Third Party & Independents Archives

Look, what bothered many of us Obama supporters is that her speech sounded like somebody accepting a concession, rather than somebody giving one. She sounded like somebody who had a campaign ahead, rather than one behind. With many of us concerned about party unity, about Hillary Clinton so radicalizing supporters that they refuse to vote for the party’s nominee, and for no better reason than a political power play.

She’s built up a lot of tension in the party by not doing what most candidates have done when the math went strongly against her. There is serious fears among our party about whether she has our best interests at heart.

Now, she did Barack a favor at AIPAC, but there’s a point I think where a gracious candidate will put their own feelings aside, call upon their own followers to stand down and respect the feelings of the rest of the party, and those among her people who don’t want to be bargaining chips.

We don’t want to lose in November over division from the primary.

Now this is just breaking as I write this at 6:24 CST, but it looks like Hillary will suspend her campaign, and endorse on Friday.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 4, 2008 07:28 PM

Stephen, like I said, back the hell off and give the woman a little time to sleep and think clearly about the right thing to do. Many of you Obama supporters haven’t the good sense of Obama to relax when you have won. Obama is not about to question Clinton’s motives or impugn her intentions immediately after his victory.

Follow your own leader’s example, and don’t let your emotions and fears govern your behavior. That is Bill Clinton’s weakness, don’t make it your own.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 4, 2008 07:45 PM

Even if you have the most negative view possible of HRC, you have to believe she will do what is in her own self interest, as a Democratic Senator from New York. One of the best things she could do would be to help other Democrats running for the Senate, in places where BHO is not that popular. I think the Senate is where the RNCC will try to make their stand this year.

“about Hillary Clinton so radicalizing supporters that they refuse to vote for the party’s nominee” ??? I guess it’s the talking point of the day, in some place where there is no room for opposition. If the standard has to be that people have to love BHO and reject HRC, then look for 35 electoral votes in December. The other day, HRC and BHO were virtually identical, so all her supporters should vote for him. Now you’re back to blaming her for losing an election 5 months from now.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 4, 2008 08:10 PM

david

are we having some kind of a meltdown here ? i think somebody needs a hug!!!

Posted by: dbs at June 4, 2008 08:38 PM

David,
Apparently Chris Matthews and the other Talking Heads of the News Entertainment business needs a lesson in Politics 101. For why I can see that they would love nothing more than to put the HRC to bed. The reality is that she could of done a Lieberman and decided to run as an Independent Candidate.

And why I do believe her supports would like nothing more than that idea. I see that Friday she will once again address the media. So to those Citizens on the Left and Right of Society you might thank HRC for not saying Tuesday night that she was going to take her 18 million plus supports and show the Boys on the Hill how to go Creek Jumping.

Yes, I do believe Chris Matthews and the rest of the Gang would of been left speechless if such an act was done. However, even I think it was a show of class for HRC to take a few days and weigh the political options of the Landscape.

So, Ladies and Gentleman before you slam her for not conceding Tuesday. Ask yourself what would the Democratic and Republican Candidates would do if by all polls show HRC can beat Senator McCain and Senator Obama in a General Election. Talk of a Wild November!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 4, 2008 09:03 PM

I hope she will run as an independent. I think the Democratic Party did to her like they did Lieberman and it would serve you pipe dreaming BHO supporters right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at June 4, 2008 09:31 PM

Give her time to work out the right thing to do?

How long does she need?

Cause she lost this thing weeks ago. She’s already had plenty of time to get her head around this. And it’s a really simple concept. You lose, you concede. You bow out graciously and allow the victor to enjoy their moment of triumph.

Her decision, last night, to be introduced as “the next President”, to ask for more donations, to solicit requests on what she “should do next”, to bask in the chants of “Denver, Denver, Denver”, her failure to endorse Obama during his historic moment of victory, were the actions of a seemingly classless person.

She could have done the appropriate thing last night. She chose not to. People have a right to be disappointed in her behavior since her actions seek to raise questions about the legitimacy of Obama’s win, and so slightly dull the luster of his marvelously unlikely victory.

She did everything she could to ensure he hobbled across the primary line and will stumble into the election. If I were a Democrat I’d be seething.

Posted by: Bob Hope at June 5, 2008 01:41 AM

Bob Hope,
Being an Independent since the 70’s I can only imagine what would of happened to the Republicans if they had two candidates the caliber of Senator Clinton and Obama. However, having seen in my lifetime what happens when people rush into the fray and let emotions rule the outcome I wonder if the Left and Right of Society could handle the bare knuckle politics of our Ancestors and Forefathers.

No, HRC will suspend her campaign on Saturday and take her delegates to the convention if all works out as planned. Yet, except for Bill I could see where HRC and BHO would make My Peers and the Children of the 21st Century a good selection for President and Vice President.

Because regardless of your political stance change is coming to America and Humanity. The question that needs to be asked by Every American is will it be done with the help of the Grandparents and Parents or will the Children of the 21st Century like the Children of the 70’s be told to go teach their Parents why being Politically Unalienable Correct matters?

For as far as Obama hobbling across the primary lines, I do believe that I heard the same old song and dance from the Republicans just a few months ago about McCain. Besides with 60 plus days until the Conventions, both the Democratic and Republican Leadership and Media needs something to talk about even if it does not set any precedence in history.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 5, 2008 02:28 AM

The Obama fans currently hate Hillary. They just want her to disappear. Why are you surprised that they treat here poorly? She is standing in the way of what they consider an event like the second comming. She has to make way for Obama.

I respect Hillary a little more for staying in the race. Now she has to kiss butt to get back in the good graces of the Soros/moveon.org crowd. It is hard for a proud woman to do that.

The Obama fans in the media mistreated Hillary all along. She may have a majority of the votes cast (if you count Michigan) but they just went with the Obama narrative.

