Final Word On SuperDelegates

Okay, so SuperDelgates continue to bubble up in news articles as soon as there is a lull between primary races, but I want to take a stand, once and for all, on how I feel about them.

I think they're fine.

That's right, I think they're just fine, and there is nothing wrong with having them. It's been said that they chip away at the purity of the democratic process, and that these people could be responsible for inducing apathy party-wide. It's been said that they are in cahoots with party bosses and sit in smoke-filled rooms to hand-pick the candidate who will continue the status quo. These people are in place to produce the candidate that the party wants, not that the people want.

If we have that little faith in the democratic process, then why are we partaking in the primary process, nevertheless covering it so fervently? A vast majority of these people are elected officials, and the rest are respected members of the party or people chosen at the caucus. Moreover, they're all very politically savvy, more than savvy enough to realize when their vote would lead to the destruction of their own party. Elected official or not, the person wants to see the democratic candidate win, and they're not going to be so thoughtless to just throw the hopes of the voters in the garbage in order to vote "with the party."

Here's the problem I've tried to address over and over. The SuperDelegates don't actually vote until the convention. The reason the numbers are different from station to station is because these are "promises" that are given to each media outlet, and apparently are not stable or else everyone would have the same number. If we don't want to give them power, we should stop talking about them. If we never included SuperDelegates in our counts, Hillary and Barack would have been tied after Super Tuesday. Barack would have pulled a significant lead shortly after the massive day, and Hillary would have lost any fragment of momentum. I'm not saying one candidate is superior over another, what I'm saying is that Hillary's continued momentum is mainly due to SuperDelegates who haven't actually voted yet. The media mentions this caveat, and yet continues to act as if Hillary has got these votes in her pocket.

If we're going to blame anyone for the skewing of results, it should be the media. If just one respected outlet (I'm looking at you, Associated Press) would have just stood up and demanded that we only count what's actually there, then we wouldn't worry about how much the SuperDelegates were going to effect the outcome. In the end, if the populous was still honestly tied by a couple dozen delegates, then it would make sense to ask our elected officials and longtime party members to weigh in, and few of us would complain.

Barack Obama Against the War in 2002

Nearly everyone knows about Hillary's vote for the war. Many have heard that Obama was against the war all along, but wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for or against it. Well, here he is, Illinois state senator at the time, at the Chicago Federal Plaza in October 2002. (source)

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army.
Sponsored Links

Be Organized as You WantYour personalized system is here - With expert guidance, it's simple!OrganizeYourselfOnline.com

Www Barackobama ComRead The Latest Barack Obama News and Updates with Free News ToolbarNews.Starware.com

Election T ShirtsHillary, Obama, Edwards Gear Bulk pricing from $5.95 per shirtwww.creativeorigins.com
He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

The Actual Differences Between Barack and Hillary

This is a list of every single bill for which there was a difference, including those where only one of the two did not vote. These were taken from merged list of all votes by each candidate as listed by Project Vote Smart.

The first letter represents Hillary's vote, the second represents Obama's, and an X represents 'no vote.'
Y-N - Nov-05 - Tax Reconciliation Bill: Vote to Extend Tax Cuts
Y-N - Aug-06 - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006: Vote to Expand Oil Drilling in the Gulf


N-Y - Jun-05 - Appoint Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge
N-Y - Jul-05 - Energy Policy Act of 2005: Vote for Clean/Alternative Energy Policy
N-Y - Jul-06 - USEMA Amendment: Vote to abolish FEMA, replace with USEMA
N-Y - Jul-06 - Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment: Vote to protect right to bear arms in an emergency/disastor
N-Y - Sep-06 - Cluster Munitions Amendment: Vote to prohibit any funding from going to cluster bombs


