Clinton and the Caucus

Barack Obama seems to have a knack for caucuses. His first win was in the Iowa caucuses, and he’s only seen success in them since then. On SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday), he went six for six on the caucuses held that day, and today’s results echo that momentum. Hillary has been known to downplay the caucus system, saying they reflect the activists, not the general public.

Caucuses are public gatherings where people wear their political affiliation on their sleeve. They’re also often a long process, held during the day, which is why Hillary claims they inaccurately reflect the desires of the democratic populous. The demographic that is claimed to be behind her, blue-collar workers, are supposedly too busy at work to stop by and announce their vote. What Hillary is neglecting to mention is that the caucuses often go on all day and that a voter doesn’t need to stick around the whole time. What she also leaves out is that another one of her supposedly supportive demographics are older voters, particularly women, who one would think would have plenty of time to hang around a caucus and show their support.

Even if Hillary was correct in chalking up caucuses to just the activists, isn’t that a big part of what the primaries are about? It seems like everyone is talking about how McCain can’t rally the conservative base and how that’s going to cause issues in November. Enough can’t be said about how important the 20-30% of reported ‘hardcores’ who are showing their distaste for McCain by either voting for Huckabee or not voting at all. So wouldn’t it seem that the primaries is mainly about getting the activists excited and motivated. Isn’t the desire to find a frontrunner early on simply to allow time for the non-activists and non-hardcores to coalesce around the nominee before he or she has to face the onslaught they are about to receive from the opposing party?

To sum it up: Just because public nature of the caucus system tends to bring out the activists doesn’t invalidate them, nor does it mean we’re not getting a proper pulse of the state. They may be a bit more confusing and takes more time than simple primaries, but there are only 17 caucuses out of the 53 races (including DC and the territories), and after next Tuesday, the rest are primaries. Hillary, if anything, should be concerned as to why she’s not able to bring out activists and wonder just who is going to fight for her if she does manage to get the nomination. At least Barack has droves of passionate people ready to get out there and do what it takes to win votes.

If the Economy Got a Vote

Right now the concern on everyone’s opinion poll receipt is the economy, and the choices being offered up in candidates is troubling for two out of three. Hillary’s recently dismissed campaign manager, Patty Doyle, has graced quite a few headlines, but the focus has been on how this signals a loss of steam in Hillary’s engine. That may be the case, but the tipping point that helped lead to the parting of ways was simply the medium-sized log that broke the camels back.

SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday) may not have gone the way Hillary wanted it to, and a repeat of losses in the next round probably only licked the back of the stamp for the already written letter, however there was trouble a-brewing in the Clinton house before then. It was exposed that Hillary lent her own campaign a generous $5,000,000 sometime in January (explaining her hesitancy to release her donation numbers until the last minute), but she must have forgotten to mention that to Patty. Patty, however, one-upped the oops by forgetting to mention to Hillary that the Clinton ’08 campaign was practically broke coming into the Feb 5 vote-stravaganza.

Massive fiscal irresponsibility this early on in one’s presidency (that is to say, before it has even began) can’t be a good sign. McCain, however, doesn’t even pretend to know what he’s doing in the monetary department. Well, he is now, but for a long time claimed he needed to brush up on the subject, although never quite following up on that promise.

To sum it up: Barack seems to be winning this one by default. Even his healthcare proposal understands that the economy is ready for either of the extremes proposed by his competitors; government healthcare for all or give it to the free market. If the vote this year really does come down to concerns about the economy, Obama’s feel-good tactics and adorably moderate proposals may be just what the doctor ordered.

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."

Superdelegates give Hillary the lead on Super Tuesday.

As the delegate count from SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday) continues to settle, the democrats are realizing that they could face a particularly touchy subject come the Democratic National Convention. Ever since Al Gore took the popular vote but lost due to a technicality back in 2000, the Democratic Party has been acutely aware of how painful it is to be told that, when put to the test, each vote actually doesn’t matter.

