The primary season is over, finally! I'm not sure, but I don't believe I've ever heard of any primary going through every US state, territory, and commonwealth to figure out a nominee. I thin it's beautiful. Because it lasted so long, this is probably the most accurate portrait of the people's choice we've had- either in years or ever. The highest pressed, least known, and most surprising potential nominee has it, and if it changes in the smoke-filled back rooms of the Democratic convention, look out for a national riot.
With all the mudslinging, drama, and controversy, Obama got the nomination. With 2,156 delegates, he got 38 more delegates than necessary to clinch the nomination. Just in case you're curious, Clinton has 1,923 delegates. Most of the as-of-yet undecided superdelegates, as I've heard on the news, are planning to put in their votes for Obama as well.
Controversy among the numbers
Michigan wasn't supposed to count at all. The DNC originally threatened and followed through with penalizing the state for rescheduling their primary by eliminating the power of the vote. With much controversy, pushed heavily by Clinton, the DNC eventually used half of their original delegates. They gave Clinton her 38 delegates and to give Obama 36 even though his name wasn't on the ballot (because the numbers weren't supposed to count). Even if the 36 delegates were taken away from Obama, he would still be over the mark for winning the Democratic nomination.
Florida wasn't supposed to count either. Originally , 2,025 delegates were necessary to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination. With the controversy over whether or not, and how to seat MI and FL delegates, when the decision came down to use half the states' delegates, they also increased this number to 1,118. That number is the number of delegates Clinton, winning both states, received from them. Obama hit 2,025 anyway, so it really wouldn't have mattered, and Clinton is still under 2,000, and has yet to concede.
I saw a Saturday Night Live opening skit right after the candidates gave their tax returns to the press. The best line in the skit: "I am not jumping out of this until after the inauguration, and even then I won't be gracious." It's worth watching- http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/04/06/snls-take-on-the-clinton-tax....
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
My dad supports Hillary Clinton to such an extreme that he now plans on voting for John McCain come general election time. While I don't buy into his arguments completely, he claims that a true democracy should not have rules which rob the people of their votes, as in the case of Michigan and Florida. After all, the 2000 election was decided by a similar undemocratic process, in the Supreme Court, much like one could argue that the outcome of this election was decided by insiders at the DNC who chose to appropriate Michigan's and Florida's delegates the way they did.
This controversy is far from over. While I do think Clinton will eventually bow out for the sake of party unity, voters, especially in the crucial swing state of Florida, will remain embittered.
And it makes no sense. Obama and Clinton had slight differences in priorities and plans. I never really trusted Clinton, but if she had won the nomination I would have supported her because she is not McCain. She wants our troops home, she wants peace, she wants health care. Hmm... so does Obama. What does McCain want? His song "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" comes to mind. So I'm trying to figure it out. Is it that people are so pissed that Clinton didn't get it that they want to flush the whole country down the toilet? Is it that they fear change? They don't want the unity of the nation? Could you ask your dad for me?
Look, Michigan and Florida's representatives messed up. They knew they would be sanctioned by both parties (The RNC cut their delegates in half from the start), but they broke the schedule anyway. The people, as far as I know, did not even protest their representatives' decisions. Even if the states had their full delegate count, Clinton still would not win.
I read an article saying that she is conceding on Saturday with full support of Obama. If she can support her opponent to realize the big picture, winning back the White House, I think it only makes sense for her supporters to as well.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I really wanted Hillary because she had great plans and I believe it would have been great like it was in the 90's. I worry about Obama because he wants to drop all of our defenses. This is a bad idea. But I guess no president can be worse than Bush...
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
All the Republicans talk about is a return to the glory of the Reagan years, and all Democrats talk about is a return to the glory of the Clinton years. I would never support either; these people are reactionaries, not progressives. I'll always prefer to advance into the future than return to an idealized past.
As far as Democrats go, we want to go back to the Clinton years only in one aspect. This is the economic prosperity seen by the country during this time before pork-spending Republicans ruined the White House. Democrats looked to the future with an optimistic outlook that we can actually change things. Republicans look to the past and want everything to stay the same and traditional. Democrats want to push ourselves into the future just as much as the progressives do.
