So Super Tuesday came and went, and are we any closer to knowing who might run against John McCain in the presidential election? I have watched the analysts take apart the data and put it back together every which way they can. I have read all the articles and seen interviews with both Obama and Clinton vowing to forge ahead. All signs are pointing to the fact that this election is far from over and, in reality, has only just begun. The real question is: was there really a point to voting in the primary?
I find myself to be very interested in politics. I may not be able to recite the entire process forward and backwards, but I read about it and try to learn more and more each day. What about ordinary voter Joe Smith? What does he feel about the fact that some lawmaker sitting in Washington has more say in who is the Democratic nominee than he and his fellow American voters? It may not be that the “super delegate” votes are worth more, but why do they get a chance to change their mind all the way up to the convention? What sense is there in that?
Maybe trying to put common sense into this whole equation is my first problem. If common sense ruled the day when it came to voting, Al Gore, by winning the popular vote in 2000, would be president instead of George Bush. But I digress. My common sense tells me that when it comes to Obama and Clinton, Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain. He has more widespread popularity and has won more states. But beyond that, everyone likes him, even Republicans that couldn’t vote for him in the primary elections. Clinton has only two camps: people who are loyal to her (probably because of old promises and her husband’s brand recognition) and the old school Democratic Party, and the growing group of people who dislike her.
Obama has more than two camps. He has people who love him and are inspired by him, people who like him but are Republicans and Independents (and could be swayed come November), people who have never voted and are voting now because of him, and people who are simply red state voters and wouldn’t vote for Mother Teresa if she were running as a Democrat. Clinton is such a polarizing figure, while Obama is a unifying one. Which one has a better chance to beat the Republicans? I think common sense would lead you to believe that Obama does.
Now, do I just have to wait to see if the super delegates agree with me? There are no limits to the lobbying that can be done to “win” one of these votes and that scares me because I don’t think there is anything Clinton wouldn’t do to get a vote.
I think our voting process needs to be looked at long and hard, because Joe Smith has got to be confused and disillusioned right now about what his vote really means. And I have to say: I’m with Joe.
Obama huh?
As Yogi Berra might say, “If the Founding Fathers were alive today they’d be spinning in their graves.”
Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain is elected, I will sleep well at night. But, with Forrest Williams as president I will not only sleep well, but have wonderful dreams too. Forrest Williams for president in 2008!
#1 What’s your point? Many of the Founding Fathers would endorse Obama.
Single Gal: When do the Dems reach the point of no return for a unified ticket? This is Hillary’s last chance to run for President (probably), and this is Obama’s best chance. But if they continue to rip each other, you can’t have the two of them on the ticket. I’m amazed that the Dems might actually screw this thing up!
Pete Campbell
Single Gal, good point. Even banana republics have a popular vote for whoever’s up. Way back at the beginning, George Washington was furious at the idea of political parties. He predicted what would happen, and it is worse than he ever thought. Really childish bickering between partisans; nothing gets done—except strategies to stay in power. You didn’t mention that in the primary you could get a democratic ballot even if you weren’t a democrat. Not so for the repugs. And I don’t think repugs could get a demo ballot. Electoral colleges, super delegates, caucuses, primaries—arcane rules and regs. How about gerrymandering to allow one party to stay in power—or the recent ploy by the dems to keep Nunez and Perata on for longer, though the campaign was to “shorten” term limits. Amazing that the confused voters figured that one out. As for Hillary, you obviously didn’t read the recent New Yorker article very rationally comparing the two—or the Murky op ed piece yesterday where the writers pointed out that if she’s nice she’s not competent, but if she’s competent she’s a bitch, whereas a nice guy is just nice—and competent (like Tom McEnery). Americans are just not grown up enough to elect a woman president; a black male is an easier choice—which is why polls show Hillary ahead of Barack, but behind McCain. Hillary is smart and tough and competent, and not constantly looking for a little fun, like Bill. She’d be focussed, and would take no crap from her husband. At any rate, the Constitution badly needs revision to eliminate the rats nest that has developed over 200 years—but if the lumpenproletariat is so immature that it can’t even imagine a woman president, it will never be brave enough to redo the “sacred” founding doc—and regenerate the republic. One nation undereducated enough to sort of elect someone who really believes the world was created in six days, evidence be damned.
