Langan:
Helen Langan National Committeewoman helenlangan@hotmail.com455 South 300 East Suite 301 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Helen Langan
National Committeewoman helenlangan@hotmail.com455 South 300 East Suite 301 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Yesterday I posted an article encouraging people to share the "conflict of interest" story concerning Mark Penn, the (now former) chief strategist for Hillary Clinton.
I felt that the media was giving the story surprisingly little attention, and believe this is because Sen. Obama refused to launch an all-out assault, similar to that which Sen. Clinton executed when Obama's academic adviser had a meandering conversation with lower-level Canadian officials about the future of NAFTA.
Here was Hillary Clinton's top strategist, whose public relations firm has received more than $10 million from Hillary's campaign (that's more than 5 percent of the total raised during her entire campaign), working on a contractual basis with the Colombian government (who paid Penn's firm $300,000) to secure trade deals she purportedly opposes. Now that's a serious conflict of interest, or at the very least, should speak to her credibility. But because Obama let this story take its own course, and did not pounce (an admirable, and politically atypical show of restraint), it was able to survive a news cycle or two before it became too much to overlook.
A Review of the Course of Events:
Day 1: Penn's relationship with Colombia was revealed, after he held a meeting on trade with, among other officials present, the Colombian ambassador to the United States. Note: Not a minor official of the state.
Day 2: Penn apologizes for an "error in judgment."
Day 3: Colombia fires Penn for calling his meeting with them an "error in judgment."
Day 4: Senator Clinton and President Bill Clinton get angry, and Penn receives his demotion.
The lesson from all this is that Sen. Clinton, and her husband, have been willing all along to accept predictable conflicts of interest, such as Penn working two full-time jobs with divergent interests (campaign job = beholden to public interest, CEO of company = beholden to bottom line; profits), because he met the chief criterion they use to determine the worth and value of an individual: unwavering loyalty.
It is loyalty that adheres the Clintons' inner circle so tightly together, and it is the near zealous appreciation of this quality, loyalty, above all else, that frustrates the consumate campaign professional, who expects strong ideas to prevail over strong personalities.
It is the breakdown in that hierarchy, the hierarchy of good ideas, which has caused Sen. Clinton to stumble repeatedly, and to squander the most impressive set of advantages a candidate has ever held in pursuit of the White House.
And still, at the end of the day, loyalty prevails.
Apparently, Mark Penn has not yet crossed the threshold of being enough of a liability to fire, or rather, his loyalty over the past decade, including during the tumult of the Bill Clinton impeachment, has triumphed even over this latest embarrassment. He has simply been demoted, and he will continue on as an advisor, and help with polling data.
And I'm sure he will not be splitting this time from his profitable job as CEO without any compensation. So she will continue funneling money into a liability, all in the name of loyalty.
As the Los Angeles Times reports:
Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said in a statement Sunday that Penn had asked "to give up his role as chief strategist," but would "continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign."Because the change is not a total break with Penn, the demotion may not mollify influential labor groups who for months have hammered Clinton for retaining Penn while his firm -- public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller, where he is worldwide president and chief executive -- worked for clients with allegedly anti-labor agendas.It is unclear whether Penn's demotion will satisfy his detractors or stabilize the campaign in the crucial final months of the primary season."When you add to it the already contentious relationship he had with so many internally in the campaign and externally, he really should have been fired," one Clinton aide said Sunday, speaking on the condition of anonymity while discussing internal campaign dynamics.Though he will no longer have the grand title of chief strategist, he will continue to "wield power," the aide said.
So, it is not arrogance, nor ill intent, nor deceit as a practice, that has left the Clintons so damaged, but an unbending reliance on the total commitment and trust of each of their close advisers as a prerequisite to service. This probably speaks more to their connection to the bitter partisan politics of the 1990s, than anything else. When you are left in perpetual fear of betrayal and subversion, and dirty tricks of all sorts, a paranoia sets in, and you circle the wagons.
Unfortunately, it is not a practice that has served well for our Presidents, including the most recent example of George W. Bush, also famous for his insular circle of advisers, and his reluctance to embrace outside input.