P.S. Reactionary is basically a synonym of extreme conservative, definitely not describing a Democrat.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Pork barrel spending is a phenomenon confined to Congress, not the White House. If you want more of that, just look to Obama or Clinton, who have both spent tens of millions of dollars for special earmarks. McCain hasn't obtained a penny for earmarked, "porked" projects in his state. PS, I'm not sticking up for G.W. Bush here. Just a political observation.
Plus, I'm sure you've heard this line before and are quite sick of it, but Clinton had a Republican Congress for six years of his eight. Since Congress does all the actual work with the budget, shouldn't they get the credit for the financial solvency of the '90s?
The definition of a reactionary is one who wishes to return to an idealized past. Benito Mussolini is an excellent example. I was exaggerating slightly, but anyone, including Democrats, who wants to return to a glorious past would qualify as a reactionary.
You are correct that Congress has the main means of budgeting our nation's money, and I have to plead ignorance on this case. I am basing my argument off of what I have heard of the time period from the media. I was 2 years old when Clinton went into office, so I was hardly able to follow politics.
What is meant by earmarks? I can look it up but I feel like you'd have a better definition.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
From what I understand, earmarked projects are provisions that a Congressperson puts in a bill that direct large sums of money for a specific project in his or her own home state. Some see it as corrupted, others as an acceptable way for states to get money from the federal government.
The most infamous example of an earmarked project is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' (R) so-called "bridge to nowhere." In a national transportation bill, he sneaked in an amendment which would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars for building a massive bridge connecting an island with a population of 50 people to the mainland. This was an obvious waste of funds; Stevens and his bridge drew national attention (and criticism) and the project was abandoned. Another one of Stevens' infamous projects was his attempt to build an airport on an island with no more than 100 permanent residents, but was also the base of a tuna corporation which supported him. Sounds pretty corrupt to me.
I personally oppose earmarks. Clinton and Obama are themselves guilty of this pork barrel spending, but then again, so is pretty much everyone in Congress. McCain has made somewhat of a name for himself for being one of the few who has never secured funds for his pet projects through earmarks.
For anyone who cares to read up some on earmarks and "porked" spending, check out the website of Citizens Against Government Waste, a NGO that serves as a taxpayer watchdog group.
So basically if I am a Senator from Wisconsin and I vote for a bill to pass that states that there should be a new boat port built in Milwaukee on Lake Michigan under the finances of the country, this is earmarking? I think I have the topic down.
I will be really interested in reading that website and learning more about Obama's and Clinton's wasted spending. I will check out that website and either write back on here or write a blog about it.
Thanks
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Our economy was great- we actually had a surplus and everything. I think for the most part, only Hilary was reminding us all about how great our economy was when her husband was in office. Well, the media pushed that pretty hard too. Obama was not pushing the "good ol' days." He focused on change from Washington out which is what we need. There is no magic fix to give us a good economy, or even a decent one. No one can do that right away.
Where did you hear that Obama wants to drop all of our defenses? He wasn't that far off from Clinton's plan when it came to defense. He wants most of our troops home, and I think the majority of the population does too.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I agree with you Sonja on your comment response saying that Clinton supporters should support Obama. I am an Obama supporter, and even though I would have bitten my tongue as I was doing it, there is no doubt in my mind I would have voted for Clinton. Both of them have 95% the same policies and it is only their personalities that are different. If Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, it shows that they care nothing about the good of the country and just are selfish enough to want everything to go their way, even if it means that our country will be spending $550 billion in Iraq in the next four years.
I also wanted to mention something you said in the blog. "this is probably the most accurate portrait of the people's choice we've had." However true this may be for Obama and Clinton, it is the exact opposite for McCain. He has gone on unnoticed in his mistakes and poor platform during this grueling primary season. For example, McCain said in a speech that the Shi'ites are being opressed and should get more of a voice in the Sunni government (or something to that effect). For a man who completely bases his platform on his foreign policy, this is a major slip-up, saying as the Iraqi government is an overwhelmingly majority of Shi'ites who are opressing Sunni minorities. This was in the news for maybe a day while the primary fight was going on. But hopefully this will all change when Hillary gives her support to Barack.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032