Obama the Nominee

It was odd to see the headlines yesterday, "Obama Clinches Nomination; Clinton Seeks VP Spot."

I can't say whether or not this was widely voiced by the establishment media (I try to avoid that media), but it was a Yahoo! News headline.

Here's what I've urged Obama to do. You can Contact Obama too:

Please do NOT put H. Clinton on the ticket. She is very divisive, even if it's not her fault.

DO offer John Edwards the Attorney General position. Let him gather evidence on Bush et al. for future prosecution. The Nation cannot accept impunity if it is to survive in the long run.

Prosecute Bush et. al., Chapter 1 [3-min Video]

Thoughtful Commentary on Obama and Clinton

Some thoughtful commentary on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from a guest contributor, who happens to be female and is an Obama supporter:

I know we over-reflect upon 9/11 but I do think it's true that our nation experienced a great sense of "common" destiny which just was not cultivated -- and I don't think the neocons are the only ones to blame for that. You're right, Obama's campaign is much about recovering that sensibilty, inviting anyone and everyone to embrace it, and allowing it to permeate our society so that "common" is actually a more popular paradigm than "elite" and, so that movements of fairness will have a real chance to sweep the political ranks and significantly change some of the "business as usual".

As far as Hilary's challenge, I really feel that she already has a legacy -- as a unique first lady who insisted that the powers-that-be take a clear hard look at a private, monolithic system, which has been bleeding our citizens instead of healing them. She can always be proud of that. This whole "first female president" stump however is a hollow carp to my ears. Do we really need a "Hillary" in the oval office to assure our daughters that they can achieve their dreams in this country? Don't get me wrong. I do think it's GREAT that she's pursuing her dream in this context. But if she doesn't succeed there better not be any suggestion from her that it was because she was a gal. That would be discouraging to girls....and would, I think, discredit her as a role model. Anyway...

Prosecute Bush et al. Chapter 1

Below is my latest video (only 3 min). It builds upon commentary by Mike Papantonio and David Bender of the Ring of Fire radio show. Their point? Bill Clinton should have continued the Iran Contra investigations and prosecuted senior officials of the George H. W. Bush. Had Clinton done so, we would have avoided the disaster of George W. Bush.

Prosecute Bush et al. Chapter 1

Sources:

Audio and video from Air America radio, Ring of Fire program.

Clinton: Big News

A big headline news item on Sunday? Hillary Clinton is coming out against trying the 9/11 suspects in the offshore (Guantanamo) venue created by the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. For some reason it isn't a big story when Barak Obama says the same thing. Both Clinton and Obama voted against the MCA.

The difference? Besides the media falling all over itself to help make the Clinton campaign newsworthy, Clinton has a plan. If elected president, she's going to "direct the Justice Department to evaluate the evidence amassed against these prisoners and make a determination", according to Lee Feinstein the Clinton's national security director. Whoa! Ask the Justice Department for legal advice? Now that's big news.

The Big News I'm waiting to hear is whether Clinton or Obama would nominate John Edwards to be the head of the Justice Department. Then, maybe the Downing Street Memo, evidence of Bush fixing the intelligence to meet his intent to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, among other things.

Update on Downing Street Memo Aside:

This, according to DemocracyNow!

“Dossier” Author: Britain Was “Wrong” on Iraq

The British government has released an early version of the so-called intelligence “dossier” that made the case for attacking Iraq. The document contains no mention of the central claim often made by then British Prime Minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein could launch chemical or biological weapons within forty minutes. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the early draft wasn’t used as a basis for the final document. He also criticized a judicial decision to enforce the release after a Freedom of Information Act request. As the draft was released, its author, former Blair aide John Williams, said those in Blair’s cabinet who had resigned in protest of the war were “right.” He added: “Those of us who carried on working for the government were wrong.”


Sources:

McClatchy News Bureau, Clinton would seek to try 9/11 plotters in established courts, February 17, 2008.

Clinton Rejected in Potomac Primaries

Obama has charisma, which goes a long way. That's the positive factor that propelled him to win in the Potomac Primaries by huge margins:

Obama's Margins of Victory:

51% - District of Columbia
22% - Maryland
29% - Virginia


But there are negative factors too. Factors that push people away from Hillary Clinton:

• The Corporate factor... leads to sellouts.
  
• The "We Hate Clinton" factor (AKA Bill factor)... leads to divisiveness.
  
• The Dirty Tricks factor... leads to a lack of trust.
  
• The Yuppy factor... leads to feeling "she's not one of us."
  
• The Washington Insider factor... sellouts, no trust, not one of us.
  
• The Iraq and Iran factors... leads to the realization she's not experienced in foreign affairs.
  

The list could go on. I could elaborate. But it isn't necessary for most people, who get it.

Obama isn't the best Deomcratic Party candidate. That would have been Edwards. But, Obama is the best remaining Democratic Party candidate.

Sources:

Election 08 Political Dashboard.

Delegate Numbers Show the People are for Obama

What we have known all along is being revealed in the delegate count for Clinton and Obama. The people back Obama and the inside-crowd backs Clinton. You want "change"? Pick Obama. You want Washington inside-crowd "experience" (group think)? Pick Clinton.

Having worked in Washington, I can assure that you need not worry about "experience." Obama will be surrounded by plenty of people with Washington experience, including himself, a member of the upper chamber. He would, however, bring fresh perspective that helps avoid Washington group think.