Posted by: Jack at June 5, 2008 05:13 AM

Jack, you sound like you are reciting the GOP talking points on this issue. Are you quoting Pat Buchanan and trying to make the words sound original? You Republicans continue to walk in lock step like robotons repeating what your leaders tell to think.

Man, just when the country really needs some conservative fiscal discipline and innovative creative thinking focused on the benefit of all Americans and the nation, Republicans are all a zombied mob following the Party’s sour grapes mantra. No wonder Republicans are going to lose it all this November.

The passions on the Democratic side are no different that passions on the Republican side when it comes to winning and losing. That’s why the duopoly party’s continue to fail America’s future. Passion was never intended to be governor of our nation, only the fuel for the Revolution. Reason and Compassion were supposed to be the governors.

Your partisan comments exemplify how it is that America remains a nation divided against itself, even opposing the head wind of a unifying candidate and message running for president.

McCain has seniority. His experience is in graft and special interest catering. Which makes Obama’s experience vastly superior to McCain’s seniority or experience. But keep the minority faith, Jack. It is what the remainder of Republican loyalists are exceptional at, right or wrong, never say die, right, Jack.

I am sure there are a minority of Obama fans who ‘hate’ Hillary in your mind. In reality, those Obama fans, like so many Republican fans, really just hate opposition or difference. The vast majority of Obama fans don’t hate anyone. They respect and care about their fellow Democrats and Americans. Republicans would do well to try to emulate them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 06:39 AM

David,
IO think Senator McCain stated the Republican side of the debate very well. For why they know that change is coming to America, they are worried about the type of change. Will this mean that they are going to have to give up their Ideology that Kings and Queens Rule the World?

For why I am sure that Senator McCain and the Republican Party is not ready for a straight up and down Argument of Right vs. Wrong with Senator Obama and the Democratic Party. Considering the ages of the two men, I would love for the 10 Town Hall Meetings proposed by Senator McCain to be set in that type of format. Any odds on who would when those encounters?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 5, 2008 07:12 AM

The vast majority of Obama fans don’t hate anyone.

Erm, that’s an odd statement…

I guess if you don’t consider Republicans, Bush, Bill Clinton or Joe Lieberman as ‘anyone’…

Or do I have to bring examples into it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 10:10 AM

It was a close race for the Democrat nomination (i.e. Barack Obama vs Hillary Clinton).

It’s not far-fetched that Bill Clinton single-handedly lost the nomination for Hillary.

The blackmail angle doesn’t have make much sense, unless Hillary were to do something drastic to undermine Obama (such as endorse McCain, or run for president anyway as an Independent). Neither is likely … not even for Hillary.

At any rate, who ever wins (Obama or McCain), get ready for another shamnesty (like the shamnesty of 1986, which quadrupled the problem), the perpetuation of these 10+ abuses (which did not all come about by mere coincidence), whick will continue the growing disparity trend of the last 30+ years, and the numerous manifestations of unchecked greed in America.

Based on John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s voting records alone, it’s hard to believe either candidate and Congress will do much (if anything) to stop those abuses, and the painful consequences and damage that will now continue and take many decades to undo (if even possible at all, considering no one can tell us where the money will come from to deal with $53.2 Trillion in nation-wide debt).

Who really thinks any the long-term abuses hammering most Americans will be seriously dealt with?
Especially with the same do-nothing Congress that the majority of voters continue to reward with perpetual re-election rates?

Regardless of who becomes the next El Presidenté, what are the chances that the next president will be able to get anything accomplished when most voters repeatedly reward the same corrupt, irresponsible, do-nothing incumbent politicians in the same do-nothing Congress with perpetual re-election?

Unfortunately, the chanes of real reforms are small, as long as too many voters continue to reward too many corrupt and irresponsible incumbent politicians in do-nothing Congress with such high re-election rates … at least until that becomes too painful as it did in the Great Depression when voters ousted 206 of 531 incumbent politicians in Congress in the election of year MAR-1932; in the Great Depression: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression

Unfortunately, it appears (again) that we will have to wait until the pain and misery that the majority of voters have brought onto ourselves has finally provided the much-needed motivation to stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election … which is getting closer and closer as the painful consequences grow in number and severity in the coming decade.

Just based on track record and history, the only solution that is likely (if ever) to send a loud and clear message to those in do-nothing Congress is to stop repeatedly rewarding the incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election. The danger in waiting for pain and misery to finally provide the much-needed motivation is that it will come too late … especially with:

• so much debt;
• Total nation-wide debt ($53.2 Trillion) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage of the $13.86 Trillion GDP:


• private domestic financial sector debt=$15.8 Trillion;


• household debt= $13.88 Trillion;


• business debt=$10.16 Trillion;


• federal government National Debt=$9,399,006,813,466.00


• state and local government debt=$2.2 Trillion;


• other private sector foreign debt=$1.8 Trillion;


• _______________________________________________________


• Total nation-wide debt = $53.2 Trillion (and that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching);


• If the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security is included:
• Total nation-wide debt = $66.0 Trillion = $53.2 Trillion + $12.8 Trillion (that is 3.81 times the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP ! )


• Total federal debt is = $22.2 Trillion = $9.4 Trillion + $12.8 Trillion


• QUESTION: Where will the money come from to pay the interest on the $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal debt of $53.2 Trillion, when that money does not yet exist?


• rampant corpocrisy and corporate welfare;


• plutocracy;


• rampant illegal immigration and unfair trade policies costing American citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses; H-1B Visa abuses; existing laws ignored on a massive scale; Congress despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes;


• global competition has never been stronger; trade deficits have never been larger (see China); transnational corporations want cheap labor (WageStagnation + CheapLabor = BigProfits); jobs are leaving the nation in droves; a trend that started in the early 1970s, and also helps to explain why real median household incomes have actually been falling since year 1978;


• taxation has been regressive since year 2000 (or before); we have never had so many different kinds of taxes; many of which are regressive sales taxes; the current tax code is ridiculously complex (by design) with a myriad of tax loop-holes that mostly benefit the wealthy; this is why Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., pays a lower percentage of income (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who paid 30% in federal taxes on and income of $60K).