(And Huckabee is such a nice guy that millions of voters who need a prez that doesn’t believe in evolution, etc., etc. feed his delusions of grandeur with their ballots.) George Green
Obama is another great example of someone wanting change and also not wanting people who are lobbyists or insiders as part of his campaign.
By the way, this is defintely a blog for insiders. The other day, Ms. Flynn, a worker for the City of San Jose decided to take some time off, or must have done at the office, to let the world know what a lousy person I am. Interesting. As we may know, Ms. Flynn is connected to Chris Hemingway, the great political strategist who lost to Judy Chirco, even with a COPE endorsement. So, the Human Relations Office now gives all of their employees opportunities to be political pundits on city time.
Ps, George Green, Roger Wert says hi. How are those properties in San Jose doing??
Single Gal –
Regarding the 2000 election, I admit that history likely will show that the current office holder was a poor choice, but it is history that also champions the FOundin Fathers who wrote the Constituion that put the election process in place. That said, this issue would have been made moot if Gore hadn’t run an inept campaign and lost his home state and several others won by Clinton in the previous two presidential elections. In any event, it has been nearly 8 years, let’s quit crying about how we have all been “wronged” in the past and move on.
The current system the Dem’s run today was established in 1972 as a way to prevent the smoke-filled backroom deals that prevailed before then. To improve the system, they should move to a winner-take-all system and eliminate the “super-delegate.” Works ok for the Republicans, as well as the general election.
Regarding Obama: I woudn’t go so far as to say “everyone likes him”. I don’t know him enough to have an opinion of likability, and I would venture a guess that most people in America don’t either. He is an unknown entity. Granted, he is probably one of the greatest orators of our day, but what has he done? What does he stand for? “Change?” Okay. What does that mean?
Perhaps our current President has set the bar so low that finding someone who has a firm grasp on the English language, speaks well and in full and complete sentences will be enough to lead the country? I suppose that certainly would be “change.” I would prefer to know that the next office holder has the knowledge, skill and experience to move our country forward. That may be Obama, but I haven’t seen it yet. I haven’t even heard it….
Is Obama more electable than Clinton? That may be the case. But I think whichever candidate we put up, we win. Why do I make such a bold prediction? Look at every one of these primaries. In all but two states, Democratic turn out surpasses the Republicans by enormous margins. These two states are Utah and Arizona. Now as it pertains to Arizona, this is McCain’s home state and he will win it no matter what. Utah? Well they would vote for the Republican candidate in any case, even if Napoleon rose from the grave and was on the ticket.
Now I’m not saying Obama will win these other red states like Kansas and Alaska. But if he’s even just COMPETING in all 50 states, that is enough to put him over McCain. There’s just no enthusiasm on the other side.
Joe Lieberman said it best:
“In this election, we are not just choosing our next president. We are also choosing our commander-in-chief – the person whose responsibility will be to defend our nation at a time of war.”
“Many fine people are running for president this year. But when it comes to keeping our nation safe and solving the problems we face at home, John McCain is the one with the experience, the determination, and the character to lead America forward to a safer, better future.”
Despite the huge gaping hole in the Lower Manhattan skyline, most Democrats choose to ignore the threat of Islamic terrorism. Thankfully, Joe Lieberman is not one of those Democrats and fortunately the voters of CT agreed and declined to elect Lamont. Clinton or Obama have not indicated that they are prepared to deal with this threat.
Mr. Rowen (#5),
My gosh, are you looking to do a remake of the movie, “Rainman?” You’d be superb in the role of the savant. Give it a rest!
#8
And yet watch those same CT voters elect Obama or Clinton.
Connecticut didn’t re-elect Lieberman because of Islamic Terrorism. They re-elected him because he’s did a good job representing their state and they knew he could deliver from the feds. It wasn’t CT rejecting Lamont’s anti-war views. They just knew Lieberman better and Lamont was an unknown.