X-N - Mar-05 - Bankruptcy Reform Bill: Vote to increase the difficulty of claiming bankruptcy
Y-X - Apr-05 - Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment: Vote for non-binding agreement about how military funds are categorized
Y-X - Jun-05 - Appoint Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge
Y-X - May-07 - FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment: Vote for a certification of imported prescription drugs
Y-X - Jun-07 - Attorney General No Confidence Vote: Vote so that a fillibuster can't be used for the vote of no-confidence for Attorney General Gonzales
Y-X - Jul-07 - Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees: Vote that the Guantanamo detainees not be released on American soil or transferred to American facilities
Y-X - Jul-07 - Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants: Vote for various improvements to the student loan regulations (and makes it unlawful to carry out a death sentence on a pregnant woman?)
Y-X - Jul-07 - Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: Vote to confirm budget for Dep't of Homeland Security
Y-X - Jul-07 - REAL ID Funding: Vote to fund the REAL ID project where a national identification card is required for every citizen
N-X - Sep-07 - Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces: Vote to show support for the armed forces
Y-X - Sep-07 - Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Federalism in Iraq: Vote to support the opinion that Iraq work toward a loose federalist state and that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard be considered a terrorist organization
Y-X - Sep-07 - Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Vote to support the opinion that the United States should use its military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence instruments to combat Iranian activities inside Iraq that are designed to destabilize Iraq
Y-X - Oct-07 - Border Fence and Customs Appropriations: Vote to appropriate 3 billion dollars to secure the Mexican border by means of a fence and electronic detection equipment

Bills that Clinton voted on before Obama became a Senator, but has since either expressed or implied disagreement with, or that do not typically represent the actions of a democrat:

Sep-01 - Military Force Authorization Resolution: Vote to allow the President to use force against nations that harbor or aid terrorists
Oct-01 - USA Patriot Act of 2001: "Vote to pass a bill that grants law enforcement more authority to search homes, tap phone lines, and track internet use of those suspected of terrorism for four years."
April-02 - Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act: Enhance energy conservation and raise auto mileage standards.
Oct-02 - Use of Military Force Against Iraq: The big one.
Jul-03 - Energy Omnibus Bill: Vote to enhance energy conservation and R&D and allow tax breaks for energy production and conservation
Oct-03 - Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003: Vote to authorize $760 million per year to prevent forest fires and limit judicial reviews of established protection rules.

To sum it up: Don't let the media tell you that there is no difference between the candidates. Many of these bills are quite substantial and the votes in one way or the other, (and sometimes the lack of a vote at all), are extremely telling.

The question of Electability

Electability is always a strong consideration in the primaries. The French call the action 'vote utile,’ tactical voting or the useful vote. Don’t vote for the ideal candidate, vote for the candidate who can win. The notion is a little degrading, but wise nonetheless. If you compromise nothing and therefore gain nothing and your measly little protest counted for nothing, well, you may want to re-think your strategy.

To flesh out the strategy in a bit more detail, we aren’t just offering up the person who we think could win. Beyond that, we’re offering up the person who we think could win against the person that we believe the other side will nominate, i.e., the person they chose because they think that nominee could win against our chosen candidate. This presents difficulties since each possible match-up presents a different set of obstacles for either side.

The best defense, of course, would be a candidate that could beat anyone from the other side, but that’s a bit of wishful thinking. Next to that, we just need to deal with what information we have, and make educated guesses. I’m going to provide a few bullet points of information that will hopefully help clarify not who represents you the best, but who you think will have the best chance at representing you at all.

First, the polls. It’s been pointed out in an earlier post that both Hillary and Obama would lose to McCain if tomorrow were November 4th, even though Hillary is stomping Obama in the national democratic polls. However, Hillary creams Romney, the other likely republican choice, as does Barack. Beyond all of this, John Edwards is the only democrat who could beat McCain, but he sits last on the left-hand list.

Ok, enough of polls, let’s discuss the ought-to-be-irrelevant factors that no doubt will play a role here. There’s Obama’s race, McCain’s age, Clinton’s gender, and Romney’s religion. Obama also has an age issue, or rather a lack-of-age issue, which could come back to bite him, but many of the same people who would be considering the weight of the problem also considered it when Kennedy was running, so it could be overcome. In my opinion, not a single one of these should really be relevant when choosing your candidate. The religion issue comes closest to affecting how they will lead as president, but it’s doubtful that we’ll become ‘one nation, under Joseph Smith.'