• skyrocketying healthcare costs that is increasingly dangerous and killing 195,000 Americans annually due to potentially preventable medical errors;


• two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;


• energy vulnerabilities; oil and energy prices have never been higher (both in nominal price and adjusted for inflation; worse than the spike in year 1981).


• rising inflation (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm); a dishonest, inflationary, and usurious monetary system that is little more than a doomed upside-down pyramid scheme;


• declining quality and rising cost of education;


• numerous election problems;


• increasing lawlessness (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm);


• 220,000 foreclosures per month;


• home equities at the lowest level (below 50%) since the year 1945;


• stagnant median income since year 1978;


• negative savings rates since 2005 and the lowest savings rates since year 1933;


• Federal government bloat has never been worse, and continues to grow to nightmare proportions. There are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing nation-wide.


• The U.S.A. Corruption Perception Index has fallen for 10 years due to growing corruption, incompetence, and dysfunction in the severely bloated, do-nothing Congress;


• The wealth disparity gap has never been larger since year 1930. It gap started growing larger, and has not stopped growing larger since year 1976.


• environmental issues: One-Simple-Idea.com/Environment1.htm


• and numerous other manifestations of unchecked greed, all resulting in a widening wealth disparity trend, and many economic conditions that have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm


• and what effect do you think all of that above will have on Social Security, Medicare, and welfare? ! ?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 5, 2008 10:23 AM

Rhinehold, the word ‘hate’ has a defined meaning. You may want to look it up. It is not synonymous with disagree.

As a purely sociological empirical observation, Obama’s supporters tend to be more educated than the other two candidates, and education correlates with less hate and greater tolerance for people with differences.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 10:25 AM

You are right, d.a.n, neither Obama nor McCain will amount to the second coming of Christ to make all right with the world.

But, there is a real choice between improvement or staying where we are. Seems like a no brainer to me if these are the only two choices for candidates. None of the Above might feel good, but, takes no responsibility for future course of events as far as who holds the most powerful position in American government for the next 4 years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 10:30 AM

David, That’s why it is increasingly important for voters to not forget about do-nothing Congress when they go to vote on 4-NOV-2008. Otherwise, they will be saddling their choice for president with the same, do-nothing Congress.

Actually, while the anti-incumbent is growing, it is unlikely many irresponsible incumbents will be ousted. Mostly Republicans will lost seats in Congress, but the fact is, there are many Democrat politicians that need to be ousted too.

But, since that’s not likely, these abuses and the consequences are likely to grow worse.

Perhaps enough voters will become less complacent, apathetic, partisan, and blindly loyal to THEIR party when enough of them are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 5, 2008 11:05 AM

Why should Clinton get time to get over her loss before giving her support to Obama? Because she a women? If she was a man it you would expect her to throw her support behind Obama as soon as she lost.
The Democrat party needs to start coming together and fast if it wants to win in November. Personally I hope it doesn’t and the Republicans become as fragmented as the Democrats are now. It just might help some independents and third party candidates.
I saw in the paper that Clinton is open to the Vice President slot. If Obama knows what’s good for him he won’t choose her. Bad things seem to happen to folks that get to close to her and her husband. Vince Foster and Ron Brown come to mind.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 5, 2008 11:52 AM

She was holding out for Friday because that was the deadline given to the superdelegates to fish or cut bait. It held a theoretical glimmer of hope.

Posted by: Pinchot at June 5, 2008 11:59 AM

Well my candidate has finally packed it in. I’ll certainly missed the political fireworks Team Clinton can generate. Like her or hate her, Hillary would have been a great President. Her last shot is 2012, and for that she’ll need either a McCain win or an ineffective Obama administration.

And that leaves me without a candidate to support in November. I still can’t hold my nose and vote for McCain solely on grounds of foreign policy. And what few positions I know about Obama I’m on the other end from him. I think I’ll just write in Hillary and continue to think about what might have been…..

Posted by: George in SC at June 5, 2008 12:00 PM

Erm, that is confusing… I thought the superdelegates didn’t have to decide until the convention. That was part of the reason why the superdelegate system was created, to block or generate convention fights if necessary…

Who is telling that they have to declare before friday? Is this normal operating procedure of the Democrats to just change the rules as they go along?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 12:02 PM

David

I don’t know what Buchanan is saying. If he is talking like me, he is making sense.

But I don’t really see how any of my comments would be original to me or Pat Buchanan. Hillary herself said on many occasions that she won most of the popular vote. You can see from the pages of this blog the palpable dislike for Hillary among Obama fans. You may not want to call it hate, but it sure isn’t love or sympathy. You column here, in fact, reflects that. The pundits calling for Hillary to leave are Obama fans. Most Republicans would be pleased for her to take her challenge all the way to the convention and beyond. And I am sure Obama would like Hillary to go away.

I also said good things about Hillary. I guess anything short of hailing Obama is partisan these days.

Posted by: Jack at June 5, 2008 12:03 PM

David R: I am sure that Hillary Clinton appreciates your condesending and timely remarks about the liberal faction of the msm. Why not post this six months ago when the character assination was building up a head of steam.

Go back and read how many Obama supporters joined in on the character assination on Watch blog. The character assinations weren’t limited to her. They were extended to many of her supporters and you jonied in on that yourself. Even though I wasn’t a Clinton supporter, on many occasion I felt abliged to defend her.

