before the first votes are cast in America's Heartland, Hillary is ahead in SuperDelegates - proving the Democratic establishment has gathered in the Clinton Corner.
According to ABC's survey the totals are:
DELEGATES
Clinton 158
Obama 89
Edwards 26
Richardson 20
Dodd 15
Biden 8
Kucinich 1
Gravel 0
Since these delegates are free to change their minds, it will be interesting to see if the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire alters these totals.
Showing posts with label Dennis Kucinich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Kucinich. Show all posts
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
What Will the Democrats Do About the Wizard of Wyoming?
Cross-posted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing.
The revelations in this week's WaPo series on -Vice- President Cheney finally reveal what many of us have believed all along. The nation should have been paying MUCH more attention to the little man behind the curtain. It turns out, unlike the one in Oz, the Wizard of Wyoming IS great and all powerful.
Now that the rest of America has been awakened to this sinister and unchecked "FourthBranch" (h/t to dday) operating within the federal government what are our Democratic presidential candidates going to do about it?
Glad you asked...let's take a look.
Sadly, there's been mostly silence from our would-be leaders.
A review of the candidates websites was resoundingly disappointing as I looked for substantial reactions from our Democratic Presidents-in-Waiting. To be fair, Sen. Obama did issue a press release yesterday saying:
Yes, Senator, fine and dandy. But, WTF are you going to do about the current situation?
Hillary? Silence. Someone on her web development team might want to make the site searchable, I couldn't find a Search function anywhere. Practically every press releaseis about endorsements and polls. (I've got lots to say about that, but I'll bite my tongue for now).
John Edwards? Quite a few policy statements discuss Cheney's role in energy and military policy, but nothing (at least that I could find) about the WaPo series. Biden has some press releases about Iraq & Employee Free Choice. Good, important stuff but nothing about Cheney. Over at Richardson's website it was more of the same. The deafening silence continued on Sen. Gravel's and Dodd's websites.
I thought for sure Kucinich, the sponsor of impeachment articles, would have something to say but the most recent press release is from June 8 - and it's about new campaign television ads. A "search" for Cheney brings up four press releases on the Cheney articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed in the House, but the most recent is from mid-April. NOTE TO HILLARY - even Kucinich's website has a "search function."
I'm on practically every campaign's email list - and I don't recall seeing any of them mention this - yet. I understand this is the last week of the fundraising quarter and they're focused on the money race, but come on folks. Perhaps the candidates are out on the campaign trail discussing this, but I have a hunch they're not. [of course, if someone has information I've overlooked, please let me know and I'll revise the post]
I wonder to myself, what's missing? Intelligence? Passion? Courage?
Is it intelligence? Perhaps the Democrats don't grasp the seriousness of Cheney's outside the rule of law, behind the scenes manipulations? When Harry Reid said a while back, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," he revealed the depth of the Democrats ignorance regarding Cheney. They think it's a popularity contest.
Don't they see? Fourthbranch wanted (and needed) the Democrats to dismiss him as a result of his abysmal approval ratings. While the Dems were telling jokes about his hunting expeditions, Dick was hard at work dismantling our constitutional system of checks and balances, redefining the powers of the executive branch, destroying our military and endorsing -torture- creative interrogation techniques. Now we know what Dick's been smirking about all these years.
The time for "name-calling" has long since past, Senator Reid. Even Dorothy's Scarecrow could understand that. And he didn't have a brain.
Could the silence be due to a lack of passion? The Democratic base is more engaged, enraged and committed than it has been in years - perhaps ever. This has translated into huge gains for the Democratic Party across the nation. But it's unclear (to this observer) that this passion is understood (or shared) by our elected leaders. Like the Tin Man, it might be time to find out if the DC Democrats have a heart.
Or have our "leaders" chosen to remain silent because by acknowledging what's gone on in this administration may lead them to the inevitable conclusion - the Vice President's actions demand impeachment hearings? Clearly, we've got ourselves a pride of Cowardly Lions roaming the halls of Congress and the presidential campaign trail.