Finally, there are the issues that matter, that is, the things these candidates have actually done in the past that could stifle their bid for presidency. Romney, besides being the farthest from the center, was by no means an indisputably excellent governor of Massachusetts, but his business acumen as a former CEO and his gift to America (or just Utah?) of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics could win a few hearts and a couple minds. McCain is undeniably a war hawk, but at least he knows what it’s all about and isn’t likely to make whimsical decisions based on bad evidence. He has been known for years as not necessarily a moderate, but someone who isn’t so ideological as to avoid crossing the isle, however he has been drifting farther to the right bank in previous years.

Obama, as everyone has pointed out at some point or another, is said to lack experience, but that claim is a specious one and unlikely to be a truly prohibitive factor due to his public service experience and golden oratory abilities. He’s also the only candidate on stage who didn’t vote for the war, and that could win serious points, unless, that is, you’re one of the Americans who do not believe that we should pull out so soon. Clinton, like McCain, has a strong history of policy, and an undeniable amount of influence in Washington, but she voted for the war and she brings a lot of baggage with her role in the Medicare makeover of 1993. She also highlights the issue of an autocracy since the history books would read Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, (Clinton?). This issue borders on the irrelevant, but it’s certainly not a trend we should be condoning.

To sum it up: ‘Le vote utile’ in this election is not nearly as clear as it has been in previous ones, so I’m encouraging everyone on both sides to vote with their heart. We don’t get a lot of chances with so many honestly decent candidates asking for our support. Whether you personally like them or not, the four contenders left standing all bring something to the table and they’ll all put up a helluva fight. For that reason, screw the electability argument, vote for who you love.

What Does A Close Race Do For Democracy?

With no definitive leader coming into the Nevada and South Carolina primaries, it almost brings a tear to the eye of we lovers of democracy. Citizens are more mobilized than ever, and people are getting out there and rocking the vote. Many experts are saying that this race could not only go through Tsunami Tuesday (formerly known as Super Duper Tuesday {formerly known as Tuesday}), but even all the way up to the last states to cast their vote (this could be your year, South Dakota!). These displays of passion and strongly held opinions are strengthening our decrepit system, awakening the apathetic, and providing meaning and legitimacy for the candidate who prevails.

On the other hand, do close races not dilute the effects of democracy? Since we have a winner takes all system, would we not prefer a leader who is able to rouse the vast majority of our spirits? The national elections have been decided by a few percentage points on either side for years now. 50.7% of voters stated their collective desire, and so their choice gets to rule over the remaining 49.3%. There are more fluctuating probabilities in a coin toss competition. I would actually be willing to bet that if everyone who voted also flipped a coin and wrote down that result on their ballot, the results of Senator Heads versus ex-Governor Tails would be more decisive.

Taken back a level, if we have two primary candidates, and one of them takes the sponsored candidacy by getting 51% of the registered democratic votes, and then goes on to take the national vote by 51%, then we've elected the first choice of no more than 25% of our people. Add on to that the fact that only about 50-60% of potential voters actually will roll out of bed and make it to the polls, we're left with a commander in chief who was preferred by about 15% of the population.

What's nice about the primaries is that it's not terribly likely to happen in that way. Since factors like momentum and a perceived ability to win it all play such a big role, it's expected that the final choice will have pulled away from their next closest competitor by a respectable margin. This is made even more likely when you consider the role of SuperDelegates. These mere mortals endowed with demi-god powers are a group of people whose opinion is counted as the equivalent of hundreds of people. They are given this awesome power by being heavily involved with the election process well before it got cool, and therefore they are believed to know what the candidates were like before they got all famous and sold out. Each state has a certain number of delegates to hand out based on population (rather than turnout), but the vote of each of these SuperDelegates is equivalent to one of the delegates. Since they are presumably less swayed by the ever-changing political winds when the primaries fan is on high, their steadfast vote based on sound evidence will often nudge one candidate to their cushioned victory.

To sum it up: The current symmetrical divide in this country that rears it's head once every four years seems to lead to a result that, were it a poll, would be considered statistically insignificant. We have figured out a way in our primaries to lessen the chance of having to blindfold ourselves and pin a tail on one of the donkeys, so how can we apply this lesson to the national election? After all, almost every state considers the number the delegates and SuperDelegates (it can differ for republican and democratic primaries) so why not apply this method to the national election?