Obama can thank his lucky stars that Clinton is a loyal Democrat Because she could do America a very valuable service by running as an Independant Democrat and she could even the score with the liberal wing of the party and it’s media mouthpiece. I believe that if she were to do so, she would have the best chance to be the next president.

Posted by: jlw at June 5, 2008 12:06 PM

Ron Brown said: “Why should Clinton get time to get over her loss before giving her support to Obama? Because she a women? If she was a man it you would expect her to throw her support behind Obama as soon as she lost.”

That was chauvinst remark if I ever heard one. Ever heard of individual differences, Ron? We are not all cut from the same genetic or experiential cloth, you know.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 12:21 PM

jlw, your anecdotal evidence is equal in reverse on this Blog and thousands of others, in the GOP camp and Democratic camp. Ever heard of the silent majority? They are in play too, and ‘hate’ for supporters in any camp is not part of their makeup.

I think you are lumping all criticism into character assassination, because I have seen only a modicum of character assassination, impugning her character as a responsible and capable candidate for the nomination.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 12:29 PM

jlw said: “Obama can thank his lucky stars that Clinton is a loyal Democrat Because she could do America a very valuable service by running as an Independant Democrat and she could even the score with the liberal wing of the party and it’s media mouthpiece.”

Sounds to me like right wing projection of what they would do in her shoes. If the shoe fits, wear it :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 12:30 PM

Jack said: “I also said good things about Hillary. I guess anything short of hailing Obama is partisan these days. “

You also said good things about Hillary, Jack. That’s like a slave owner saying he likes this slave better than that one.

When you say “The Obama fans currently hate Hillary.”, do you not recognize the universal and all encompassing nature of your choice of words and how they reveal your inner thinking? You don’t like Democrats, Jack, and took the opportunity to reflect that in your choice of words.

If you were to have tried to make a valid and rational point instead of emotionally and biased based one, you would have said, “Some of the Obama fans speak as if they hate Hillary”. But, that is obviously not what you thinking at all, is it Jack?

Your lack of information on the topic is revealed by saying: “The pundits calling for Hillary to leave are Obama fans.” Had you been watching the news and commentary with an open and objective mind, you would have realized that many of those calling for Hillary to leave were Hillary supporters within her own campaign, some as early as a week ago.

And what of the Conservatives asking McCain to still leave the race, or Ron Paul, Jack? Are they an exception, or are we witnessing a universal trait amongst the less objective regardless of political affiliation?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 12:40 PM

Hillary totally blew it like the majority in this country was hoping she would. We’re free of the Clintons at last!

Now the campaign to get her out of NY begins…

Posted by: T. D. at June 5, 2008 12:50 PM

If you were to have tried to make a valid and rational point instead of emotionally and biased based one, you would have said, “Some of the Obama fans speak as if they hate Hillary”. But, that is obviously not what you thinking at all, is it Jack?

And, when you say “Republicans are all a zombied mob following the Party’s sour grapes mantra”, I guess that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, right?

Or is it that since you are an Obama supporter, you must be smarter than those who aren’t, so they just can’t figure out what you are saying here…

Cults are a bad thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 01:05 PM

TD, don’t be so fast, there is a lot of talk about Obama picking her as VP. This isn’t over yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2008 01:06 PM

Yeah Clinton would do America a great service by running as an independent. Cause you know, her policies and platform are so different from Obama’s.

If it wasn’t for the fact that he opposed the war and she supported it, you’d be hard pressed to see daylight between their positions.

But really, what better way to serve the country than to split the vote for essentially the same platform and hand victory to McCain?

The Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama in November are not voting on the issues. And if you’re not voting on the issues what’s the point? It’ll be a vote cast in ignorance.

But I’m betting that there are more than enough engaged and informed voters out there (on both sides) who will vote based on what’s important, on actual policy, to more than make up for those who are uninterested in substance.

Posted by: Bob Hope at June 5, 2008 01:22 PM

But I’m betting that there are more than enough engaged and informed voters out there (on both sides) who will vote based on what’s important, on actual policy, to more than make up for those who are uninterested in substance.

Yes … eventually, when failing to do so becomes too painful, as in 1933, during the Great Depression, when voters ousted 206 of 531 incumbents in Congress.

That’s the only responsible thing that will work.
That’s the only peaceful thing that voters can do that will provide the peaceful force necessary.
That’s the one simple, common-sense, no-brainer, and responsible thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along.

But voting “based on what’s important” is still years away.

That is, if we go based on track-record, which shows the voters’ misery level of the incumbent politicians re-election rates track each other.
As the voters’ pain and misery increases, the incumbent politicians’ re-eletion rates fall.
And they have been falling slightly, but not nearly enough to get Congress to take the voters serious.

Things aren’t painful enough yet, but we’re getting there, as these 30+ years of incessant abuses (which did not all come about by mere coincidence), perpetuated by do-nothing Congress, chip away at the foundations of our society.

,-(1) Corruption, oppression,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

And whose to blame for all of this?
All of us.
Voters are culpable too.

On the bright side (and ironically), there’s the built-in self-correction mechanism:

The voters (if they don’t wait too long) will eventully create the painful conditions that will create the motivation to finally do the one simple, common-sense thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along:
• Stop Repeat Offenders.


• Don’t Re-Elect Them!

Voters that think that one person (i.e. the president, who ever that becomes) can fix our problems are delusional. It will take the majority of Americans, and that will require motivation (which is on the way).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 5, 2008 02:38 PM

Bob Hope:

Give her time to work out the right thing to do?

How long does she need?

I hear Saturday is the day she has chosen to finally be able to bring herself to congratulate Senator Obama.

Cause she lost this thing weeks ago. She’s already had plenty of time to get her head around this. And it’s a really simple concept. You lose, you concede. You bow out graciously and allow the victor to enjoy their moment of triumph.

Exactly. It’s called being a good sport. Not being able to rise to such an occasion says a great deal about a persons character.