Bush is the awful commander-in-chief and the war on terror has been a failure because of him. Clinton or Obama will not let Al-Qaeda get away scott free on the Afghan-Pakistan border as they have done for the past 7 years. McCain will virtually be Bush’s third term.
California Democrat hits it spot on when s/he says that:
“Clinton or Obama won’t let Al-Qaeda get away scott free on the Afghan-Pakistan border.”
Right on! That’s because Clinton/Obama will forsake all the blood and treasure we and the Iraqi people lost in Iraq and give that whole country to Al-Qaeda. Now that’s innovative foreign policy!
#8 HJ,
Adding to # 10, fighting islamic terrorism should be waged at the root of the problem: the Afghan-Pakastani border. Better intelligence and tightening our borders/points of entry will also help. Throwing billions of dollars, and nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers, down the drain in Iraq is not the solution to our war on terror. Yet, Mr. McCain will not only keep us in Iraq, he may extend the war into neighboring Iran! McCain and “turn coat” Lieberman can claim surge “success” in Iraq all they want, but the truth is that the war is still raging, the central government is non-existent, U.S. troops are still dieing, and the Sunni’s and Shiites still hate each other with a passion.
As a fellow veteran, I respect Mr. McCain greatly. But again, 8 years of a Republican-led White House is enough. Change people!
SG,
There isn’t anything to puzzle about. So far Hillary has won all of the big states including California and in particular SC county by a wide margin. Obama has many of his delegates from caucus states where political motivation counts for more than broad support. Also, Hillary won Florida and Michigan but the delegates aren’t being certified for procedural reasons.
Unless Obama wins the majority of big states coming up (Penn, Ohio, and Texas) he has a poor rationale for contesting the nomination. Like it or not, Hillary is winning it at this point (at least marginally).
#5 –
Hey, James! How’s it going? Long time, no see! I thought I’d take the time to correct the major errors in your post. Kathleen Flynn and I are engaged. She does not, nor has she ever been a paid employee of the City of San Jose. She is a community activist, who has no use for the kind of dirty politics you are involved in.
Yes, I lost to Judy Chirco, and I thank god every day! As to your accusation that Kathleen ever badmouthed Cindy Chavez, her husband Mike Potter, or their son, that is a blatant lie. Kathleen and I have a very good relationship with Cindy and Mike. Why don’t you try calling them and asking them? As to your accusations that Kathleen and I deal with Victor Adjlouny or Armando Gomez, that is sheer fantasy.
You made a statement that when Kathleen was on the Mayor’s Transition Committee, that she was badmouthing Cindy Chavez. Since I attended those meetings with her, I can assure you Cindy Chavez was never mentioned in any of those meetings. The only thing that was ever discussed in those meetings was Public Health and Safety issues with members of the community from all walks of life.
So James, clearly whomever you are getting your information from about Kathleen either has something against her, or you are on a fishing expedition, both of which make you look bad because your personal grudge against people who don’t agree with you or question your facts become a real target for your misinformation campaigns, as evidenced by the way you attack other people on this blog.
Single gal – great column today! I agree with you 100%! Go Obama!
Barack Hussein Obama is running a campaign on “change”. He hasn’t stated quite yet what the change will be – he loves to talk talk talk talk – not really saying much, and has no experience in any of the matters about which he doesn’t talk about…if you know what I mean. His political advisors are all extremists, who work against our ally, Israel, and have miles of writings to prove it.
Just what is the great “Love” that you have for this smooth talking fella? All he says so far is total SPIN. Okay he has charisma – SO? You’d vote for someone without knowing his position on any of the issue areas.
Still waiting for some substance.
CD # 15-
“McCain will virtually be Bush’s third term. “
This may poll well, but it isn’t true. McCain has been Bush’s main Republican critic for the past seven years.
Conservatives are printing t-shirts that say “I’d rather be water-boarded than vote for John McCain.”
Comparing McCain to Bush is like comparing Obama to Al Sharpton. It just isn’t accurate.
11 – That’s the best you can do? The Bush-Cheney war has done more recruiting new terrorists than anything Obama/Clinton will ever do.
We get it that you don’t like Democrats but I’d hope you could come up with a better argument than your current post.
