Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Insist on the truth ....
I think Obama has to strike back at Hillary by insisting on the truth. First, get her to release her tax returns. She will undoubtedly ask for another debate. Obama should simply say that there will be no further debates unless and until she releases her tax returns and provides information about donations to the Clinton library and contributors to her campaign, including Normal Hsu, and her itineraries as First Lady. If she refuses, then there are no more debates and it will really show she has something very serious to hide.
Donna Christensen
Donna Christensen
Chittenden County Democrats meeting this Wednesday, March 12th,
Hi, Folks.
This is a reminder that Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin will be our guest at the Chittenden County Democrats meeting this Wednesday, March 12th, 7:00 PM, at the IBEW Union Training Hall, 3 Gregory Drive, South Burlington. Sen. Shumlin will present the status of the legislature in meeting the goals of the Democratic agenda as well as the obstacle(s) to achieving them.
I'm sure there will be a lively discussion of the 2008 gubernatorial race as well. Come and let us know what you think about Democratic party support or lack thereof for one or another of announced or potential opponents to Gov. Douglas. One of the items on the agenda for the State Democratic Committee meeting this weekend is a discussion of whether to invite Anthony Pollina to speak before the Committee at a later date.
Finally, we will preview the March 22nd Presidential Delegate Selection Caucuses. If you are interested in representing your town at the state convention...and perhaps representing Vermont at the national convention, attendance at a caucus is important. The state convention will be in Barre on May 24th. The national convention is in Denver in August. A list of the caucus times and venues are at the CHITTENDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATS' WEBSITE -- http://chittdems.blogspot.com/.
I hope to see you on Wednesday.
This is a reminder that Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin will be our guest at the Chittenden County Democrats meeting this Wednesday, March 12th, 7:00 PM, at the IBEW Union Training Hall, 3 Gregory Drive, South Burlington. Sen. Shumlin will present the status of the legislature in meeting the goals of the Democratic agenda as well as the obstacle(s) to achieving them.
I'm sure there will be a lively discussion of the 2008 gubernatorial race as well. Come and let us know what you think about Democratic party support or lack thereof for one or another of announced or potential opponents to Gov. Douglas. One of the items on the agenda for the State Democratic Committee meeting this weekend is a discussion of whether to invite Anthony Pollina to speak before the Committee at a later date.
Finally, we will preview the March 22nd Presidential Delegate Selection Caucuses. If you are interested in representing your town at the state convention...and perhaps representing Vermont at the national convention, attendance at a caucus is important. The state convention will be in Barre on May 24th. The national convention is in Denver in August. A list of the caucus times and venues are at the CHITTENDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATS' WEBSITE -- http://chittdems.blogspot.com/.
I hope to see you on Wednesday.
Keep the conflict coming
By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf NewsPublished: March 11, 2008, 23:41
Generals, it is said, often make the mistake of re-fighting the last war. Can the same charge be levelled against political journalists?
The ever-extended contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is, for the Democrats, a terrible thing. Sooner or later either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will win, but by that time the party will have been so thoroughly ripped asunder that John McCain and the Republicans will have little trouble winning November's general election. Or so the theory of the moment holds.
It's odd, actually. America's political class has spent decades complaining about the ever-more-compressed way the US picks its presidential candidates. The system puts a premium on money and name recognition. It gives Iowa and New Hampshire outsized roles in winnowing the field of candidates. It is designed (particularly on the Republican side) to avoid messy fights at the party convention by handing someone the nomination as quickly as possible.
Everyone (outside Iowa and New Hampshire) professes not to like this system. Yet every four years we go through it again, usually starting — and finishing — a bit earlier than we did the previous time around.
Suddenly, however, the Democrats have a real contest on their hands, and the consensus among people who practice (or talk about) politics for a living is that the messiness on display can only hurt the party.
