I am a women.
I am a Latina.
I am a feminist.
I am working class.
I like Hilliary Clinton.
I am voting for Barack Obama in the primary. Barack Obama is the best candidate for women, latinas, feminists and the working class.
Recently in Hillary Clinton Category
Consider this an open letter. I'm a male, so I can only begin to appreciate your disappointment and frustration. And I understand why, at this stage, you'd rather sit it out in November. I cannot understand for the life of me why you would vote for McCain since most of his positions are 180 degrees from Clinton's. I think that's what they call "cutting your nose to spite your face." Whatever choice you're contemplating, my sincerest plea is this:My friend Roberto (who posts here from time to time), wrote this recently on his blog (go there for the whole piece).Don't do it. Please, don't do it.
I'm bewildered by this attitude that some women may have. Hillary herself doesn't have this attitude...why do you? Did not Hillary endorse Obama? Would Hillary vote for McCain? Just ask yourself WHAT WOULD HILLARY DO???
Maybe these women who share this retarded attitude are voting purely because Hillary IS a woman, and nothing more.
This is not a "Latino matters" issue per se, but to the extent that many of us are politically active, are registered to vote, and/or vote (and if you don't do any of those, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?), this issue is worth talking about. Particularly for those of you out there who supported Obama during the primaries.
You've heard the Clinton campaign's attempts at trying to give Hillary at least a plausible argument for the nomination. You know, "she's won all the states Democrats must win in November," "the pledged delegates can be poached," "the superdelegates can and should vote any which way they want," "the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in accordance with the primaries' results," etc. And you have to understand that this is the equivalent of being down by three touchdowns with 2:00 to go in the 4th quarter and no timeouts left: your chances of pulling it off are just slightly better than a snowflake's chance in hell, but you need to keep going for that Hail Mary and the onside kick.
All of which suits me fine, until people start talking about how unfair the primary process is. "They" should have spoken about this about, what, a year-and-a-half ago, when the rules were laid down. But what really gets me going - and what really makes me write this down - is when people use just plain dumb arguments. Like this:
The rules were the rules, are the rules, and will continue to be the rules. They were the same for Clinton & Obama. That one candidate, Obama, was smart enough to figure out how to campaign more effectively within those rules only makes him more appealing because he is clearly better organized. You win elections because (a) you have enough support and (b) your organization can and does get every possible vote out to the polls or caucuses. On that alone, Obama deserves the nomination because he has figured out a way to get more people out to vote.
That said, unless you apportion delegates in accordance with the number of raw votes each candidate gets, you could make this argument for any other form of apportionment you make based on geographic area.
Now, is it a bad idea or a good idea? Is it a "travesty of democracy"? If you say "yes" then you're pretty much saying that everything about the way in which politics are conducted in the U.S., from your school district and judgeship election, is a "travesty" because, one way or another, we do the same thing.
The bottom line? Don't question the rules after the voting starts. Each system has it's pros and cons. For example, if you want a system where delegates are allocated based on turnout, you're creating a disincentive to campaign in small states because, all things being equal, they will have a lower turnout.
If you want to adopt winner-takes-all, it gives the most popular candidates at the start of the primary cycle a remarkable advantage. Keep in mind that McCain was able to bounce back because he won New Hampshire convincingly after finishing a credible fourth in the Iowa caucus.
The other thing to keep in mind is that, whatever system a party uses, the candidates must plan their strategy in a way that delivers success under those rules.
The rules are the rules. Like the sword, you live by them and you die by them.
You've heard the Clinton campaign's attempts at trying to give Hillary at least a plausible argument for the nomination. You know, "she's won all the states Democrats must win in November," "the pledged delegates can be poached," "the superdelegates can and should vote any which way they want," "the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in accordance with the primaries' results," etc. And you have to understand that this is the equivalent of being down by three touchdowns with 2:00 to go in the 4th quarter and no timeouts left: your chances of pulling it off are just slightly better than a snowflake's chance in hell, but you need to keep going for that Hail Mary and the onside kick.
All of which suits me fine, until people start talking about how unfair the primary process is. "They" should have spoken about this about, what, a year-and-a-half ago, when the rules were laid down. But what really gets me going - and what really makes me write this down - is when people use just plain dumb arguments. Like this:
My first point is, well, my first point above. If we have "known for a long time" that this is such a bad system, why are you complaining now? Or, why are you still complaining now? Unless, of course, "a long time" means "since Hillary fell behind."As we have known for a long time, the Democratic delegate selection process is a travesty. Starting with the disenfranchising caucus system, which shuts out legions of voters from the process, to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district), to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted), to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.
