Politirazzi

Predictions

2008-05-12T22:49:47Z

By Meg Hillary will win West Virginia tomorrow night by a huge margin (“Oh, really, Meg? How incredibly astute. I never would have guessed that!”). She’ll give a rousing victory speech, but the press will not bite (nor will the superdelegates). I think we all know it’s over. Since my prediction above was so pathetically obvious, I’m going to make it up to you by throwing out a wild card prediction. After the final primary, the Holy Grail of superdelegates will have his say: Al Gore will endorse Obama, and everyone will finally shut up. Where will this leave Hillary? As Holly Golightly said, there are certain shades of limelight that can wreck a girl’s complexion. She’ll stand with Barack at the convention, but don’t expect her to be vociferous. I think she’ll quietly go back to the Senate (unless Obama offers her a juicy spot in his administration, which he’d be a fool not to do) and start plotting Comeback 2012.

A Libertarian for president

2008-05-12T21:50:18Z

By Meg This one’s for you, Jeff and Adrian. It’s official: Former Congressman Bob Barr is running for president — as a Libertarian! Curious what the two of you think about this. I personally don’t know much about the guy except that he hates former President Clinton and loves marijuana. Sounds like every philosophy professor I had in college ...

Should she stay or should she go?

2008-05-12T21:43:05Z

"I didn't know she was going to be here," said Obama supporter Doris Smith, Monday in Charleston, W. Va. (AP) By Adrian People’s perception of Hillary Clinton hasn’t changed dramatically during the primaries. The right has long portrayed her as being zealously and shamelessly ambitious — and she has only affirmed their accusations. She transformed herself from a Yale educated policy wonk into a standing-in-the-back-of-a-pickup Huey Long populist. She has: — Cried to win in New Hampshire — Remained on the ballot in Michigan after other candidates had agreed to boycott the early primary — Backed a gas-tax holiday — Refused to cast her lot with economists (they are too elite, I guess) — and, despite knowing that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated because those states violated party rules, she has sent her campaign spokesmen out to endlessly reiterate that the party cannot nominate someone (Barack Obama) with the votes of only 48 states. (continued) I suspect that those who disliked Hillary have only had their feelings confirmed; those who have backed her have continued to back her. However, for those on the fence, I believe her shameless pandering and unchecked ambition have probably pushed more people away form Hillary. At this point, it seems clear that barring a catastrophe — like assassination — Barack Hussein Obama will become the nation’s first black presidential candidate. Hillary’s future is up to her. If, by some Clintonian black-magic Senator Clinton somehow captures the nomination, it will cleave the Democratic Party. While Senator Obama may give rhetorical credence to post convention party unified, should Hillary win the Obamaites will feel that they have been cheated out of the nomination. Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned, but a scorned politician with the largest private database of donors will give the Demo’s a pain they will not soon forget. While it may be too dramatic to say that the party will split if Hillary steals the nomination, there will certainly be consequences. Here’s the scenario: Hillary gets the nomination, Barack feels scorned but is a good soldier and supports Hil. Barack’s young and independent supporters and donors feel that all their hard work has been squandered and politics will play out as usual. Hillary’s nomination not only succeeds in turning many of these voters away from voting in 2008, but no doubt a good percentage will see politics as a game reserved for the favorite of party elites, and the Democratic Party will lose all claim to being democratic. On the other hand, if Clinton were to magnanimously drop out of the election before the convention she could help unite the party behind Obama and see it to victory in the fall. A President Obama would certainly owe Senator Clinton a cabinet position, should she so desire one. How about the first female Secretary of Defense?