Her decision, last night, to be introduced as “the next President”, to ask for more donations, to solicit requests on what she “should do next”, to bask in the chants of “Denver, Denver, Denver”, her failure to endorse Obama during his historic moment of victory, were the actions of a seemingly classless person.

Yes. Character is fate. Her failure to rise to that historic occasion is something I found very sad, and in many ways, totally absurd. All I could think was that here stands a woman who has lead a life chock full of amazing good fortune, opportunity and privilege, and yet she must not truly appreciate that fact at all. She simply wasn’t a big enough person to realize that on that night this nation was passing an hugely important milestone. Dr. King’s Dream was finally being made into reality in America!
But all she could talk about was herself.
Very sad.

But not Obama. He was big enough to say a lot of very nice things about her, and even to tell us that running against her had made him into a better candidate. Good Man, well done.

She could have done the appropriate thing last night. She chose not to.

I wonder if she’ll ever regret that she allowed her ego such free reign. That she missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to appear gracious, and dignified, and emotionally sensitive to such an historic moment.

People have a right to be disappointed in her behavior since her actions seek to raise questions about the legitimacy of Obama’s win, and so slightly dull the luster of his marvelously unlikely victory.

I was disappointed that she chose to give the kind of speech she gave, but I wasn’t really surprised. She (and Bill, and other surrogates) had said enough dismaying things during the primary that I’d come to expect almost anything.
But it doesn’t matter. Obama’s win is legitimate, and for me, nothing could dull the luster of his victory.

She did everything she could to ensure he hobbled across the primary line and will stumble into the election.

Yes she did, but it doesn’t matter. Because he didn’t hobble across — he simply made another totally amazing speech! :^)

I couldn’t stop smiling all day long yesterday, and I noticed that lots of other people were smiling too.

If I were a Democrat I’d be seething.

Nah. Staying angry is a waste of our energy. Energy which would be better spent on signing up more people to get out and vote come November. Time to put anger behind us and do what liberals and progressives have always done best: look ahead and prepare to blaze a new trail to a better future in America.

Yes We Can!!!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at June 5, 2008 03:13 PM

Rhinehold said: “Republicans are all a zombied mob following the Party’s sour grapes mantra”

Guess you can’t distinguish humor and obvious exaggeration from statements of fact, eh, Rhinehold?

Look up the word facetious! The point was that visceral comments exemplified by my facetious example don’t make a lot of sense, are counter productive and divisive, and persuade no one. Try reading the whole comment and then that quote in context. Might help your comprehension.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 03:25 PM

Rhinehold asked: “Or do I have to bring examples into it?”

Bring all the examples you want. They won’t constitute the majority of Obama supporters. Anecdotes don’t function as the rule, Rhinehold. Logic, 101 !!!

But, if you want to waste your time, by all means, post your examples.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2008 03:34 PM

Bob Hope,
You may want to rethink your argument. With Clinton/Obama being the media favorites I wonder if McCain could even buy any airtime if both were bidding for President in November.

Yes, Hillary may not be everyones cup of tea; however, understanding the forces of society and the trigger issues that has divided the Democratic Party over the last 17 months would do the Republicans a lot of good. Because remember McCain does not have the full support of his party or that of the overwhelming Independents in America.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 5, 2008 05:18 PM

Henry,

Why would two candidates with almost identical platforms run against each other? What would be her rational for running?

If Hillary really cares about the policies she espouses, why would she scupper the only viable way in which they can be implemented this election cycle. And that’s via Obama. Their platforms are almost identical (especially when contrasted with McCain’s), and the chances are she’ll even be offered a cabinet position to enact them.

Now I’m not disputing that Hilary and Obama are probably on balance stronger candidates than McCain, and would draw most of the media attention. But I take issue with the notion that Obama should thank his lucky stars that she doesn’t run as an independent, or that her running would somehow serve the country or the needs of her supporters.

Besides, she’s never ever. Ever. going to run as an independent.

Posted by: Bob Hope at June 5, 2008 09:38 PM

d.a.n. said: Yes … eventually, when failing to do so becomes too painful, as in 1933, during the Great Depression, when voters ousted 206 of 531 incumbents in Congress.

I’d like to see 535 incumbents lose their jobs this year. But I’ll settle for 206. That just might put the fear of God in the rest. But it aint painful enough yet for enough folks for that to happen.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 5, 2008 11:54 PM

Bob Hope,
Politics 101! By taken on the Republicans from both sides of the Argument of Building a Better World a major squeeze play could result in the Republican Party losing their status. Need a better one?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 6, 2008 07:37 AM

Ron Brown, even 15%, or 80 incumbents would send shockwaves throughout both of the main political parties. And they would scramble to find out if this is a growing movement and what are the issues behind the movement. That is precisely why Voting Out Incumbents is the primary answer to improving America’s future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2008 08:19 AM

David R. Remer-
I admire my candidate’s calm and class. It’s one of the reasons I support him. But as one of the Democrats who has been a party to this dispute, who has even participated in it in some official fashion, I can tell you it’s been difficult to deal with Hillary’s disrespectful politics sometimes.

I don’t recall her conceding much of any states. And I recall plenty of talk over time of using the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate victory Obama was on his way to getting, talk of taking Michigan and Florida to the convention and starting a credentials fight, and all of that.

And it could be deeply unpleasant to deal with Hillary’s supporters sometimes. Don’t get me wrong: plenty of nice people supported her. But some folks just took these things too far.

I never really got around to posting my entry on the State Senate District Convention that I attended, so this will likely be the first time you hear about this.

It took a number of hours for people to get settled, get together into their precinct groups. My precinct was grouped with another. Things were going fine. There certainly was an atmosphere of camaraderie, and it was an amazing event to say the least. Then we got down to the caucusing.