We all know how Dorothy and her pals eventually discover their "missing" qualities residing within. And, I'm going to hold out hope the Democrats can find theirs, too.
On Thursday night, all eight of the candidates will gather at Howard University at a PBS-sponsored debate moderated by Tavis Smiley. I'm interested to hear what our candidates have to say about the WaPo revelations.
Now that the Fourth Estate has finally done it's job, it's time for our democratic leaders to do theirs.
The revelations in this week's WaPo series on -Vice- President Cheney finally reveal what many of us have believed all along. The nation should have been paying MUCH more attention to the little man behind the curtain. It turns out, unlike the one in Oz, the Wizard of Wyoming IS great and all powerful.
Now that the rest of America has been awakened to this sinister and unchecked "FourthBranch" (h/t to dday) operating within the federal government what are our Democratic presidential candidates going to do about it?
Glad you asked...let's take a look.
Sadly, there's been mostly silence from our would-be leaders.
A review of the candidates websites was resoundingly disappointing as I looked for substantial reactions from our Democratic Presidents-in-Waiting. To be fair, Sen. Obama did issue a press release yesterday saying:
Chicago, IL June 25, 2007
Chicago, IL-Senator Obama today released the following statement on Vice President Cheney's attempts to prevent public scrutiny of his office.
"Throughout this administration, Vice President Cheney has consistently sought to operate in secrecy and thwart rules designed to ensure the public's right to know how their business is being done. I believe strongly that democracy works best when it does its work in the daylight. In an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history so that we can restore an open, honest government that finally makes real progress on the challenges facing the American people."
Yes, Senator, fine and dandy. But, WTF are you going to do about the current situation?
Hillary? Silence. Someone on her web development team might want to make the site searchable, I couldn't find a Search function anywhere. Practically every press releaseis about endorsements and polls. (I've got lots to say about that, but I'll bite my tongue for now).
John Edwards? Quite a few policy statements discuss Cheney's role in energy and military policy, but nothing (at least that I could find) about the WaPo series. Biden has some press releases about Iraq & Employee Free Choice. Good, important stuff but nothing about Cheney. Over at Richardson's website it was more of the same. The deafening silence continued on Sen. Gravel's and Dodd's websites.
I thought for sure Kucinich, the sponsor of impeachment articles, would have something to say but the most recent press release is from June 8 - and it's about new campaign television ads. A "search" for Cheney brings up four press releases on the Cheney articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed in the House, but the most recent is from mid-April. NOTE TO HILLARY - even Kucinich's website has a "search function."
I'm on practically every campaign's email list - and I don't recall seeing any of them mention this - yet. I understand this is the last week of the fundraising quarter and they're focused on the money race, but come on folks. Perhaps the candidates are out on the campaign trail discussing this, but I have a hunch they're not. [of course, if someone has information I've overlooked, please let me know and I'll revise the post]
I wonder to myself, what's missing? Intelligence? Passion? Courage?
Is it intelligence? Perhaps the Democrats don't grasp the seriousness of Cheney's outside the rule of law, behind the scenes manipulations? When Harry Reid said a while back, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," he revealed the depth of the Democrats ignorance regarding Cheney. They think it's a popularity contest.
Don't they see? Fourthbranch wanted (and needed) the Democrats to dismiss him as a result of his abysmal approval ratings. While the Dems were telling jokes about his hunting expeditions, Dick was hard at work dismantling our constitutional system of checks and balances, redefining the powers of the executive branch, destroying our military and endorsing -torture- creative interrogation techniques. Now we know what Dick's been smirking about all these years.
The time for "name-calling" has long since past, Senator Reid. Even Dorothy's Scarecrow could understand that. And he didn't have a brain.