No more "Hill" polling

2008-05-12T17:15:44Z

By Kimberly The writing is on the wall for Hillary, which I find a shame because, though I’ve been judgmental of her, I was actually leaning towards her proposed solutions. It’s not her major loss in North Carolina that sealed the deal, but the last nail in the coffin is the story that broke on Friday that Rasmussen Reports will stop polling people regarding Hillary’s campaign. (continued) What’s more alarming to me in my prediction is that it’s possible that the veep of Rasmussen has single handedly decided the fate of the future general election. In a leaked e-mail, Boniello writes, “However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.” Um … if I were Clinton I’d be pissed. Will other polling companies follow Rasmussen’s lead? Years of watching CNN, C-Span and the McLaughlin Group have taught me that without polling and data — you’re toast. Though she may voluntarily bow out in the next 2 months, this will hardly be voluntarily. She’s been cut off and left to wither on the vine.

A case for NAFTA

2008-05-12T00:13:15Z

By Jeff Hillary Clinton is not winning the Democratic nomination. No way; no how. I soooooo need a break from the Democratic primary. So instead, and since it appears as though I’m one of the few Politirazzi voices on “the right,” I’ll champion something that both Democratic candidates have been speaking out against: NAFTA, which has been a substantial benefit to all parties involved. But before I get into the stats, there are two major errors people make when demonizing NAFTA. First, they assume that manufacturing jobs are all lost to “outsourcing,” when in fact many of them are lost due to either job obsoleteness or increased productivity. It’s not a bad thing to lose jobs. For instance, the buggy whip industry is dead — and isn’t everyone glad automobiles replaced horse transportation? The assembly line obsoleted even more jobs while dramatically increasing productivity. Microsoft has been the cause of mass job obsoleteness. Is there ANYONE who would argue that the technological revolution starting in the late '70s hasn’t been a historic boon to the global economy and society in general? Jobs are lost. Industries die. Economies adapt. Not only is it natural, but it’s good. The loss of manufacturing jobs is a secular change. China, where we are supposedly shipping all of our manufacturing jobs is shedding manufacturing jobs at a higher rate than the U.S., but their productivity is increasing. (continued) Second, people talk about jobs lost to China and India in the same breath as blaming NAFTA — which just shows a striking amount of ignorance of what NAFTA even means never mind its impacts. However, even when jobs are outsourced to Mexico for cheaper labor, why is that bad? Why is the company evil for doing so? No company (or society) should be obligated to keep a job forever. A company pays a salary as long as it is worth it for them to do so. It’s no different than the fact that I accept a salary from my company as long as it is worth it for me to keep doing so. When either of us receive a more economic offer; we end the agreement. Why are companies evil when they terminate an obsolete job, yet individuals are living the American dream by taking a better-paying job? Why is “loyalty” a one way street? While admittedly correlation does not prove causation, there is no mistaking the fact that the years post-NAFTA have been substantially better economically than those pre-NAFTA. Unemployment averaged 5.1 percent the 13 years after NAFTA compared to 7.1 percent the 13 years prior; U.S. manufacturing output increased 63 percent after NAFTA compared to 37 percent before. Manufacturing salaries (adjusted for inflation) increased 1.6 percent annually compared to 0.9 percent. So, there’s less unemployment, higher manufacturing productivity and higher manufacturing wages in the states. It’s benefited us. What about Mexico? A report from the World Bank on the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA said that NAFTA has also been an economic boon for Mexico. Money quote: “The report’s main conclusion regarding NAFTA is that the treaty has helped Mexico get closer to the levels of development of its NAFTA partners. The research suggests, for example, without NAFTA Mexican exports would have been around 25 percent lower than the actual numbers, foreign direct investment would have been around 40 percent less, and the country's per capita income in 2002 would have been up to 5 percent lower. Also, the amount of time required for Mexican manufacturers to adopt U. S. technological innovations was cut in half.” So while the Democratic politicians pander to blue-collar voters and those struck with liberal guilt by citing NAFTA as one of the main reason for the weakened economy, and claim that it’s benefited nobody but evil, greedy corporations, the facts just do not back it up at all.