The theory is that parties must, above all, present a unified face to the world because nobody wants to vote for a party that can't make up its own mind who should represent it. In American politics this is especially reinforced by memories of the 1968 Democratic convention, where clashes between police and protestors outside the hall came to overshadow the highly contentious debates inside it.
Not scripted
Over the weekend Joe Trippi, a political consultant who ran John Edwards presidential campaign until the former North Carolina senator dropped out just before Super Tuesday, noted that the last two conventions not scripted as a love-fest honoring the nominee were those of the 1976 Republicans and the 1980 Democrats. Both of these parties, like the 1968 Dems before them, lost the November election.
So messiness is bad. It must be avoided at all costs, at least if one wants to win. The problem with this theory is that this year's "messy" Democratic race is energizing voters in ways no one has seen for a generation or more. Obama and Clinton have each gathered more votes than any previous Democratic presidential hopeful. Why? Because despite the best efforts of the party planners, we have a real contest for the nomination, and real contests are exciting.
I have voted in every election since 1984. Over the years I have lived, and voted, in California, Florida, Georgia and my home state of Vermont. Yet last week, in Vermont, I voted for the first time in a presidential primary that meant something. In all six of those previous elections the nominating contest was effectively over by the time it made its way to wherever I was living. Having my vote matter, needless to say, made the entire process mean a lot more.
Which may explain the results of a much-discussed Washington Post-ABC News poll that was released on the day of last week's Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries.
A whopping 67 per cent of Democrats polled said Clinton should stay in the nomination race if she won just one of the large states that voted last week: Texas and Ohio. As it turned out, she won both. Even more telling, however, were the 45 per cent who said she should keep running even if she lost both of those states. It's not a majority, but it is still a pretty big number. This, at a time when the conventional wisdom held that losing either state would doom the New York senator's campaign.
The short term lesson is that instead of wringing their hands Democratic strategists ought to be exulting. The Clinton-Obama race has created excitement where none has existed for decades.
That poll, and last week's vote also, however, contain a warning. All of this excitement is not happening in spite of the long, hard fought nominating contest but because of it. No one likes to lose, but most Americans are willing to concede defeat when they believe their side has been fairly beaten.
Avoiding an ugly political fight on national television come August appears to be the priority right now among party elders. But this pales beside their need to get both sides to acknowledge the eventual outcome — whatever it is — as a fair one, fairly arrived at. Fail this test, and it will not really matter who leads the party ticket into November.
Gordon Robison is a journalist and consultant based in Burlington, Vermont and Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades, including assignments in Baghdad for both CNN and Fox News.
Generals, it is said, often make the mistake of re-fighting the last war. Can the same charge be levelled against political journalists?
The ever-extended contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is, for the Democrats, a terrible thing. Sooner or later either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will win, but by that time the party will have been so thoroughly ripped asunder that John McCain and the Republicans will have little trouble winning November's general election. Or so the theory of the moment holds.
It's odd, actually. America's political class has spent decades complaining about the ever-more-compressed way the US picks its presidential candidates. The system puts a premium on money and name recognition. It gives Iowa and New Hampshire outsized roles in winnowing the field of candidates. It is designed (particularly on the Republican side) to avoid messy fights at the party convention by handing someone the nomination as quickly as possible.
Everyone (outside Iowa and New Hampshire) professes not to like this system. Yet every four years we go through it again, usually starting — and finishing — a bit earlier than we did the previous time around.
Suddenly, however, the Democrats have a real contest on their hands, and the consensus among people who practice (or talk about) politics for a living is that the messiness on display can only hurt the party.
The theory is that parties must, above all, present a unified face to the world because nobody wants to vote for a party that can't make up its own mind who should represent it. In American politics this is especially reinforced by memories of the 1968 Democratic convention, where clashes between police and protestors outside the hall came to overshadow the highly contentious debates inside it.