Could the silence be due to a lack of passion? The Democratic base is more engaged, enraged and committed than it has been in years - perhaps ever. This has translated into huge gains for the Democratic Party across the nation. But it's unclear (to this observer) that this passion is understood (or shared) by our elected leaders. Like the Tin Man, it might be time to find out if the DC Democrats have a heart.
Or have our "leaders" chosen to remain silent because by acknowledging what's gone on in this administration may lead them to the inevitable conclusion - the Vice President's actions demand impeachment hearings? Clearly, we've got ourselves a pride of Cowardly Lions roaming the halls of Congress and the presidential campaign trail.
We all know how Dorothy and her pals eventually discover their "missing" qualities residing within. And, I'm going to hold out hope the Democrats can find theirs, too.
On Thursday night, all eight of the candidates will gather at Howard University at a PBS-sponsored debate moderated by Tavis Smiley. I'm interested to hear what our candidates have to say about the WaPo revelations.
Now that the Fourth Estate has finally done it's job, it's time for our democratic leaders to do theirs.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Could the Democrats Lose the White House (again) in 2008?
Conventional wisdom predicts a Democratic jaunt to the White House next year. With a disastrous war and incompetent administration, the GOP brand is in disarray. The Democratic base is energized. Democratic primary voters tell pollsters they are satisfied with the talented and diverse field of candidates currently competing for the party nomination.
Why then, is Camille Paglia writing in her Salon.com column "Don't run, Al. Don't!" about what she sees "as Republican momentum toward next year's national election?" (Yup, it looks like she's been back at Salon since Valentine's Day. I'm surprised it took me that long to notice. Perhaps the Salon editors were looking for something to counterbalance the rational, thoughtful and insightful musings of Glenn Greenwald.)
I have to admit to a morbid fascination with Paglia's commentary. She plays the part of agent provocateur perfectly: a pseudo-feminist, democratic libertarian, martial hedonist who relishes her ability to stir things up, never endearing herself to the left or the right. Her style is one I would never choose for myself. More often than not, I do not agree with her. But I have to admit, I'm almost always entertained and challenged.
I saw the headline and clicked, wondering, "What's Camille got to say about Al?"
Apparently, a lot. But, she's got even more to say about Hillary. It turns out the story is not primarily about whether or not Gore should launch a bid. It's actually about what the "Draft Al" movement reveals about the Democratic nomination battle. She uses the "Draft Al" movement as evidence the Democratic base is NOT satisfied with current choices, stating "the Gore boomlet betrays subterranean tremors of doubt."
Oh, so that's it. We're going to read about the dismal state of the Democratic Party nomination battle. Well, at least I'm going to be challenged this time. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be entertained.
Although Paglia certainly tries. She launches into her typical commentary, jumping disjointedly from one thought to the next. Not surprisingly, she holds no punches. The current crop of candidates has failed to impress her in the opening debates. "Wait, I wonder, is she now arguing there's a place for Gore in this campaign?" I check the headline again. Hmmm...
She savages Hillary (and makes sure to hit Bill, too, for old times sake). She belittles Edwards and Obama. With the possible exception of Kucinich, the Democrats are a bunch of "girly-men." OK, she doesn't use the governator's term, but she's essentially delivering the same message. She observes:
But, does the "Draft Al" movement reveal a sense of dissatisfaction within the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure. Paglia simply throws the comment out with "shudders of deja vu." She provides little else to support her claim. She ignores the vast amounts of money the leading Democrats raised in the first quarter. She conveniently overlooks the vastly larger audiences watching the Democratic debates. All of this must be unimportant.
She expends quite a bit of energy beating up the leading candidates - while offering minimal advice to the current candidates and failing to offer any viable alternatives.
Paglia fails to entertain AND challenge this time.
I have my opinion about Gore's 20008 plans and chances. He should run IF he wants to, the odds for him winning the White House are better than anyone else out there, BUT he needs to be in the race before the end of September. I would consider supporting him, but I lean towards John Edwards. I myself believe a diverse primary contest strengthens the eventual nominee, in most cases. I state these opinions simply to let the reader know where I stand; I believe they are irrelevant to this post's central topics.