Let me put it bluntly, anyone holding up the pledged delegate count as representing the "will of the people" is simply full of it. It does not. It thwarts the will of the people. BY DESIGN.
The rules were the rules, are the rules, and will continue to be the rules. They were the same for Clinton & Obama. That one candidate, Obama, was smart enough to figure out how to campaign more effectively within those rules only makes him more appealing because he is clearly better organized. You win elections because (a) you have enough support and (b) your organization can and does get every possible vote out to the polls or caucuses. On that alone, Obama deserves the nomination because he has figured out a way to get more people out to vote.
to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district),I didn't want to post this again, but this diatribe deserves to be picked apart in detail. Besides the fact that "the rules are the rules," I actually believe that this is a problem. However, the solution is to have the primaries just like the Republicans' in that they should be winner-take-all. Why? Because that's how the general election will be played out.
That said, unless you apportion delegates in accordance with the number of raw votes each candidate gets, you could make this argument for any other form of apportionment you make based on geographic area.
to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted),This is not terribly consistent. After all, if the delegates are allocated on the basis of congressional districts, and
[e]ach congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census countsthen the delegates cannot by definition be over or underweighted. It's so obvious you need to laugh!
to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.Call this the "bigger is better" argument. Again, "the rules are the rules." Besides, if the basis for your representation is the congressional district, you have already predetermined that turnout will not be an across-the-board deciding factor.
Now, is it a bad idea or a good idea? Is it a "travesty of democracy"? If you say "yes" then you're pretty much saying that everything about the way in which politics are conducted in the U.S., from your school district and judgeship election, is a "travesty" because, one way or another, we do the same thing.
The bottom line? Don't question the rules after the voting starts. Each system has it's pros and cons. For example, if you want a system where delegates are allocated based on turnout, you're creating a disincentive to campaign in small states because, all things being equal, they will have a lower turnout.
If you want to adopt winner-takes-all, it gives the most popular candidates at the start of the primary cycle a remarkable advantage. Keep in mind that McCain was able to bounce back because he won New Hampshire convincingly after finishing a credible fourth in the Iowa caucus.
The other thing to keep in mind is that, whatever system a party uses, the candidates must plan their strategy in a way that delivers success under those rules.
The rules are the rules. Like the sword, you live by them and you die by them.
There are a lot of persistent comments about Clinton and Obama (especially anti-Obama) from people w/ agendas or whatever; at first they were good, but now they are annoying as hell, because they comment about the same thing on different posts that have nothing to do with the topic, or keep posting blocks and blocks of paragraphs, and keep rambling on and on and on and on...hey listen, if you have that much to say and are THAT adamant about getting your message across, stop bombarding this site with your organization's politics (yes, we know about you guys), or your own personal mission, and get your own damn soapboxes.
While this may not qualify as a strictly Latino-related entry, I think it is relevant because there is a large number of Latinos in Florida that will be affected by the decision of whether to seat their delegates.
This is sort of like a follow-up to this entry at Telling Stories, where I took exception to NAACP's Chairman Julian Bond's argument, as summarized by the International Herald Tribune, that leaving these states without representation would disenfranchise a large number of minority voters. I later received clarification, which I independently confirmed, that Chairman Bond wasn't arguing in favor of seating delegates in proportion to the primaries' results but to have a new process take place to select delegates.
I still think that the argument about disenfranchising minorities is pretty weak and you can go to Telling Stories for the details if you care. What I want to raise here, since I haven't seen it raised anywhere else, is the argument that as a matter of basic small-D democratic principles, Democrats should allow for an alternate procedure to take place in Michigan and Florida.
Before all the Obamaniacs - or whatever name they go by - start screaming bloody murder and that I want Hillary to win the nomination, let me say that my candidate was Dennis Kucinich. And as I said then, I believe either Hillary or Barack will be an excellent President. At this time, I think Barack would be the better candidate while Hillary would be the better President, but we're picking between good and great, not between good and bad.
Now that we got that sort-of-disclaimer out of the way, here's what I'm thinking. The Democratic race is, in all likelihood, not going to be decided after the primaries are done. The math for Barack is bad but the math for Hillary is near impossible. So this are the choices the Democrats face: The Democrats can choose not to provide an alternative mechanism for FL and MI and have the superdelegates determine who should be the candidate. Or the Democrats can allow FL and MI to go ahead and have their primaries or caucuses, seat their delegates, and, maybe, put a candidate over the top or closer to it.