It wasn’t long before that lady I told you about in the last entry, the one who had been splitting up the lines pre-maturely, improperly, a lady who happened to be a Hillary supporter started making trouble. Not everybody showed up who was selected previously. That included my sister. But it also included a number of Hillary supporters, and I think most of her alternates, if not all.

She essentially started a credentials fight, disputed that any were selected (they had been, I could recall that clearly) disputed that they could be counted as Obama supporters, and so on and so forth. Then, she essentially staged what was supposed to be walk out, taking the main Hillary supporters with her.

This made trouble because their candidate for delegate/alternate came back to find his people gone. I told him, and others told them what we thought was the case: that they had left.

Unfortunately for him, since he left, they hadn’t. The only two people left for delegate selection were Obama supporters.

Honestly, I’m sorry about what happened with that guy. He was a good debate partner, and he wasn’t served well by the confusing, contentious strategy of Hillary’s activist.

This is part of what made me less than enchanted with Hillary’s tactics, this notion of long-term bitter estrangement, just so one candidate can drum up greater strength in the primary. Her leadership was encouraging divisions in the party that were not going to be helpful to the Democrats in the fall.

What she did, we were concerned, was the beginning of a long term effort to contest the results. The spectre of taking this all the way to a floor-fight on the convention was not very reassuring to Democrats period, not just to Obama supporters. That is why Hillary’s supporters got together and told her to drop out, and that’s why she’s doing it now. Democrats are not about to lose a general election battle because they couldn’t get behind the person who reached the threshold to become the nominee. Hillary had her chance to win, did not, and therefore people were right to tell her that they did not want to keep the party split going into the fall.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2008 08:57 AM

Stephen, I hear you, and as you have seen in my writings of the last few weeks, I support Obama, and have leaned in his direction for months.

The reason I maintain independence as a voter is precisely because of what you describe about your Party, any Party. They set up rules, and then many in the Party immediately commence to destroy or bypass those rules if an advantage can be gained by doing so. It is simply not consistent with a nation governed by law, instead of persons.

The hypocrisy is enormous. Hillary Clinton, had she decided to take the Mi. and Fl. issue to the Credentials Committee and even to the floor of the Convention, would have been within her rights under the RULES to do so. And the reaction to her pursuing that course revealed a fundamental truth about political parties.

That truth is that Parties are intrinsically and inherently about winning first and foremost by any means necessary, and promoting and selecting the best person for the job is absolutely secondary; if a consideration at all as in the case of the GOP’s selection of Bush in 2000.

Our nation needs the best and brightest in its federal governing leadership, committed to the nation, its posterity, and the general welfare of the people present and future, for whom they are presumably to serve. But, the political parties refuse, and demonstrably do NOT make, the selection of that leadership by this criteria there overriding priority and end.

Political parties are the pinnacle of American shortsightedness, which puts winning THIS election over and above the long term welfare of the nation and benefit of the people, including those within the party, ironically. This is fundamental to why we have such a corrupt and irresponsible Congress, and elect so many mediocre presidents compared to the options in quality and ability within the available talent pool.

I am absolutely convinced that if the Democratic Party put candidate excellence and long term governing continuity, a consequence of excellent candidate selection, as their first and foremost function, Democrats would retain majority status in perpetuity, save for the occasional upset during times of protracted, temporarily insoluble difficulties affecting the electorate.

That is to say, excellence in the persons holding office will win out over political rhetoric and deception and ideology most of the time, and that is the mandate for America’s future and its political parties. But, the political parties, like stock market investors who are too willing to sacrifice long term sustained growth and benefit for the next quarter’s bottom line and performance measures, are preoccupied with selecting the most winnable candidate, instead of the best candidate for the nation, all too often.

This is why the Chinese are taking over Africa and securing precious commodity contracts for the next 50 years while America struggles internally over the dollars to invest even 1/5th of what the Chinese are in Africa to secure our future. America is abdicating manufacturing, which in the short term with our service expanding economy may seem reasonable, but for the long term sustainability of our independence and economy, is absolutely suicidal.

Where better to shift the paradigm from the short term win, to the long term welfare than in our political parties? One of the reasons I support Obama is because of his reform actions, even before taking office, in campaign financing, ordering the DNC to reject contributions by the PACs and corporate lobbyists. In the long run, that single act can produce continuing rewards for the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole, vastly in excess of the amounts of dollars refused by the PACs and lobbyists.

But, let’s be clear, this was Obama’s action and thinking, not the Democratic Party’s initiative. It remains to be seen if the Democratic Party will embrace the wisdom of Obama’s long term priorities for sustainability and improving the general welfare. Obama chose to stand firm on what he knows to be the right course in Iraq, even though it could have cost him the nomination. He has chosen to stand committed to multi-partisan solutions, even though it ran the risk of losing him the Democratic Party nomination. Obama is putting what he knows to be right, ahead of winning and gambling that doing so will meet the expectations of the American people.

His example reflects a faith and courage to accept loss for what is right, if loss is the outcome of doing what is right. Placing objectively right or just ends ahead of expedience and power acquisition, is a long term winning strategy.

If the Democratic Party leadership and Platform Committees would embrace and incorporate that faith and courage into the heart of the Democratic Party’s reason for existence, I have no doubt, Democrats would govern nearly continuously throughout the rest of this century.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2008 09:59 AM

David
Your right it would send a shock wave through both major parties. But those 80 that lose their jobs will have to be replaced by independents or third party candidates or they’ll just claim that the voters got the change they wanted and continue doing business as usual. Just like the 06 election.
As it stand right now I don’t plan on voting for any incumbent or major party candidate on any level. Both Sen. Chambliss (R) and Rep. Bishop (D) need to be put on the outside looking in. And their major party opponents don’t deserve the jobs. Neither of major party Presidential candidates are worth the trouble it’d take to punch their tabs.
On the state and local levels it aint any better.
There’s a women in my school district ward that’s running as an independent. She has a background in education and believes like I do that schools exit for only one reason. Educating this country’s future and not for a play ground for school boards to play politics with. I’m definitely voting for her. Just hope enough others do.
BTW, She’s asked me to be her campaign manager. My wife says for me to go for it. Reckon I’ll except it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 6, 2008 12:15 PM

David R. Remer wrote: Ron Brown, even 15%, or 80 incumbents would send shockwaves throughout both of the main political parties. And they would scramble to find out if this is a growing movement and what are the issues behind the movement. That is precisely why Voting Out Incumbents is the primary answer to improving America’s future.