I'm wondering two things:
1) Is the Democratic Party overconfident going into 2008?
2) Does the "Draft Al" movement reveal dissatisfaction in the Democratic ranks?
Cross posted at My Left Wing.
Why then, is Camille Paglia writing in her Salon.com column "Don't run, Al. Don't!" about what she sees "as Republican momentum toward next year's national election?" (Yup, it looks like she's been back at Salon since Valentine's Day. I'm surprised it took me that long to notice. Perhaps the Salon editors were looking for something to counterbalance the rational, thoughtful and insightful musings of Glenn Greenwald.)
I have to admit to a morbid fascination with Paglia's commentary. She plays the part of agent provocateur perfectly: a pseudo-feminist, democratic libertarian, martial hedonist who relishes her ability to stir things up, never endearing herself to the left or the right. Her style is one I would never choose for myself. More often than not, I do not agree with her. But I have to admit, I'm almost always entertained and challenged.
I saw the headline and clicked, wondering, "What's Camille got to say about Al?"
Apparently, a lot. But, she's got even more to say about Hillary. It turns out the story is not primarily about whether or not Gore should launch a bid. It's actually about what the "Draft Al" movement reveals about the Democratic nomination battle. She uses the "Draft Al" movement as evidence the Democratic base is NOT satisfied with current choices, stating "the Gore boomlet betrays subterranean tremors of doubt."
Oh, so that's it. We're going to read about the dismal state of the Democratic Party nomination battle. Well, at least I'm going to be challenged this time. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be entertained.
Although Paglia certainly tries. She launches into her typical commentary, jumping disjointedly from one thought to the next. Not surprisingly, she holds no punches. The current crop of candidates has failed to impress her in the opening debates. "Wait, I wonder, is she now arguing there's a place for Gore in this campaign?" I check the headline again. Hmmm...
She savages Hillary (and makes sure to hit Bill, too, for old times sake). She belittles Edwards and Obama. With the possible exception of Kucinich, the Democrats are a bunch of "girly-men." OK, she doesn't use the governator's term, but she's essentially delivering the same message. She observes:
After two major televised debates by both parties, only a Pollyanna on helium would believe that any of the top-tier Democrats will definitely be able to defeat a leading Republican like Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani.I think it's far too early in the campaign to draw conclusions regarding general election matchups. I do, however, recognize there are quite a few Pollyannas running around these days, particularly among the denizens of the progressive blogosphere. "Too many Democrats seem to believe that their party will simply sail into the White House in 2008," Paglia writes. On this point, I couldn't agree more. This overconfidence is worrisome. I'm not sure there is much we can do about it, but we all need to understand that winning the White House in 2008 is not a done deal.
But, does the "Draft Al" movement reveal a sense of dissatisfaction within the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure. Paglia simply throws the comment out with "shudders of deja vu." She provides little else to support her claim. She ignores the vast amounts of money the leading Democrats raised in the first quarter. She conveniently overlooks the vastly larger audiences watching the Democratic debates. All of this must be unimportant.
She expends quite a bit of energy beating up the leading candidates - while offering minimal advice to the current candidates and failing to offer any viable alternatives.
Paglia fails to entertain AND challenge this time.
I have my opinion about Gore's 20008 plans and chances. He should run IF he wants to, the odds for him winning the White House are better than anyone else out there, BUT he needs to be in the race before the end of September. I would consider supporting him, but I lean towards John Edwards. I myself believe a diverse primary contest strengthens the eventual nominee, in most cases. I state these opinions simply to let the reader know where I stand; I believe they are irrelevant to this post's central topics.
I'm wondering two things:
1) Is the Democratic Party overconfident going into 2008?
2) Does the "Draft Al" movement reveal dissatisfaction in the Democratic ranks?
Cross posted at My Left Wing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