What the party could face on August 28 in Denver, Colorado is an internal version of that struggle that could potentially disillusion massive numbers of voters. Right now, Barack is only down by .5% (7,347,971 v 7,294,851) according to the vote count, however he’s down 5% (1045 v 960) according to the delegate count. This goes back to the superdelegates. Although the states split their democratic delegates proportionate to the voters demands, the superdelegates can do what they see fit. Since Hillary has been wooing them for quite some time, they’ve found it appropriate to support her.

Many consider unfair and ridiculous that the democratic party even has superdelegates, but it's certainly not without rationale. The Republican primaries often send all of a states’ delegates to the candidate who can achieve a simple majority. This often creates a large enough disparity to anoint a clear winner of the party nomination, even if the momentum that high delegate counts can create isn’t always fair.

The democrats, to avoid this issue, reflect voter patterns when they distribute delegates, but they also don’t want a completely split party when the convention arrives. Part of the primaries is to find the best candidate, the other part is to galvanize support around them. The superdelegates are supposed to heighten that momentum, and in the end shouldn’t end up making that much a difference. If, however, the popular vote says that Obama should be their candidate, but the superdelegates swing the nomination over to Hillary solely based on their desires, then I could see some serious tension arising.

To sum it up: I’ve said before that if it comes to a 50/50 split on the nomination, I’d rather have people well connected to politics, such as the superdelegates, strike the final blow on the nomination. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if the superdelegates are the one to tip the balance, better them than a bunch of people who are making up their minds a day or two before the election based on a handful of commercials. The problem is that we would make people apathetic at the party level. It’s one thing to be apathetic about politics and have that belief confirmed at the national level. It’s wholly another to be excited enough about politics to vote in the primaries, only to have your own party deny the wishes of their constituents and nominate who they want.

Here's my favorite part about these delegate counts, however. "The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences." That means that Hillary's 85 delegate lead is mainly imagined. Their not-so-super delegate count is almost equal. To avoid pandemonium, the superdelegates are likely to simply vote for the candidate in the lead at the convention. The current lead is almost entirely speculation.

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.

Edwards imagines power in his role as Kingmaker

Article after article has tapped a sword on Edwards' shoulders and dubbed him kingmaker, apparently because there is little hope on deciding who will actually be the king. Polls still show Hillary to be well ahead of Obama, but Super Tuesday is a bit of a black box out of which anything could emerge. Hillary shows prominence in the major states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, however the Democratic primaries delegate delegates in a fair and orderly manner, each candidate receiving a number proportional to their winning. This means that the frontrunners will both be gunning for the 2025 delegates necessary to be crowned presidential candidate.

Where does John come in? Well, there are 4,049 delegates to pass around, and Edwards is expected to collect about 10 to 15% of them, or 400-600. This leaves approximately 3,500, which means that one of the two leaders needs to stomp the other by nearly 20% in order to win. The gap between Hillary and Obama is only 10% or so by most polls, which puts John in quite an interesting situation.

Sure, he could step back from the dogfight and do whatever it is candidates do with any unused money they raised. However, a candidate gets to spend their earned delegates how they want once they leave the ring, so why not stick it out and exert the power that he doesn't have a chance at earning as president? Moreover, if he gets to choose, it's almost as good as winning since he's basically securing a spot as vice-president, and this time to someone who could actually win.

To sum it up: The media is somewhat nobly trying to avoid being wrong after Super Tuesday and is refraining from giving a definite answer as to who will walk away with the blessing of the left. It's mainly the fault of the registered voters who have refused to fall in line and stick behind an obviously not-worst choice. Therefore, they are doing the next best thing to calling the race: calling who will call the race. John's making a brilliant move here, but the media is making the equivalent move in their own little game.

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.

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.

Voter Donations - Good to the Last Drop

It's no secret that presidential campaigns have long been funded in the back hallways, behind closed doors, over $2,000 dinners. The candidate best able to rub elbows with generous donors is the one who has what it takes to get into the Office, and all the money they've made along the way will help buy the votes of the populous. We, the people, complain about Washington fat cats and the slimy lobbyists that feed them a calorie-rich supply of cash, but their win seems inevitable so long as they have all that money behind them.