I support our troops—that’s why I want them home yesterday so they can be with their families.
#3- Pete Campbell
I think the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been polar opposites philosophically to Obama.
Freeing themselves from an overtaxing, over-regulating centralized Government was the reason people fought and died in the creation of our country.
Obama is all about taxing and regulating.
Why are we so anxious in this country to throw away all that’s been handed down to us?
#19-
#19-
You have cleverly ignored my point and changed the subject. Congratulations!
As you well know I was referring to the legacy that was handed down to us by the Founders- not by Bush.
18 – You mean like the crushing deficit that Bush has given us, or do you mean the failing economy under Bush, or do you mean the failed war Bush has bestowed upon us, or…?
#16
Just because some far right Anne Coulter-ites (kinda similar to that #15 right-winger guy/gal who posted above) say McCain and Bush are different doesn’t mean it’s true. People like her and Limbaugh are so far off the right side of the spectrum that they’d probably vote for Bin Laden if he promised to cut taxes and protect the “sanctity of life”. With the exception of a few issues, Bush and McCain are on the same page.
Mr. Galt:
I accept your argument in terms of Obama’s policy positions. I am not an Obama supporter, but I’ll take him over Hillary anyday!
Pete Campbell
Mr. Campbell,
Lamentably I don’t have a horse in this race.
I’m just mystified that so many who claim to be concerned about the gigantic deficits run up by the current administration are so eager to embrace any candidate who is not fiscally conservative.
CD #20
Look, both parties have their own excesses.
McCain speaks out against many of the excesses of his own party.
He called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, repeatedly criticized Bush’s “war on the cheap”, authored key campaign finance reform, called for eliminating earmarks, pushed for immigration reform, and voted against Bush’s tax cuts because they were too weighted towards the wealthy.
That’s more than “a few issues”, and more than most people in either party.
What exactly have Obama and Clinton done to fight the excesses of the Democrats? Can you name anything of significance?
Single Gal,
Common sense in politics ?
I think it is obvious to most of us that we face an overwhelming number of big problems in San Jose.
I believe we all recognize that the need to get a handle on whats happening to our city, but the big question is where do we begin?
SG asked:“It may not be that the “super delegate” votes are worth more, but why do they get a chance to change their mind all the way up to the convention? What sense is there in that?” Because it’s all about winning; and as we have seen, there is an ebb and flow as the primaries and caucuses meander about the states. There is no overpowering consensus; and that was built into ,our “system” by the Founding Fathers, and expanded by party politics.
Don’t individual voters get to change their minds all the way up to the time they cast their ballots? So why should delegates, super or otherwise, not have that same opportunity?
That’s why polls are so flawed—they gauge the feeling of the moment by questioning a couple of hundred folks across this nation. The media idiots pick up on the results and report them as gospel, so they can sell air time or newspapers or whatever.
SG also opined:“I think our voting process needs to be looked at long and hard, because Joe Smith has got to be confused and disillusioned right now about what his vote really means. “
Our precious Founding Fathers distrusted Joe Smith greatly (Joe SixPack these days), and thus our Constitutional election system. Go read the record, and “democracy” in the true sense of the word was the farthest thing from the minds of our Founding Fathers.
#15 said:“He hasn’t stated quite yet what the change will be – he loves to talk talk talk talk – not really saying much” So, how is that different from the others? We get sniping at the other guy, and bullshit platitudes. All the campaigns are spin without substance. And he said further about Obama:“Okay he has charisma …” He’s the anti-Beall.
NO ONE KNOWS A THING ABOUT OBAMA BAM BAMA FE FI FO FOMA. WHO IS THIS GUY? HE DOES GIVE SOMEONE ELSES SPEECHES REALLY WELL.
# 26- All the candidates talk talk talk. The difference is that McCain and Clinton have long records to look at, too. When Clinton talks about health care, you can look to her actions in 1993. McCain’s record is even longer. The consequences of their actions have become visible.
The same is not true for Obama. With only 2 years in a significant office, none of his decisions have stood the test of time. Might have been awful, might have been great. All we know is that he can give a good speech. We don’t know if he has good judgement.