Which alternative is more "small-D" democratic?
There's no guarantee that it won't come down to the superdelegates. But for the losing candidate and his/her supporters it would be easier to swallow if they don't have to deal with the "what if."
I don't see how this helps or hurts either candidate. If anyone benefits from this is Obama. He has performed extremely well in caucuses and if it is a primary, the momentum is with him right now. For Clinton, she gets a do-over in two states where she had, essentially, election drills earlier in the year.
Right now, it seems like the proper thing to do.
This is sort of like a follow-up to this entry at Telling Stories, where I took exception to NAACP's Chairman Julian Bond's argument, as summarized by the International Herald Tribune, that leaving these states without representation would disenfranchise a large number of minority voters. I later received clarification, which I independently confirmed, that Chairman Bond wasn't arguing in favor of seating delegates in proportion to the primaries' results but to have a new process take place to select delegates.
I still think that the argument about disenfranchising minorities is pretty weak and you can go to Telling Stories for the details if you care. What I want to raise here, since I haven't seen it raised anywhere else, is the argument that as a matter of basic small-D democratic principles, Democrats should allow for an alternate procedure to take place in Michigan and Florida.
Before all the Obamaniacs - or whatever name they go by - start screaming bloody murder and that I want Hillary to win the nomination, let me say that my candidate was Dennis Kucinich. And as I said then, I believe either Hillary or Barack will be an excellent President. At this time, I think Barack would be the better candidate while Hillary would be the better President, but we're picking between good and great, not between good and bad.
Now that we got that sort-of-disclaimer out of the way, here's what I'm thinking. The Democratic race is, in all likelihood, not going to be decided after the primaries are done. The math for Barack is bad but the math for Hillary is near impossible. So this are the choices the Democrats face: The Democrats can choose not to provide an alternative mechanism for FL and MI and have the superdelegates determine who should be the candidate. Or the Democrats can allow FL and MI to go ahead and have their primaries or caucuses, seat their delegates, and, maybe, put a candidate over the top or closer to it.
Which alternative is more "small-D" democratic?
There's no guarantee that it won't come down to the superdelegates. But for the losing candidate and his/her supporters it would be easier to swallow if they don't have to deal with the "what if."
I don't see how this helps or hurts either candidate. If anyone benefits from this is Obama. He has performed extremely well in caucuses and if it is a primary, the momentum is with him right now. For Clinton, she gets a do-over in two states where she had, essentially, election drills earlier in the year.
Right now, it seems like the proper thing to do.
So, basically keep Patti Solis Doyle, running the show because she is Latina, and never mind that the Clinton Camp is floundering? Read Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz's letter to Hillary; I don't understand the reasoning.
Cross-posted at Telling Stories.
In what may be the ultimate irony, there are murmurs that it may be the Democratic delegation from Puerto Rico that may put Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama over the top.
The delegates will be chosen, technically at least, in a caucus in early June. Puerto Rico has 63 delegates to the Democratic convention, more than similarly sized South Carolina (54), Oklahoma (45), or Connecticut (60). The Democrats, in line with their traditions of welcoming and celebrating minorities, have long given Puerto Rico about as many delegates as it would get if it were a state, while the Republicans long gave it only a few delegates and today give it somewhat fewer delegates proportionately.
However . . . .
But one group of 63 delegates is more equal than another. Democratic delegates are supposed to be allocated by proportional representation. But that notion is alien to highly competitive Puerto Rican politics. In practice, the dominant figure in Puerto Rico identifying with the Democratic Party has seen to it that his faction gets all the territory’s delegates. . . This means that Puerto Rico is likely to have more leverage in Democratic National Convention votes than any single state, no matter how large. Its leader will be able to deliver a 63-vote margin for the leading candidate.
Emphasis added. And who will that candidate be? The answer is that it depends.
Puerto Rican parties are not aligned according to whether they are Democratic or Republican. They are aligned along favored political status. Currently, the governor is from the party that supports Commonwealth. The legislature and most of the cities and towns are controlled by the pro-statehood party. The pro-independence party basically rants from the sidelines and delivers flowery, nationalistic speeches. When you talk about national parties. Some members of the pro-commonwealth party are Democrats while others choose not to participate in national affairs. Some members of the pro-statehood party are Democrats and others are Republicans (this may be the only place in the world where Democrats and Republicans coexist within the same political entity.)