Monday's Trail Mix

2008-05-11T23:03:19Z

HILLARY would loan more to campaign Sen. Hillary Clinton is “willing” to lend her presidential campaign more money if necessary, her campaign chairman said yesterday on “Meet the Press.” When asked whether the Clinton camp would repay all the debts, Terry McAuliffe answered, “We plan on it.” To date, the former first lady has lent about $11 million to her cause, with the campaign $20 million in debt, according to CNN. JENNA married by Obama supporter President Bush’s daughter, Jenna, wed longtime boyfriend Henry Hager this past weekend with an endorser of Sen. Barack Obama officiating, the Huffington Post reports. The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, adviser to President Bush and pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, had endorsed Obama in January, saying the Illinois lawmaker “would do a wonderful job to bring people together,” according to the Associated Press. (continued) JOHN to Clinton: Math is ‘very hard’ In an appearance yesterday on “Face the Nation,” Sen. John Edwards all but called Obama the presumptive nominee, saying the math for Clinton is “very, very hard.” Edwards, who left the presidential race in January, explained his decision to do so yesterday. He said he thought “if I got out of the race, it would accelerate the process of one person pulling away. Well, I was obviously dead wrong about that.” HILLARY tours mom’s day birthplace Clinton spent Mother’s Day visiting the birthplace of the holiday in Grafton, W. Va., according to the AP. She toured the home of Anna Jarvis, the woman credited with founding Mother’s Day 100 years ago, and reminded supporters there that her candidacy remains strong among women. West Virginia holds its Democratic primary contest tomorrow.

If Hillary wins? Flashback to 2000

2008-05-11T19:44:11Z

By Matt If Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination — in spite of the popular vote in favor of Barack Obama — the question I will be most concerned with is not what effect that will have on Democratic voters, but whether those dissatisfied with the result of the 2000 presidential election will finally stop harping on the deficiencies of the electoral college and the supposed injustice of a system in which a person who doesn’t get the highest absolute number of votes can still manage to get elected. One cannot help but trip over the irony of the Democratic nominee potentially being decided not by the popular vote — oh no! — but by the popular vote and the votes of the party’s superdelegates. It would be ironic indeed if the precedent relied upon in such a nomination fight was the scourge of Bush v. Gore. (continued) As many learned nearly eight years ago (much to their chagrin), the popular vote does not decide who becomes president. Similarly, the rules of the Democratic party allow for a nominee to be chosen who has not won the most cumulative votes in the various state and territorial caucuses and primaries. Like it or not, the systems that the two major political parties have in place for choosing a nominee, and the system for electing the president spelled out in the Constitution, do not simply vest the choice of a nominee and of the president, respectively, in only the aggregated voice of the people. We don’t live in a democracy in the strict meaning of that term, or at least not as the Greeks from whom the word is derived would understand it. In some respects, our political system is geared toward what seems to be a goal fundamentally antithetical to democracy: filtering and diluting the power of the people. Where do we witness such an effort? Among other examples, look no further than equal representation among the states in the Senate, the electoral college system or, yes, superdelegates. A Clinton victory based on the support of superdelegates will probably be highly controversial. But, like the Democrats’ favorite punching bag, President Bush, she will have won fair and square nonetheless. And if Democrats don’t like that result either, instead of turning to their familiar lament of Bush v. Gore, they could always turn to one of their other faithful standbys: change.

Clinton on "white Americans"

2008-05-08T19:12:16Z

By LaShawnda After the Indiana primary. Clinton stated in her speech that she is “running to be the president of all of America — north, south, east and west, and everywhere in between. That's why it is so important that we count the votes of Florida and Michigan.” Yesterday, one day after proclaiming her desire to be a president for all Americans, Clinton suggested "white Americans" are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy. Clinton cited an Associated Press poll "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina) who had not completed college were supporting me. These are the people you have to win, if you're a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that." (continued) The last two sentences rub me the wrong way. “These are the people you have to win” and “everybody knows it”. I didn’t know it. I thought we all mattered. And is she insinuating that only white Americans are working and hard-working? Has she forgotten so quickly about all the other Americans? Or were we never truly acknowledged? I judge Hillary based on the words coming out her mouth. These are her mistakes, misspeaks, thoughts, ideas, actions. No one else’s.