Click Here to register with RealClearPolitics and vote to shed light on the Mark Penn controversy.
10 Votes are needed to share this valid conflict of interest with readers worldwide.
The popular political blog RealClearPolitics (you should read it when The New York Times has been thoroughly devoured) has not posted a single article about Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's top campaign strategist, meeting with the Colombian ambassador to talk about a trade deal his public relations firm was hired to promote and help secure.
If you are a registered member of RealClearPolitics, or if you would be willing to register, at least temporarily, you can vote for the following article: "Colombia Fires Top Clinton Aide's Firm"
This article, which comes from the AP Wire, but was provided by The New York Times, explains the controversy in balanced detail:
Colombia Fires Top Clinton Aide's Firm
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: April 5, 2008 Filed at 1:49 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn's public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm's chief executive, calling the meeting an ''error in judgment.'' Clinton opposes the trade deal.''The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable,'' government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador March 31.Clinton advisers said the meeting was not connected to the campaign, but made clear the candidate was not happy to learn it. Penn later issued a statement expressing regrets.''The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it,'' he said. ''The senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed.''The Colombian government is trying to secure congressional passage of the agreement signed in 2006 by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Bush administration.According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed last year to pay Burson-Marsteller $300,000 to help ''educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences'' about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.Clinton and Barack Obama, her Democratic rival, oppose the deal. Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO this week that the United States needs new trade policies before it has new trade deals. ''That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country,'' she said.Penn's political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign.
Filed at 1:49 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn's public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.
Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm's chief executive, calling the meeting an ''error in judgment.'' Clinton opposes the trade deal.
''The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable,'' government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Penn had met with the Colombian ambassador March 31.
Clinton advisers said the meeting was not connected to the campaign, but made clear the candidate was not happy to learn it. Penn later issued a statement expressing regrets.
''The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it,'' he said. ''The senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed.''
The Colombian government is trying to secure congressional passage of the agreement signed in 2006 by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Bush administration.
According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed last year to pay Burson-Marsteller $300,000 to help ''educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences'' about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.
Clinton and Barack Obama, her Democratic rival, oppose the deal. Clinton told the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO this week that the United States needs new trade policies before it has new trade deals. ''That includes no trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues in that country,'' she said.
Penn's political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid $10.8 million so far by Clinton's campaign.
The reason the media has not pounced on this story is that, unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has not called a press conference, he has not proclaimed "shame on you," in righteous tones, nor has he released a handful of scathing press releases.
He has not even recalled her own words about his adviser (whom, we should note, was not paid to secure a free trade deal, but was simply engaging in academic conversation), which would certainly brand her an unabashed hypocrite.
Just because Sen. Obama, the proponent of the new "politics of hope," will not stoop to conquer, does not mean we can't ask that valid and meaningful news reports be shared.
As the media frenzy surrounding the incendiary comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright began to wind down this week, Hillary Clinton announced at a press conference that if Rev. Wright were her pastor, she would no longer be a member of his church.
Yet the current pastor of Foundry United Methodist Church, where Hillary Clinton took President Clinton to worship during the eight years of his Presidency, gave a whole-hearted endorsement of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, leaving one to wonder if she will "reject and denounce," the place Bill Clinton said was "a church home to my family," during a speech in January, 2001.
Here's what Dean Snyder, Senior Minister of Foundry Church had to say about Rev. Wright:
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times.
He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream.
To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence.
Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear.
Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism.
No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.
I was surprised to read the vitriolic response to the endorsement by Gov. Bill Richardson of Sen. Barack Obama, by James Carville, a longtime Clinton supporter and ally, who has been a constant fixture on CNN.
The endorsement by Bill Richardson is “an act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
The endorsement by Bill Richardson is “an act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
While I am not surprised that this campaign has grown tense and heated as the competition intensifies, I could never have predicted that a respectable individual such as James Carville would compare a Clinton ally to Judas, the betrayor of Jesus Christ, just because he thinks Sen. Obama is better suited to serve as Commander in Chief.