Not scripted
Over the weekend Joe Trippi, a political consultant who ran John Edwards presidential campaign until the former North Carolina senator dropped out just before Super Tuesday, noted that the last two conventions not scripted as a love-fest honoring the nominee were those of the 1976 Republicans and the 1980 Democrats. Both of these parties, like the 1968 Dems before them, lost the November election.
So messiness is bad. It must be avoided at all costs, at least if one wants to win. The problem with this theory is that this year's "messy" Democratic race is energizing voters in ways no one has seen for a generation or more. Obama and Clinton have each gathered more votes than any previous Democratic presidential hopeful. Why? Because despite the best efforts of the party planners, we have a real contest for the nomination, and real contests are exciting.
I have voted in every election since 1984. Over the years I have lived, and voted, in California, Florida, Georgia and my home state of Vermont. Yet last week, in Vermont, I voted for the first time in a presidential primary that meant something. In all six of those previous elections the nominating contest was effectively over by the time it made its way to wherever I was living. Having my vote matter, needless to say, made the entire process mean a lot more.
Which may explain the results of a much-discussed Washington Post-ABC News poll that was released on the day of last week's Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries.
A whopping 67 per cent of Democrats polled said Clinton should stay in the nomination race if she won just one of the large states that voted last week: Texas and Ohio. As it turned out, she won both. Even more telling, however, were the 45 per cent who said she should keep running even if she lost both of those states. It's not a majority, but it is still a pretty big number. This, at a time when the conventional wisdom held that losing either state would doom the New York senator's campaign.
The short term lesson is that instead of wringing their hands Democratic strategists ought to be exulting. The Clinton-Obama race has created excitement where none has existed for decades.
That poll, and last week's vote also, however, contain a warning. All of this excitement is not happening in spite of the long, hard fought nominating contest but because of it. No one likes to lose, but most Americans are willing to concede defeat when they believe their side has been fairly beaten.
Avoiding an ugly political fight on national television come August appears to be the priority right now among party elders. But this pales beside their need to get both sides to acknowledge the eventual outcome — whatever it is — as a fair one, fairly arrived at. Fail this test, and it will not really matter who leads the party ticket into November.
Gordon Robison is a journalist and consultant based in Burlington, Vermont and Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades, including assignments in Baghdad for both CNN and Fox News.
Caucuses on March 22nds
I've written to Neil Jensen of the Vermonters for Obama group that we (Barack supporters) need some assistance for the caucuses on March 22nd. We had a lot of new people come into the process which, on the front end, the primary, is great! However, now, its a little more difficult to get them to commit to caucus on March 22nd. Many put aside their personal lives for some time PRIOR to the Primary March 4th and some have actual become physically ill from being outside for 12 hours in the rain on March 4th. The other issue in my town is that our Caucus convener is the town organizer for Hillary and our first time Obama people do not believe she will be fair with us. Additionally, first timers who don't know what a caucus is, want to know what it looks like. Others are put off by the possibility of being elected a delegate and not wanting to travel to Barre. Soooo, for a whole lot various reasons, there is still some work to do here in Bennington.
Obama rejects Clinton offer of 'dream ticket' and goes on attack
Barack Obama has forcefully rejected Hillary Clinton's suggestion that they would make a Democrat dream ticket for the White House if he was her vice-presidential running mate.
It was, he said, a brazen attempt to "okeydoke, bamboozle and hoodwink" his supporters. "I am not running for vice-president," he told an enthusiastic audience of mostly black students at Mississippi University for Women. He denounced Mrs Clinton's offer as another example of "Washington double-speak".
How could it be, Mr Obama asked, that he could be such a great vice-president when Mrs Clinton was saying he was not up to the job of commander in chief? "You cannot say [I'm] not ready one day and the next say [I'm] ready to be vice-president," he said.
In the race for the White House, Mrs Clinton's Achilles' heel is the level of distrust she generates among some voters. By going on the offensive and describing her as yet another duplicitous Washington-style politician, Mr Obama was putting down a marker that he believes she cannot win a presidential election.
