Today, several people suggested that Republicans and Independents go out and register to vote as Democrats for upcoming Democratic Primaries such as PA.
In New Jersey, I was pushed and prodded to change my registration from Libertarian (as I have been for about a decade) to Democrat, in order to show my support for Obama. I had a big problem with this, as did several people I work with who were turned away despite recieving ballots in the mail as I did.
Simply put, some people literally carry thier party affiliation in thier wallets, as a general principal, and are not likely to swap party affiliation during every electrion. Simply put, Hard Dean should have worked to make all Democratic primaries open to Republicans, Independents, Green Party, Libertarians, Consitution Party, and any other persons/groups willing and energized to participate in the process.
Jon
There is a must-read review of past American Presidents' experience as it relates to their perceived quality of governing at http://www.electoral-vote.com/.
How good are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say.
Note that there are a lot more Presidents in the bottom left than the top right.
There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.20 of 28 times was a reelection. There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience. Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won. Examples: 2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost 1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost 1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost 1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost 1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience. 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost 1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost 1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost 1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost 1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt moreexperienced lost
There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.20 of 28 times was a reelection.
There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience.
Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won.
Examples:
2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost
1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost
1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost
1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost
1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience.
1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost
1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost
1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost
1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost
1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt moreexperienced lost
Update 2: Here is some additional analysis from another commenter:
Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience: "Does Experience Matter as a President"http://www.time.com/... "Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.[snip]Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership." and a second one:"The Science of Experience"http://www.time.com/... "...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. " "in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."
Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience:
"Does Experience Matter as a President"http://www.time.com/...
"Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.[snip]Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."
and a second one:"The Science of Experience"http://www.time.com/...
"...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. "
"in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."
Read More: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
I personally am an Agnostic. While I often respect people of Fait, they also scare me sometimes. President Bush would be a good example of that. Even if he were not in the White Hopuse, his kind of Faith scares me. It is so absolutest and exclusive.
Interwoven in a number of the speaches and interviews that I have listed to from Barack Obama were a number of references to his personal Faith and attitude towards that of others. I had gotten the general impression that he was not someone who I would find scary. As a matter of fact my wife and I generally have the reaction after hearing him talk that we woudl love to have him over to the house for dinner. Pleasant, articulate, interesting, open minded, etc...
So, I was extremely happy to find a link (here on this webpage) to a segment where Barack explicitly lays out his approiach to Faith in a pluraistic society.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
I was right. He is not scary. He is all that I could ask for. "People of Faith do not have a Monopoly on Morality." What more need sto be said? Watchj teh video though. It is excellent.
I use VistaPrint to print my basic and premium businss cards. VistaPrint just sent me an advert for FREE magnetic car door magnetic signs, why not use this free offer to make a car door magnet or two to help swing those Independents and defecting Republicans? It also couldn't hurt with motivating decided Obama'rz.
http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/car_door_magnets/product_page.aspx?xnav=top&GP=3%2F2%2F2008+12%3A46%3A02+AM
I know it's late in the game for this idea, it should have been already at the Obama Store, but maybe your local Quick-Print store or Kinkos can make you a sign this Monday, just in time for Super Super Tuesday? Should only be about $15-30, and they can probably get the high-resolution graphics from Obama's Press Kit.
Any thoughts?
J
Sponsored 3 Obama Volunteers to Texas
I am in a really great mood today due, in large part, to sponsoring three eager students from across the U.S. -- either by way of helping them get a plane ticket or helping with accommodations -- to fly down to Texas to volunteer for the Obama campaign. Please check my blog regularly (WeNeedObama.blogspot.com) as they will be sending me news, photos and anecdotes from the campaign trail that I will be posting there. Here are the intrepid folks I'll be following over the next week:
Good luck Wendi, Aaron and Kingsley!
Sign the petition to urge Clinton to stop pushing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates!
Rules are rules!
Over 4,100 people have already signed!
Go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness
Senator Obama is not a cult leader (as Senator Clinton is now so absurdly suggesting).Senator Obama is a Catalytic Leader, as I will describe shortly below. This is the exact style of leadership our country and our interconnected world requires at this point in history. Without this more accurate framing, the media will continue to parrot Senator Clinton's talking points by attributing Senator Obama's message and popularity to hero worship, charisma, blind faith or "cultmania", etc.Catalytic Leadership is a style of leadership whereby a leader inspires diverse constituencies to step forward and work together and where effective solutions to problems are created by such constituencies working together, with everyone buying into the problem solving process. By being involved and invested in the process, stakeholders who may desire different outcomes may yet come to support a solution because they were made a part of the process. They can say "WE DID IT!"Senator Obama is clearly a charismatic figure. However, to write him off as simply a "charismatic figure" is too simplistic. His true power lies in what appears to be his natural leadership ability and his skill at drawing together a variety of diverse constituencies into his decision-making process. Not everyone will agree with the outcome of every initiative he puts forward but everyone will at least be able to say that they were consulted and had their voices heard. Thus, his message of "Yes WE can!".The complexity of the problems facing our country and world involve highly divergent points of view and diverse people/communities that must somehow find common ground in order to move toward solutions, and a Catalytic Leadership style is the one that is necessary. This is one of the critically important skills that Senator Barack Obama will bring to the presidency, as is already profoundly evidenced in his ongoing campaign.A Catalytic Leader is the antidote to our current woes and to Clinton and the media's recent "cultmania" spin in answer to Obama's popularity and his ability to inspire and involve so many patriotic Americans -- whether Democrat, Independent or Republican.We cannot suffer through another era where "leadership" is defined as forcing your will upon others, not consulting with opposing voices and falling prey to the supposed collective wisdom of a coterie that has never disagreed with you.For more on the concept of Catalytic Leadership, check out the seminal work on the topic by my late stepfather: "Catalytic Leadership" by Professor Jeffrey Luke.Also, check out another great article: The 'Cult' of Obama?