Why is Limbaugh Still Yapping His Flap?

2008-05-08T19:07:54Z

By LaShawnda CNN quotes Rush Limbaugh as saying, “I now believe he [Obama] would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees. Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win — blue-collar, working-class people ... He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that." Hello, McFly! (Knocking on hollow wood to represent Limbaugh’s noggin.) Where have you been? There’s nothing ordinary about this election process. If you’re basing your erred analysis on historical statistics, wake up and take a good look at the candidates. Neither are your usual presidential candidate types. Also, Americans are coming out in record numbers to be a part o this election cycle. McCain did not inspire that. Hillary may have lit a fire under some. But the motivational star of this election cycle is Barack Obama. Nothing about his rise translates to ‘weakest link’. An idiot with a mic and audience is a disastrous thing. People listen to him, unfortunately. Limbaugh is credited with talking Republicans into crossing over and voting for Clinton as he had previously deemed her the weakest candidate in a general election match-up with McCain. He’s probably switching his stance simply to gauge his effect. It’s too late in the game for his listeners to benefit Obama at all. Take your ego off the air, Limbaugh and make room for someone with some decency.

Democratic Primary Race Follows Design

2008-05-08T18:04:38Z

By Dontre I am in perfect concert with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement, "A win is a win. Let's just call it what it is." So much attention has been paid to Sen. Clinton's "narrow victory" that the most important fact is being overlooked: She won! Not only is the "narrow victory" phrasing a media headline that discredits Hillary's win, it is an effective campaign tool that attempts to erode the meaning of her victory. This slogan ignores the glaring fact that Sen. Obama's campaign would like you not see: Even when she's behind, Sen. Clinton continues to win states and garner supporters — and she has done so three different times now (coming from behind to win New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana). Whether it was a difference of only 14,195 votes or seven — a win is a win. Someone prospered. (continued) As some in the Democratic party press Sen. Clinton to drop from the race, I am even more inspired by her tenacity to keep running. I am uncertain as to what qualities one reveres in his or her respective Congressional representatives, but I personally cast my votes for one who doesn't give up. In the eight years of Republican rule of the presidency, six of those years have seen Republicans with a clear majority in the House and Senate, until a decisive midterm election ended that reign in 2006. In that time, Democrats didn't give up in the face of a Republican majority, they fought on. Their hard work was rewarded with their victory in the midterm election due to their diligent spirit and commitment to the Democratic values, which they knew resonated with the general public. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was present during that Republican-dominated regime in Congress, operates on much the same principle. If we are to, generously, take her wins in Florida and Michigan, we can understand the senator's rationale: She overwhelmingly won two states (or, more pointedly, the majority of 2 million voters), and is actually a popular candidate; though, even discounting Florida and Michigan, she is still running an effective campaign. What with her wins in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and the primary's system of proportionally awarding delegates, she still gains even when she loses. And with 1,686 delegates, representing millions of voters, she is clearly supported by someone. This reporter included. The problem here is that many are applying to the primary system the rules of a zero-sum, majoritarian system. Here, the winner does not take all. In fact, had that system been applied, it is quite possible that Sen. Obama would not only be the underdog, he possibly would have been eliminated by her wins in delegate-heavy states, such as California, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Pennsylvania. In the end, we are left with these facts: neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton will capture the necessary amount of votes to win the nomination by pledged delegates; barring a bow-out by either of the candidate, this contest will go to the convention; and the superdelegates get the final say. This is not an inconceivable measure, as the system allows for just such an occasion; they are following a pre-determined route. Those who take issue with the "drawn-out" process should not fault the candidates, but the Democratic National Committee. Those who call for Hillary's departure should refer to her numbers, which still prove her to be a viable candidate and (most importantly!) one who hasn't lost this race.

Introducing: The Nerdy-Super Delegate Freakshow!