Is Carville saying that Hillary Clinton is Jesus Christ, Bill Richardson her Judas, and Sen. Obama left to play whom? Perhaps Pontius Pilate, the well-meaning officiator who washed his hands of the whole affair but still permitted Jesus to face crucifixion?
Regardless of the intent, as someone who walked two miles today to follow the stations of the cross, who took a break from news reporting, political junkie-ism, and my own self-interest to consider the sacrifices of Jesus Christ, I am deeply disturbed by James Carville's seemingly sarcastic, but actually sacrilegious remarks.
To say again, this time to James Carville: "Shame on you!"
The recent release of Hillary Clinton's schedules as first lady, while not comprehensive, and lacking thousands of details retracted from the record, provide an interesting source of information from which to pose the question:
What exactly, from your White House 'experience,' qualifies you, more than any other candidate, to be Commander in Chief?
According to an article by the Associated Press, the answer to that question may be, 'little, if anything at all.'
Among the documents released Wednesday by the National Archives: stage directions during the 1996 presidential campaign for a bill signing ceremony on legislation to protect workers' health insurance. "HRC will not have a role but will be seated in the front row," the schedule states.
I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton wasn't necessarily involved in a lot of the activities of the White House, for she did have a chance to make legislation possible with the Health Care initiative (though it failed disastrously, no one can argue that she was not heavily involved in policy).
But, for a campaign that touted the procedural "present" votes of then State Sen. Barack Obama in Illinois, as tantamount to political cowardice, the following phrase may come back to haunt them:
HRC will not have a role but will be seated in the front row.
Take your own look at Hillary Clinton's recently released documents from the White House, including search features and more: The New York Times interactive feature.
While reading through The New York Times list of super-delegates, I came across this encouraging quote from the still-uncommitted Jimmy Carter. I believe the Obama campaign should be circulating this quote as well.
"Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family. We have four children with their spouses, we have 11 grandchildren, four or five of them are married, and all of them, except one, are for Obama. I think that Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now and the distrust that relates to our country and its government."
I wrote these words in response to an article in The Atlantic on Obama's "Wright problem."
It is all too easy to cast condemnation for those who happen, in one way or another, to associate with a bigot.In fact, what defines someone's character is not the absence of unseemly elements of their life; it is not the absence of those who would preach hate. It is the ability to transcend that kind of thinking, precisely when we are surrounded by it.We are defined by our struggle to listen to those around us, who claim to be our kin, members of our community, and to reject those elements of their rhetoric, and their beliefs, that do not sit well with our convictions.In this country, we cannot claim to be well-schooled in the challenges of race relations, unless we admit that racism, and hate are not abstract ideas. They are tied to the actions, feelings and statements of our fathers, or our mothers, or our brothers and sisters, of our best friends, and even our religious leaders; yes, even those who commit to living in the mold of Jesus Christ.If Sen. Obama were to claim that he could transcend the politics of division, including divides of race and religion, and base that claim not on his experience, but on the absence of hateful elements in his life, people would rightfully call him naive.I personally have had to cope with tinges of racism, that eventually grew to overtones, that are now confidently and comfortably voiced in seemingly rational overtures by members of my own family. Am I a racist because I do not shout down my father? It is a difficult question, but one I expect anyone who claims to understand the challenges we face in repairing this nation, will have faced time and again.The real question is not why Sen. Obama kept going to church, it's how he was able to set aside any talk of "grievances," as an African-American, surrounded by those who spoke of centuries-old injustices, and instead speak in calm, even tones as he addressed the nation as a whole, not just Black America.What unique store of conviction and courage did Sen. Obama draw from when he held back those around him, including his pastor, who called upon him to address what they perceived as egregious wrongs to the African-American community, to make that his pitch for the Presidency? Sen. Obama chose first, before asking anyone else to, to let fall the agenda of retribution and resentment. That is why he is a believable agent of change for those who hope to move past the battles of race and religion that have endured throughout all of history, and the last few decades, despite the promise of equality and shared prosperity.It is part of what has shaped this uniquely qualified man, who stands before us, not as a sheltered individual, but as a tested candidate who is ready to serve as our Commander in Chief.