"With all due respect, I have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, more of the popular vote and I have more delegates," he said. "So I don't know how somebody who is in second place can offer the vice-presidency to somebody in first place." The latest poll shows Mr Obama leads his rival by 58 per cent to 34 per cent in Mississippi. He is also still leading in the national polls.
His victory in Mississippi seems assured, but in this racially polarised state Mrs Clinton still leads by 13 points among mostly white independents and Republicans who can vote in the primary. Mrs Clinton is focusing her energies instead on the delegate-rich Pennsylvania race – which votes on 22 April – where she is expected to do well.
Neither Mrs Clinton nor former president Bill Clinton have bothered to campaign in the state since she floated her running mate suggestion last week. That Mr Obama took so much time on the issue in his speech yesterday, suggests that his campaign is worried that Mrs Clinton has continued to dominate the airwaves and the news agenda since her big wins in Ohio and Texas last week.
He pointed out that in 1992 President Bill Clinton said that the most important criterion in selecting a vice-president was his or her readiness to step into the role of commander in chief at a moment's notice.
Despite a convincing win in Wyoming over the weekend, and the optimism about Mississippi, Mr Obama is still being outmanoeuvred by his rival. By going on the offensive, she has dominated the airwaves and turned her victories in Ohio and Texas into a test of Mr Obama's electability.
According to the Associated Press tally, Mr Obama leads by 1,578 to 1,468. A candidate needs 2,024 delegates to win the nomination.
By Leonard Doyle in Columbus, MississippiTuesday, 11 March 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-rejects-clinton-offer-of-dream-ticket-and-goes-on-attack-793988.html
It was, he said, a brazen attempt to "okeydoke, bamboozle and hoodwink" his supporters. "I am not running for vice-president," he told an enthusiastic audience of mostly black students at Mississippi University for Women. He denounced Mrs Clinton's offer as another example of "Washington double-speak".
How could it be, Mr Obama asked, that he could be such a great vice-president when Mrs Clinton was saying he was not up to the job of commander in chief? "You cannot say [I'm] not ready one day and the next say [I'm] ready to be vice-president," he said.
In the race for the White House, Mrs Clinton's Achilles' heel is the level of distrust she generates among some voters. By going on the offensive and describing her as yet another duplicitous Washington-style politician, Mr Obama was putting down a marker that he believes she cannot win a presidential election.
"With all due respect, I have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, more of the popular vote and I have more delegates," he said. "So I don't know how somebody who is in second place can offer the vice-presidency to somebody in first place." The latest poll shows Mr Obama leads his rival by 58 per cent to 34 per cent in Mississippi. He is also still leading in the national polls.
His victory in Mississippi seems assured, but in this racially polarised state Mrs Clinton still leads by 13 points among mostly white independents and Republicans who can vote in the primary. Mrs Clinton is focusing her energies instead on the delegate-rich Pennsylvania race – which votes on 22 April – where she is expected to do well.
Neither Mrs Clinton nor former president Bill Clinton have bothered to campaign in the state since she floated her running mate suggestion last week. That Mr Obama took so much time on the issue in his speech yesterday, suggests that his campaign is worried that Mrs Clinton has continued to dominate the airwaves and the news agenda since her big wins in Ohio and Texas last week.
He pointed out that in 1992 President Bill Clinton said that the most important criterion in selecting a vice-president was his or her readiness to step into the role of commander in chief at a moment's notice.
Despite a convincing win in Wyoming over the weekend, and the optimism about Mississippi, Mr Obama is still being outmanoeuvred by his rival. By going on the offensive, she has dominated the airwaves and turned her victories in Ohio and Texas into a test of Mr Obama's electability.
According to the Associated Press tally, Mr Obama leads by 1,578 to 1,468. A candidate needs 2,024 delegates to win the nomination.
By Leonard Doyle in Columbus, MississippiTuesday, 11 March 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-rejects-clinton-offer-of-dream-ticket-and-goes-on-attack-793988.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