80 (of 535; 15.1% ousted; 84.9% re-elected) incumbent politicians in do-nothing Congress were ousted in the last election (07-NOV-2006).

Obviously, it did not accomplish much did it?

Thus, it’s going to take a lot more than that to send a loud and clear message to do-nothing Congress.

Here’s the election-rate and party-seat-retention-rate history:

Start_ End _ Congress_ Re-Election_ Party Seat-Retention
Year _ Year ___ # ____ Rate ______ Rate
1989 _ 1991 _ 101 ___ 90.1% ______ 99.6%
1991 _ 1993 _ 102 ___ 87.7% ______ 98.3%
1993 _ 1995 _ 103 ___ 73.5% ______ 98.1%
1995 _ 1997 _ 104 ___ 79.8% ______ 88.2%
1997 _ 1999 _ 105 ___ 77.4% ______ 98.7%
1999 _ 2001 _ 106 ___ 89.2% ______ 99.3%
2001 _ 2003 _ 107 ___ 89.2% ______ 98.7%
2003 _ 2005 _ 108 ___ 87.9% ______ 98.1%
2005 _ 2007 _ 109 ___ 88.6% ______ 98.7% (re-election decreasing)
2007 _ 2009 _ 110 ___ 84.9% ______ 93.1% (re-election decreasing)
__________ AVERAGE = 84.8% ______ 97.1%

In the Great Depression:

Start_ End _ Congress_ Re-Election_ Party Seat-Retention
Year _ Year ___ # ____ Rate ______ Rate
1927 _ 1929 _ 70 ____ 68.9% ______ 96.4% (re-election decreasing)
1929 _ 1931 _ 71 ____ 79.7% ______ 92.5% (re-election decreasing)
1931 _ 1933 _ 72 ____ 76.8% ______ 88.5% (re-election decreasing)
1933 _ 1935 _ 73 ____ 61.2% ______ 78.7% (re-election decreasing)

But that (i.e. ousting large numbers from Congress) is not likely to happen … not yet.
The majority of Americans’ pain levels are not yet high enough to motivate enough voters to stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.
Too many American voters still do not yet have enough motivation to reject their blind partisan loyalties; to overcome their complacency, apathy, ignorance, irrational fears, hatreds, or laziness.
That is still a ways off (e.g. 4 to 8 years; maybe longer), depending on how long the federal reserve and federal government can prevent the collapse of their inflationary, usurious, dishonest pyramid-scheme monetary system.
The next stage (for a few years) will be a lot more creation of money out of thin air, to stave off the inevitable collapse of that pyramid-scheme.
Numerous economic conditions will continue to deteriorate.

As the voters’ misery levels increase, the incumbent politicians re-election rates will most likely decrease (as shown above).

Too bad enough voters don’t simply do it now.
Nothing else will work.
Congress can not police its own ranks.
Congress will not reform itself.
Congress will not do anything that will limit their power, opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.
Especially when the incumbents are repeatedly rewarded for all of it.
Only the voters can do it … if only enough voters had the motivation to do such a simple, inexpensive, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible thing; the one thing the voters were supposed to be doing all along.

However, most likely, in the next 4-NOV-2008 election, only 13%-to-16% (69-to-85 incumbents) will be ousted from do-nothing Congress.
That will be far too little and too late to send a loud and clear message to the do-nothing Congress.
Incumbent politicians in Congress know all this, and that is why they ignore the majority of voters, and cater to their wealthy, big-money donors instead (as evidenced by the 99.7% of all 220 million eligible voters that are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of all the wealthiest voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more): One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm
And why shouldn’t they when they are repeatedly rewarded for it?

Thus, the next president won’t be able to accomplish much due to being saddled with the same do-nothing Congress.

Things will have to get much worse (i.e. the voters still need their education, which is on they way) before they can get better.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 6, 2008 01:35 PM

d.a.n said: 80 (of 535; 15.1% ousted; 84.9% re-elected) incumbent politicians in do-nothing Congress were ousted in the last election (07-NOV-2006).

Obviously, it did not accomplish much did it?

The problem d.a.n is that those 80 were replaced by candidates from the other major party and not independents or third party candidates. So in reality the voters voted for business (or the lack of it) as usual. And congress is giving them just what they voted for.
In order for it to work 80 or more would have to lose their jobs to third party or independent candidates. Then I bet you’d see the rest situp and take notice.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2008 12:03 PM

Is the primary problem the corrupted or the corrupters? If it is the corrupters, who are they and how are they able to corrupt our politicians? Power? Money?

The primary job responsibility of the conservative politician is to maintain and strengthen the status quo of wealth = power.

The primary job responsibility of the liberal politician is to pacify and control the common people in the least costly manner and thus help the conservative politicians maintain the status quo.

The differences between these two camps are primarily factitious and designed to promote factiousness for the purpose of maintaining the status quo.

The primary purpose of government has become the enrichment of the few to the detriment of the many.

The secondary purpose of government has become the division of the many by using pacification and propagandizing to support the primary purpose. Disgruntlement is acceptable, defactiousness is not.