Geraldine Ferraro says she's "so disappointed" in John Lewis and other prominent African-American supporters of Barack Obama, that she "could die." Well, Ms. Ferraro, I'm disappointed in you. Or, in the words of Hillary Clinton: "Shame on you!"
While reading through The New York Times story on Geraldine Ferraro, the once Vice-Presidential nominee who endured criticism for her remarks on race, I found the full text of a February radio interview, and the parts that haven't been talked about, are as shocking as her statement that Obama is only in this race because he's black. From The Caucus, The New York Times political blog:
This interview in February on Fox Radio’s John Gibson show gives you a good flavor of Ms. Ferraro’s view that race is playing a big role in this campaign. She was talking about Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat who is a superdelegate and who switched his endorsement from Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama.
“I’m very disappointed,” she said. “When I see John Lewis. He’s turning around - this is a civil rights leader. What in God’s name did he change his vote from Hillary to Barack Obama? I’ll tell you why. Because he faces, he’s not going to lose a Democratic primary in his district in two years, but he sure as hell will face one if he sticks it to Barack Obama when he has a greater majority of blacks in his district. So he’s looking at, he’s not going to lose. I’m so disappointed in him, I could die. I look at Rosa DeLaura up in Connecticut. She represents New Haven. Tell me, I mean I don’t care what she says, tell me why she’s endorsing Barack Obama and came to his defense on an issue like choice when he voted six times maybe? When he voted present? I’m a lunatic about this stuff. I can’t believe people are doing it.”
Mr. Gibson asked her if it was possible that Mr. Obama had a wave behind him and that politicians wanted to reflect the views of their constituents.
“John,” she said, “between me and you and your millions of listeners, if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”
Mr. Gibson then asked, “Geraldine, are you playing the race card?”
“No, and that’s the problem,” she said. “Every time you say the truth — I’m the first person, John, and you know how honest I am — I am the first person who will say in 1984, if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.”
Clearly she is really speaking to her perception over her own experience. I don't believe, however, that just because she feels she was not selected as a Vice-Presidential nominee for no reason more powerful than that she was a woman (an injustice if true), that Barack Obama's quest to become the President of the United States is inherently marginalized as well.
Does she believe that Hillary Clinton would be in this position if she were not a woman?
While political commentators and campaign staffers alike have attested that the delegate math almost certainly rules out a victory by either candidate, not counting a sudden surge of the remaining superdelegates to one side or the other, the actual numbers present a different picture:
The Delegate Math:
According to the Associated Press delegate totals, Barack Obama has 1,585 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 1,473 delegates.If the rest of the remaining contests were to split their delegates 50-50, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would each receive 361 delegates, according to The New York Times.That would leave Obama with 1,946 delegates, to Clinton's 1,834.Obama would sit only 79 delegates short of the nomination, Clinton 191.It would not take a coordinated rush of superdelegates to lead to an Obama nomination, but less than one-third of the remaining superdelegates. If he picks up 79 delegates by the end of the race, he will be within reach of the nomination.It's math, and it's not that fuzzy.
According to the Associated Press delegate totals, Barack Obama has 1,585 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 1,473 delegates.
If the rest of the remaining contests were to split their delegates 50-50, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would each receive 361 delegates, according to The New York Times.
That would leave Obama with 1,946 delegates, to Clinton's 1,834.
Obama would sit only 79 delegates short of the nomination, Clinton 191.
It would not take a coordinated rush of superdelegates to lead to an Obama nomination, but less than one-third of the remaining superdelegates. If he picks up 79 delegates by the end of the race, he will be within reach of the nomination.
It's math, and it's not that fuzzy.
Discussion of details:
Why follow the AP delegate count?
The AP delegate count contains the greatest delegate totals of all - why use these numbers?
The AP delegate totals account for nearly all of the delegates awarded to states that have already voted. While The New York Times and other sources might cite different numbers, they also acknowledge that a fair number of delegates from states that already voted are not included in their totals.
What does this mean?