Having a national pool of 'trusted experts' who could have a heavy say in the result of a national election may sound like a plea for corruption, however, if we choose respected community leaders, elected officials, and intellectual giants, then we might be able to actually do something good with this. They wouldn't be in charge of the entire vote, but when there is a statistical tie, wouldn't we prefer to have the final push for a solresult be decided by people who know what they are talking about? Too many of us admit that we aren't fully educated about all or even our preferred candidate, so why not leave the tie-breaker to the people who make it their job to know what these people are about? Let's make a deal, if we all shout it out and still can't come up with something better than 50/50, we'll call the revered professors, the respected journalists, and the people who know a thing or two about these people on the stage, into the room and let their votes weigh a little heavier. If it's still a near-even split, then it won't matter which one we choose so we might as well choose the one who got a little more rather than a little less.

The Magic of Polls

The most recent polls still show Hillary beating Barack pretty handily if we all had to vote for a democratic candidate today. They also show McCain stomping Huckabee and the rest of the gang if we had to pick a favorite republican out of the barrel. Therefore, one would think that if you pit McCain against Hillary and then have him square up against Barack, then Hillary would have a better chance than Barack, right? Moreover, they way the republicans have been acting, either of the lefties would smack ole' McCain around like a disobedient dog, would she not?

Wrong, on both points. Polls show that McCain would win either competition. Here's the magic part, though: Barack would stand a better chance against McCain than Hillary would. Tack onto that the 'fact' that Barack and Hillary would get the same percent of voters according to the RealClearPolitics numbers: 44.5%.

How can this happen, you ask? Let's put it in terms of elementary level math. Hillary is taller than Barack. John is taller than Hillary. If John were standing in the middle of Hillary and Barack, who would have a smaller difference in height, Hillary or Barack?

Answer: Barack, because Hillary would stand about the same height when next to John, but Barack would snatch John's step stool of independent voters. In this way, Barack gets taller and John gets shorter and America gets to keep a male as president.

Forcing your vote to matter

It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that the whole presidential race is just a matter of numbers. Dollars and polls, nothing more. More dollars means better polls. Better polls means more dollars. With the strategies of major players exposed to analysis like a Risk board waiting for the game to resume the next night, you console yourself by arguing that the game is not over before it's begun. That blasted human element comes in handy at unexpected times, and despite clear examples where certain candidates, or at least their future deputy chief of staff, whittle an election down to the last little districts, there is still the possibility that we can resist the pull of the statistically inevitable, even if just a little. We can do so by playing our own strategy in response.

Into the Political Maelstrom

I have resisted the call of the current events for almost a year now. I cut out the addicting news feeds and constant background of publicly funded radio stations with something near vengeance. The stream of brief details on the ever-eroding decency and goodness of society was starting to make me sick. I developed TMJ at the age of 24, and I wasn't even living in DC, nor did I have anything to do with politics. It was as if the world were on an ever so-slightly downward slope, but since things were also constantly on the rise, everything remained balanced yet still made you queasy.

The state of things in our nation had left me feeling empty and isolated. Surrounding myself with reminders of that had worn down my resistance to apathy and cynicism. I saw my opportunity to pull myself away from it all, to leave it behind for a while and pretend I didn't care, so I took it. I stopped listening to the radio. I stopped reading news articles. I even stopped asking the guy at the pizza shop to change it to CNN for five minutes while I waited for my slice to be heated. I could sleep again.

Then came the primaries.

I didn't just rush back into the thick of it. Media outlets had been covering the 2008 election since November 3rd, 2004, so I didn't exactly feel like I had been missing something. I would come across a few words here or there about how the pre-pre-announcement potential candidates were doing and that finger in the pool was enough to satisfy. A few articles seeped in as the end of 2007 approached. I left for a couple weeks over the holidays, and by the time I was back, the winds had picked up. I could no longer resist. If there was one thing that could drag me back into the fray, it was election season. So back I go, into the Political Maelstrom.