2008-05-08T16:21:41Z

By Kimberly By far, the biggest side show of them all has been all the hullabaloo about the superdelegates: Who they are, where they live and who they’ll vote for. This is the sideshow that spawned the pimping out of Chelsea Clinton and the idea that again the decision of president would be taken out of the “peoples’ ” hands and decided by a select elite (?) few. Enter the embarrassing Facebook picture below of 21-year-old superdelegate Jason Rae who was wined and dined by the Clintons, makes one mean chocolate chip cookie (literally!), and who accidentally outed himself during an interview with The Advocate. Aren’t you comforted by those whose hands hold the fate of the free world? Facebook (continued) But let’s not forget the shear hilarity of the attention given to most places we didn’t even realize were U.S. territories, such as Guam. I rolled my eyes when I heard Wolf Blizter talking about Clinton’s defeat in Guam by seven votes and how the country has five super delegates up for grab. At least now with the last round of primaries it looks like we can put this superdelegate dash to bed, and the Clintons can save a bundle on the free wii’s they planned to unleash to the other nerdy superdelegates in late July …

Slight of hand

2008-05-07T21:26:23Z

By LaShawnda The most ridiculous sideshow has been the media’s concentration on the Rev. Wright. It’s interesting that during this whole primary season, the only “negative” the media Hillary and her peeps can poke at Obama about are his associates. They haven’t found anything about him personally that’s been bad enough to create a national uproar over. Very little to criticize about Obama’s own words and actions. So, the media created a circus act out of Wright’s career and comments. (continued) If the media is making a connection between the effect Wright's sermons will have on Obama’s ability to govern why are they so hesitant with correlating Bill’s treatment of Hillary as a spouse to her ability to govern? The media has consciously measured Hillary on her own merits, separate from her husband (despite her assertions of her prominent role during his administration). Yet a husband has more influence on his wife than a pastor does with a church member. That’s just a thought.

Cliffhanger

2008-05-07T20:32:51Z

I feel like I’m in the middle of a suspense thriller, sitting at the edge of my seat for the finale. Waiting for the twist. For the one possible thing I never expected. Like on "Law and Order" last night, where the antagonist was the prime suspects’ attorney. The attorney was also in love with her client and her final act to protect him was to yank him with her as she jumped off a roof. The show closed on the contorted, bloody bodies of the suicidal attorney and her unsuspecting client. I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t see it coming. My biggest fear now for this country is that Hillary’s finale will be a similar show stopper for the Democratic Party. — LaShawnda

Hillary the loser, but not the "loser"

2008-05-07T19:35:30Z

(AP) By Emily It’s so over. Sen. Barack Obama is striding to the Democratic nomination while Sen. Hillary Clinton’s only legitimate reason to keep playing is how well she sings the blue-collar blues. She could woe the remaining superdelegates to decide contrary to the popular vote, and she could woe the Democratic National Committee into giving Florida and Michigan a say. But what kind of Democrat would she be, defying what the people want and rewriting the rules so they suit her? She's put up a good fight. Amid calls for Clinton to drop her bid and quit lending her campaign cash, though, Hil is nowhere close to a loser. Clinton’s greatest victory in this epic-length primary is her solidified image as a politician. Not a former first lady or Bill’s wife. Not a woman. Just as a valiant fighting politician. (continued) I truly believe voters cast their ballots more for Hillary and Barack than for the white candidate and the black candidate or the female candidate than the black candidate. These identifying factors must be mentioned for the sake of stating the obvious, but seeing our Democratic candidates for who they are has been worth traveling the extending primary road. And thank God we’ve reached the end.

McGovern embraces, then drops Clinton

2008-05-07T17:00:46Z

Oh, snap. Former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern was once all about Sen. Hillary Clinton, and now he's all:

"Hillary, of course, will make the decision as to if and when she ends her campaign. But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

McGovern added he has no regrets about endorsing Clinton months ago, but now throws his weight behind Sen. Barack Obama, who had a pretty sweet Tuesday. It's time to unite the Democratic party, McGovern concluded. — Emily