While it may seem that adding 361 delegates to The Times, or other, lower counts, might make the challenge greater for either candidate to secure the nomination, they do not include a number of delegates who would, if split, increase the number "added" to each column by more than 361.
Assuming The Times, and other sources agree on the actual number of delegates in total, their delegate totals should not vary substantially from the AP numbers, in the end.
Also the AP is a highly regarded source with little likelihood of political or other bias.
Furthermore, the AP count of current superdelegates involves a frequent survey of every eligible Democratic Party delegate, more exhaustive than the approaches taken by The New York Times, or any other source.
Why assume the delegates will be evenly split?
While Clinton may hold on to a victory in Pennsylvania, for example, the 361 delegates awarded to each side accounts for Obama victories in Mississippi (not yet included in AP and other counts) as well as North Carolina, and a relative balance of victories and defeats (which may likely be more generous to Sen. Clinton) in the remaining contests.
Why Do We Think it Possible to Return to the Time of The Clintons? I have moved more than a dozen times in my life, starting when I was two years old, and continuing throughout my childhood. Each time I left a home, the lasting impression was one of peace and satisfaction, a thread that ran unbroken through my memories.
However, revisiting each of these places when I was older, I discovered that you really can't go home again once you've left. And the idyllic sense of place you hold in your mind is nothing like the very ordinary feel you have upon your return. You are inherently disillusioned and disappointed to find your own personal myths and folklore reduced to the mundane. So it is with the once (and future?) reign of Bill and Hillary Clinton. When I applied last summer to work for The William J. Clinton Foundation in Harlem, I included in my application a paean to that great and memorable President. I recalled with delight my first impression, sitting in a third-grade classroom, watching him on the sax. It was exciting, and like the rest of the 90s, contributed to an overall exuberance, a sense of all things new and full of possibility. Even this past fall, after working at The Clinton Foundation, and writing numerous letters in the voice of the President, I was still imbued with a sense of awe at the Clinton legacy. However, among the staff and interns who worked for Bill Clinton, I found myself in a mostly silent minority (could it have been a majority?). I believed that Hillary, as a politician, was a very different make and model than her husband. I also questioned her motivations; with her it always seemed more personal, as if the presidency were her due.
So when my pick, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, dropped out unexpectedly, I took a closer look at the field and embraced Barack Obama. But this didn't stop me from spending nearly three hours gorging myself on political minutia and historical notes at The Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas, when my fiancee and I stopped by during a Christmas road trip. I even bought a foot-tall talking Clinton doll which screeched out notable quotes and quips. In case this has not been made clear, I love Bill Clinton. But I love him in the way I love my childhood homes, as a piece of a past I cannot hope to revisit. A new Clinton White House would have to be just that, new. And while "newness" and change sound attractive, this time I worry it might lead to an unexpected wave of disillusionment. We may say we are familiar with "The Clintons," and we like what we remember, but memory is a fickle function, and tends to obscure certain pieces of the past in order to simplify our recollections.
My memories are undeniably positive, but they are blurry at best. Have people really thought through what it will be like to see Bill Clinton again, a decade older and stripped of formal authority? Some people exchange winks about a Clinton re-run, saying Hillary is just making it possible for Bill to skirt the Constitution. I believe that I know a bit better how strong a presence Hillary will have in the White House, and throughout the nation. Are people prepared to find the fond and familiar memories of Bill Clinton recede as he fades into the background, making appearances, raising money, and glad-handing, but ultimately absent from the day-to-day decisions and, more importantly, unable to guide the overall tone and tenor of Hillary's White House? The best case scenario is that it will feel weird, and we will find ourselves having to work to see it as it was, a once-great chance to make meaningful changes to our national policy, and to inspire people to work for a better purpose, that succeeded in some places, failed in others, but is ultimately a finished chapter in the ever-changing tale of American politics. The worst case scenario is that we may stand, as I have stood awkwardly beside my childhood Edens, with an ill feeling in our stomachs, wondering how it all could feel so different, after only a decade's distance. We don't know how we will feel about a more aggressive, more relentless approach from a Hillary Clinton White House, that stomachs a greater dose of animosity in order to secure victory, at all costs. We don't know how we will feel about a fighter who lacks the soft touch, who finds it more difficult to laugh at herself and chuckle at the end of the day, the way Bill Clinton would, surveying from a safe perch the battlefield of partisan politics. It may feel less like a game we hope to win, and more like an endless war that leaves us exhausted, in defeat and in victory.