2,500+ Signatures So Far!!
I have been incensed by Hillary trying to steal the Democratic nomination by changing the rules in the middle of the game. Please sign the petition I just created and speak out on this outrage!Here is the petition:
Dear Senator Clinton:We, the undersigned, are concerned Americans and have been dismayed to learn recently that your campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.We were shocked to learn that your campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "Change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, you yourself made that very argument months ago. We are concerned that your attempt to seat delegates from states in which you and your opponents explicitly pledged to not campaign will have disastrous implications for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nomination process. As Ezra Klein warns, "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart." As a result, we strongly urge you, in the interest of the Democratic Party and the millions of Americans who have a strong interest in avoiding a fractious, divisive Democratic National Convention, to abide by the rules set down months ago and explicitly agreed to by your campaign and abandon your push to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated in the upcoming Democratic National Convention.Thank you for your time and consideration.Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process
Dear Senator Clinton:We, the undersigned, are concerned Americans and have been dismayed to learn recently that your campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.We were shocked to learn that your campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "Change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, you yourself made that very argument months ago.We are concerned that your attempt to seat delegates from states in which you and your opponents explicitly pledged to not campaign will have disastrous implications for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nomination process. As Ezra Klein warns, "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart."As a result, we strongly urge you, in the interest of the Democratic Party and the millions of Americans who have a strong interest in avoiding a fractious, divisive Democratic National Convention, to abide by the rules set down months ago and explicitly agreed to by your campaign and abandon your push to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated in the upcoming Democratic National Convention.Thank you for your time and consideration.Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process
An Open Letter to Identity Politics
I am of course sad to see the result in today's Democratic caucuses in Nevada. What makes me angry, however, are the media's follow-up stories on the "inevitable" and "expected" tension between the black and latino communities.Please forgive me the blast of passion but: Please, everyone, can we get over the identity politics of the past!? I mean, if I have to read another story about a woman voter supporting Hillary because it would be "great to see a woman in office", a black voter supporting Obama because "it's finally time to see a black man in office" or a latino voter who questions Obama's candidacy because latinos are resistant of and competitive to black voters, I am going to Scream.Don't we live in the most inclusive, diverse country in the world (barring the last 8 years of the opposite)? Haven't we come a long way since the culture wars of the 60s and beyond?Continuing to buy in to the whole identity politics B.S. allows partisan hacks like Hillary and Bill to exploit people, pull their strings and fit actual people into an unthinking, reactive mass of "categories" that need to be played against each other.As Andrew Sullivan points out, why, do you ask, have the Clintons been harping on the race issue over the last week and blaming Obama for Hillary putting her foot in her own mouth? Because they likely calculated that keeping race in the forefront will remind latino voters to consider whether they want to vote for a black guy!Don't allow them to get away with this! Vote for the person who you think is most qualified. Vote for the person you think has the best policy positions. Vote for the person who inspires you!Don't buy into the same political machine that would have you vote based on your race, your gender or your sexual orientation. Reject the B.S, think for yourself!
Kavi
Daily Kos has a poll put up today at 9:42 AM. Make sure to go there today and vote for Obama! It’s still early…Obama’s now in second place at 26% behind Edwards at 35% Let’s change these numbers to reflect the grassroots support we are seeing moving in his direction.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/29/124013/18
Hillary Clinton has spent 2/3 of her life preparing for this moment, and she has a fundraising machine and a husband who is a very savvy political strategist, both of which will propel her forward despite certain grave inadequacies as a candidate. Barack Obama may be deified before he is elected President, but he is clearly the flavor of the season, and people are seeing in him what ever they choose to see. He has the legs for a long race, despite his inexperience (two years removed from the Illinois State Senate). This is a fundraising contest, and the media is all about Hillary and Obama.
The following states have either already moved their primary date to February 5th or are in the process of doing so:
New JerseyNew YorkCaliforniaFloridaTexasIllinoisNorth CarolinaWisconsinMinnesotaAlabamaArizonaArkansasNew MexicoUtahWest Virginia.