It is unclear to me who has control of the Democratic party in Puerto Rico. Regardless, this is how its going to go down: if the pro-Commonwealth party controls the delegates, they will pledge their delegates to whichever candidate pledges to leave sleeping dogs lie. If it is the pro-Statehood party, they will pledge their delegates to whichever candidate pledges to support Statehood, include it in the Democrats' platform, and commits to push the resolution of the Puerto Rican status condition by pursuing a process that will produce non-territorial solutions, i.e., statehood, free associated republic, or independence.
Personally, I don't think it will get that far. If the Democrats don't have a "prohibitive favorite" by June, things will be pretty interesting or they will be a disaster. Either way, if it comes down to Puerto Rico, you read it here first.
The votes will be counted into the night and into tomorrow, but today we won states
and we won delegates in every part of the country.
As of right now, we have won more states and delegates than Senator Clinton. It's a
remarkable achievement we can all be proud of.
Tonight, we know one thing for sure -- our time has come, our movement is real, and
change is coming to America.
At this moment in history, the stakes are too high and the challenges too great to
play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a
different result.
This time must be different.
There will be those who say it cannot be done. But we know what we have seen and
what we believe -- that when ordinary people come together we can still do
extraordinary things.
Yes, we can.
Thank you so much,
Barack
Check out the article I posted over at VotoLatino.
P.S. This is just to get on Mr. Pundit's nerves since I know he's an Obama guy!
The line between "passionate" and "kooky" can be very thin at times. Case in point, Marcia A. Pappas, President of NOW, New York State. While I don't consider myself a member of the liberal fringe - Dennis Kucinich endorsement notwithstanding - I've always been very supportive of women issues. I was raised by a single mother, after all.
However, Ms. Pappas seems to have had her Chris Crocker moment last January 11 - how this didn't really make waves I'll never know - when NOW NYS issued a press release titled "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"
Check the link. It's not a typo. And what does she compare Hillary's campaign problems to?
[T]here was that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged the realization. Still others pretended the rape didn't happen. In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.
Emphasis added. Now Clinton is not just being "gang banged" she's being "gang raped." Well, since we know who the "rapee" is, we might as well ask who the alleged "rapers" are:
This past week, we witnessed just such a phenomenon involving men who are afraid of a powerful woman. Hillary Clinton, in her quest for her Presidential nomination, has in fact endured infantile taunting and wildly inappropriate commentary. Indeed we have witnessed almost comical attacks by John Edwards who in turn sided with Barak [sic] Obama as both snickered at Clinton's "breakdown," which consisted of a very short dewy-eyed moment. Now John Kerry, who should certainly know better after his own "swiftboating," has joined the playground gang.
Emphasis added. So the "gang rapers" are Edwards, Obama, and Kerry. What did Edwards say?
Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."
What did Obama say?
During a campaign stop at Jake's Coffee in New London, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was also asked to comment about Clinton's teary moment.
"I didn't see what happened," he said, but added, "I know this process is a grind. So that's not something I care to comment on."
I add that Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama's campaign co-chair did call into question the "truthiness" of the tears and where were Hillary's tears for our dead in Iraq, the Katrina victims, etc.
What did Kerry say? Beats me. I couldn't find anything really offensive. Other than, perhaps, this?
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential election, made an extraordinary intervention on behalf of Barack Obama yesterday, accusing his opponents of stooping to "Swiftboat" smear tactics to destroy the senator's presidential ambitions.
Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, endorsed Obama last month, despite his long friendship with Bill Clinton. It was an important endorsement, giving heart to other members of Congress who had been dithering about supporting Obama for fear of antagonizing the Clinton machine. But it is a big jump for Kerry to go from endorsement to criticism of the former president and his spouse, even if indirectly. He described as "disgusting lies" allegations on the internet about Obama's religion and record of public service.
And that's what Ms. Pappas calls "the gang-rape of Hillary Clinton." It's particularly offensive to compare political attacks with a crime as scarring as gang-rape. It's irresponsible and it is reprehensible.
But, what about Ted Kennedy? Does he get away with endorsing Obama? Think again.
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard.
We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.
Are we in agreement? This whole thing just shattered my "Kooky-meter."
And BTW, I haven't heard Hillary say anything about it either way, which is disgusting.
Note: Cross-posted at Telling Stories.
If there is one more term of the Bush/Clintons, I'll have a breakdown.
Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%
Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%
About this Entry