This is not the Clinton White House we fondly recall, and it may be a struggle to balance the pleasure that our memories hold, with the new reality that we would have to face. This article may be perceived as a crafty assault on the Clinton legacy, and a divisive stab at Hillary, but it really speaks to the conflicted feelings that arose when I considered for the first time the reality of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. It left me feeling out of place, and a bit uneasy.
But, unlike my childhood homes, if President Hillary were to become a reality, I would not have the option of getting into my car, driving off into the distance, and letting the pleasant blur of my memories take hold once again.
The Monitor, the most widely read newspaper in the Rio Grande Valley, a key battleground region in the upcoming Texas primary, allows users to comment on online news articles.
A recent article, titled "George Lopez Supports Obama," drew my attention, because several users made repeated comments that amounted to little more than slander and misinformation about Sen. Obama. My concern is that a significant number of readers will be misled.
There is a way you can help!
If 10 or more readers elect to "remove a comment," posted on an article, it will be removed from the website.
Act Now! - Read the article yourself, and the adjoining comments, and decide for yourself whether they should be removed. Statements made by these divisive users include the following excerpts:
"This has come to a dem. election of a black man and a woman. But the bottom line is that if Obama wins, the republicans are going to win the presidency. The Rep. wants Obama to win because it will be a lot easier to beat a black man.""Obama Bin Ladin. freakin muslim. this is the work of Al Queda""Obama was kicking back with his wasp staff members knocking down buchanas with a splash of mineral water. when one bubbly wasp shouted, OMG Bamie, I know how we can reach all the brownies in south texas. talk to me biffy, replied obama because i have no clue. If all the brownies flocked to the clinton's like pigeons eating rice, then surely we can throw a chalupa at them and win them over. The rest is history.""Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim. The whole email thing was started by his camp as a way to hurt conservatives and his fellow democrats by creating a backlash against them. Hussein Obama created this rumor for his advantage and in the end the US will have a muslim president who will then try to introduce sharia law into the mainstream. Wake up America."
"This has come to a dem. election of a black man and a woman. But the bottom line is that if Obama wins, the republicans are going to win the presidency. The Rep. wants Obama to win because it will be a lot easier to beat a black man."
"Obama Bin Ladin. freakin muslim. this is the work of Al Queda"
"Obama was kicking back with his wasp staff members knocking down buchanas with a splash of mineral water. when one bubbly wasp shouted, OMG Bamie, I know how we can reach all the brownies in south texas. talk to me biffy, replied obama because i have no clue. If all the brownies flocked to the clinton's like pigeons eating rice, then surely we can throw a chalupa at them and win them over. The rest is history."
"Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim. The whole email thing was started by his camp as a way to hurt conservatives and his fellow democrats by creating a backlash against them. Hussein Obama created this rumor for his advantage and in the end the US will have a muslim president who will then try to introduce sharia law into the mainstream. Wake up America."
Where do most Texas Democratic Primary voters reside?In the 2004 Texas Democratic Presidential Primary, three Senate Districts led the rest of the state in voter turnout.They were not in the big urban centers of Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas / Ft. Worth. Nor were they located in the progressive though quirky (dare I say, weird?) Austin area. They were all in South Texas!Senate District 21, which includes most areas just North of the Valley, led the state with 85,600 votes!Senate Districts 20 and 27, which comprise the Valley, were ranked #2 and #3 respectively! All combined, the Valley and South Texas were responsible for 195,147 votes!That represents 23% of the vote in the entire state of Texas!The Top Three Senate Districts (ranked by voter turnout in the 2004 Texas Democratic Primary)
1. 85,600 - Senate District 21 (South Texas)2. 63,075 - Senate District 20 (Rio Grande Valley)3. 46,472 - Senate District 27 (Rio Grande Valley)