Good governance, excellent management, and proper education of the people are no longer considered useful purposes for government to be concerned about, even though they are a keynote of political propaganda.

Vote out all the incumbents. Replace them with new people. The results will be the same.

Most humans are susceptible to corruption. Replacing the corrupted will serve no purpose. Replacing the corrupters and their system which corrupts, might.

Which class of people have seen their percentage of wealth increase dramatically. The capital.

Which class of people have seen their percentage of wealth exceed inflation. The enabler.

Which class of people have seen their percentage of wealth decrease exponentially. The enduring.

Posted by: jlw at June 7, 2008 05:26 PM

jlw said: “Replacing the corrupters and their system which corrupts, might.”

And just how do you propose accomplishing that jlw without first putting in Freshman Congress persons committed to changing the laws that keep the corrupters right where they are, controlling the public agenda.

Your logic utterly fails on this point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 10:44 AM

d.a.n said: “Obviously, it did not accomplish much did it?”

One election is not going to change much, d.a.n.

Election after election of removing an increasing number of incumbents UNTIL change does come about, of course, would bring change.

The 2006 election changed the majority party in control of Congress. You and I both agree that changing parties changes nothing, except which special interests will be doing the corrupting of the legislative process.

It’s the buying of elections and politicians by the wealthy and powerful special interests that must be addressed and Obama and McCain both are hammering that message in their campaigns, as a result of public sentiment about the corruption of our government. I see this as a very positive sign for the anti-incumbent movement, when the presidential candidates are both addressing the corruption by wealthy special interests in their bid for the White House.

VOID’s goal is now in the political mainstream of American presidential politics. This is incredibly good news, d.a.n, from my vantage point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 10:52 AM

David R. Remer wrote:

d.a.n said: “Obviously, it did not accomplish much did it?”

One election is not going to change much, d.a.n.

True.

In fact, voting out bad, corrupt, irresponsible, corrupt politicians is what voters were supposed to be doing all along; always; every election.
Unfortunately, partisan loyalties and the partisan warfare are a powerful distraction … at least, until that becomes too painful.

What I meant was that far too few (only 80 incumbents; only 15%) irresponsible incumbent politicians were ousted in the 7-NOV-2006 election.

Much, much lower re-election rates are needed, similar to what happened in the Great Depression in year 1927-to-1933 (as low as 61.2% as in year 1933).

We’ll get there, as the pain levels increase.
When is the issue?
Will it happen soon enough?
It may be already too late, with $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt and serious energy vulnerabilities looming ?
However, the sooner, the better (in order to avoid more unnecessary pain and misery, and possibly irreversible pain and misery).

David R. Remer wrote: VOID’s goal is now in the political mainstream of American presidential politics. This is incredibly good news, d.a.n, from my vantage point.

I agree completely.

Voters are becoming more educated as their pain increases.

However, we may not have the luxury to learn so slowly, with so many serious problems culminating almost simultaneously, and Congress still failing to do much (if anything) about the highest priority issues. That is, what did Congress accomplish on this list since the last 7-NOV-2006 election?

Yes, we should be happy that many corrupt Republican incumbent politicians were ousted from office, and things could now be much worse had they been re-elected and allowed to abuse the power of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

The problem is, too many voters appear to be merely letting the two-party duopoly continue to take turns abusing the power of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

That is, voters would be wise to oust a lot more incumbent politicians A.S.A.P. (regardless of party affiliation).
It is that partisan loyalty that is being used to distract and manipulate voters … at least, until that becomes too painful.

After all, that is exactly what they will do (most likely) eventually, anyway, as they did in 1933. So why wait? Well, of course, we both know the answer. Partisan loyalties trump everything … at least until that becomes too painful; when the consequences of repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful. Unfortunately, by the time that happens, the more difficult it will be (if possible at all) to undo the damage of the last 30+ years. The fiscal situation alone (e.g. $53.2 Trillion nation-wide debt) is a recipe for disaster, and few (if any) in government are willing to seriously address it. The mostly likely outcome will be double-digit inflation (again), and increased economic instability; perhaps on a scale similar to that (or worse) than the Great Depression.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 9, 2008 01:08 PM

Dr Parra,
Why I can understand your disappoint with Hillary Clinton’s run for the Nomination of the Democratic Party, having met many Ladies in my lifetime that has the Arrogance needed to be President. I hope and fell that within a few elections America will see her first Lady President.

Note: Than I might be able to chase the Uncivilized Ladies of Society.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 10, 2008 01:17 AM

d.a.n said: “However, we may not have the luxury to learn so slowly, with so many serious problems culminating almost simultaneously, and Congress still failing to do much (if anything) about the highest priority issues.”

That is oh so painfully true. I remember a lawyer from India who returned to his homeland to start a movement that seemed literally impossible, to oust the British Imperialists from his homeland. He had only a mass of 100’s of millions of illiterate and uneducated countrymen and women to work with, and a small cadre of literate and educated persons in an unofficial Indian Congress.

In his own lifetime his goal was realized and his nation became self-determined, and today, just 6 decades later, that nation is emerging as one of the fastest developing economic nations in the world today besides China.

If an uneducated and illiterate mass of people can accomplish all that with nothing more than one lawyer’s vision and dream for them, there is hope for America and Americans. As you say, not without great pain and suffering. But, there is hope of coming out the other side of this century stronger, more prosperous at the mean, and more peaceful and united as a people.

To give up on that hope is to fail before ever trying.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2008 01:58 PM

In response to Rhinehold (in 254549):

Dean, Pelosi, and Reid had set an arbitrary date - June 6 - for the superdelegates to declare so that the party could unify more quickly behind one candidate. It was NOT binding but it was STRONGLY suggested they comply. See:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/06/04/pelosi-reid-and-dean-set-superdelegate-deadline.php

Posted by: Pinchot at June 17, 2008 03:19 PM