Democratic Party delegates come in roughly two flavors, "popular delegates" picked by the people through primary elections and the "super delegates", current and former politicians and other Party functionaries (the inside-crowd).

The on-going primary election results give us the count of the popular delegates, and it presently leans in favor of Barak Obabma.

Popular Delegate Count:

904 Obama
875 Clinton

The super delegate count is known only by inference, because they need not reveal their preference until the delegates cast their formal votes. However, the Associated Press is keeping a tally of super delegates who have stated their position, summarized below. Of the 796 lawmakers, governors and party officials who are Democratic super delegates, Clinton currently has 243 and Obama has 156.

Super Delegate Count:

243 Clinton
156 Obama

Total Delegate Count:

1,118 Clinton
1,060 Obama

And, once again, to show that Faux News doesn't give it to you straight, the moniker for their "Delegate Count '08" is "You Decide." Well, in the case of Clinton and Obabma, if it's close, the inside-crowd will decide, not "you" the average person.

UPDATE: From MoveOn.Org

The superdelegates are under lots of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other. We urgently need to encourage them to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama—and then to support the will of the people.

I signed a petition urging the superdelegates to respect the will of the voters. Can you join me at the link below?

Sign the Petition

"How the West was Won" by Hilary Clinton

Falling into the manifest destiny thinking, to which Hilary Clinton is a product of her Republican white upper middle class up-bringing, she declared upon wining the popular vote, but loosing the all-important delegate vote by one,

"I guess this is how the West was won"

In reality, the West was won by driving natives off of the land, and setting up the exploitative system that places economic freedoms above political freedoms. Hilary Clinton is not the person who will change this formula.

Sources:

Obama and Edwards on Trade

We know where the corporatist Hilary Clinton stands on "free" trade; if it promotes more freedom of transnational corporations, and their human quislings, to exploit humans, then that's OK with her. She still buys into "a rising plutocratic tide raises all boats."

But, what about Edwards and Obama, people for whom you might actually consider voting? David Mizner, of MyDD (Direct Democracy) lays it out for us in "Edwards Seizes His Winning Issues." In short, Edwards is true to the "Fair Trade" values and Obama is not.

This should come as no surprise. Clinton and Obama are of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. That's all you should need to know about those two candidates to make your decision in 2008.

Mizner poses a practical and tangible test on whether Obama is true to his rhetoric about "fair trade." He establishes Edwards' opposition to Peru Trade Pact. Then Mizner suggests we watch Obama's vote on the Pact.

Why not go one step further. Contact Obama and urge him to vote against the Peru Trade deal?

Contact Obama. You can repeat what I told him (cut 'n paste):

Please vote AGAINST the Peru Trade Pact. Why? It's written by and for corporations, not humans. The labor and environmental protections are window dressing.

Media Critique: Clinton and Obama on Nuclear Weapons

The good news is that the establishment media piece addresses a policy issue. The bad news is that they belittle it as a "flap."

"Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons"
by Steve Holland, Reuters, August 2, 2007

Wow, Reuters is actually reporting on different policy positions of Hillary Clinton and Barrak Obama, and it's being picked up establishment media sources.

Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table...

So, why does the editor have to belittle this serious policy issue by calling it a "flap"? I don't know, but thought I'd pose the question to a Reuters editor. You can to:

CLICK to Contact Reuters

On the content of this matter, Clinton has the policy wrong. She's conflating cold war policy with the hyped perpetual "war on terror," which doesn't apply. In the cold war days, nuclear weapons remained on the table with the USSR, because of the basic reality of deterrence. She's trying to be presidential, and only succeeding to be superficial.

The "No Legislation" Option to End the Iraq War

Will the Democrats actually try to repeal the Iraq war authorization? I'm not surprised that Senator Byrd of West Virginia has made this move. But now it appears that Hillary Clinton's Wall Street handlers have given her the nod to support the move. Probably because it is just theater.

In a symbolic gesture, the authorization would end on October 11, 2007, exactly five years after the original authorization. Imagine if, as a symbolic gesture, they proposed revoking authority a week earlier, and saved a week's worth of American lives. I suppose that would be cutting too close to the symbolic bone (why not a month earlier then?)

I suspect the Democrats are creating a negotiating chip. It's refreshing to see them on the offensive. But, as my cynical tone reveals, I can hardly believe this is for real.

So, what's the hitch? Do they have the votes? Does the President have to sign the legislation that would revoke authorization? What happens on October 11, 2007? Are preparations for withdrawal to be made before October 11, 2007?

Senator Christopher J. Dodd gives us a hint. According to Sarah Wheaton on the NY Times Political Caucus blog:

While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the President’s course in Iraq. There is only one binding and responsible way to end this war.

"He reiterated his support for the Feingold-Reid legislation, which would not only set a withdrawal timeline but also ultimately cut off war funds." I do wonder, however, if Feingold's redeployment option is just a form of Republican lite.

The best option I've heard is the "no legislation" option. Congress can simply take no action on funding and tell Bush he has to remove the troops from harms way with the resources he has, period. No vote. No veto. No override vote.

The argument made against this is, "Remember what happened to the Newt Gingrich and the Republicans when they shut down the government by refusing to vote for funding." Well, this case is different. Newt was a radical conservative seeking to cut popular programs supported by the public. In the present case, the moderate liberals are seeking to cut an unpopular war that is not supported by the public.

Sources:

Raw Story report, May 3, 2007, "Senators Clinton, Byrd call to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq," Josh Catone.
~