The internet, it seems, is beginning to turn that notion on its head. If a candidate can't fleece the rich white men of this country in order to run their campaign, then he'll just turn to the people who will actually be voting for him. Yes, I know that it's no longer definitely just a 'he' that solicits the voters, but it is in this case. Barack Obama has done an amazing job at nickel and diming his supports to the second best-funded campaign on the ballot. He has twice as many under $200 donors as any other candidate, and often it's thrice as many or more.

What does this mean? Well, it means the funding is coming straight from the source, and that the phrase "vote with your dollar" has become that much more poignant. It also means that campaigns are taking a tip from modern business practices, namely, going after the long tail. This strategy consists partly of high-volume/low cost-per-return gains, where the organization exploits a massive participating population combined with a heretofore unseen ability to reach them. The open invite to take part, however, can result in a scattered and difficult to maintain user base. It's a little more risky when you

Candidates are using every method they can dream up to extend that beloved email list, and then bombarding it with rousing updates coupled with personal, desperate pleas for just a little more scratch. Kerry's recent endorsement of Obama may have been great fodder for late-night talk show hosts, but the fact is that it comes packaged with a long email list of people who have found politics a worthy cause at some point or another. Obama will assuredly take full advantage of the fresh new wells to pump. Even it comes drop by drop, sheer volume will help make that trickle into a respectable stream.

To sum it up: If Obama takes it this November, it could be a revolution for civic duty. Normal people may feel like their actions and their votes matter. In the end, it could be that the inexperienced Illinois senator may not be as good for this country as the well connected former First Lady. However, if the questionably effective capitalist tactic that flung him into the limelight results in the empowerment of the American public, then I'll take it.

Two wrongs make a right-wing attack ad

John McCain. Tireless, bedraggled, poor ‘ole McCain. He was supposed to be the one taking the high road. He knew all too well the disgusting tone that attack ads bring to the political cacophony from his experience in 2000 when then aspiring evil-political-mastermind Karl Rove posed a hypothetical question that left South Carolinians wanting to lynch the venerable senator. He was supposed to be above that, staring stoically into the wind from the conductor’s seat in the Straight Talk Express. It may be true that his excrement, in fact, does not smell like roses, however we must give some credit to the undoubtedly most moderate candidate on the republican primary ballot. He is a man of (seeming) integrity and (partial) honor, and he, of all people, would not stoop to using attack ads, at least certainly not in the primaries.

We were mistaken, it seems, since it has come out that his campaign released it’s very own attack ad LINK, replete with out of context, sloppily researched statistics about his main opponent, Mitt Romney. Mitt’s campaign has had no shortage of turds LINK flung from it’s monkey hand, but our public is over political attack ads, aren’t they? They’re tired of hearing about the bad things that other candidates may or may not have done in the past, they want to know what this candidate is going to do now, right?

Leaving that painfully moot rhetorical question aside, I love the details of this showing of poor taste. The letter was nowhere near as harsh as some of Mitt’s attacks LINK on McCain. McCain, however, feeling a little guilty (he’s obviously not a politician at heart), tried to justify and excuse the malicious mass mailing.

"The McCain campaign says that the contrast piece is accurate and fair in light of Romney's use of negative ads against their candidate throughout the primary season. 'We've been attacked enough times by Mitt Romney to justify getting out front to set the record straight,' said McCain spokesman" [source]

Earlier that week, McCain had formed a league of superheroes known as the Truth Squad, whose mission is to defend the honorable moniker of John McCain. Much like our current president, Senator McCain apparently believes that the defense against possible attacks includes preemptive strikes on those who may possibly be attacking.

As an aside, I don't want to leave the delightful dems out of this. Barack and and Hillary have been playing badminton with allegedly racist comments for the past few days. Attack ads are as common to Hillary as lead in Chinese toys but many were a surprised and quite frankly a little disappointed in our beloved Barack when his campaign went on the offensively defense regarding the twisted statement. He, like McCain, had the dignity to feel undignified and openly apologized for the nasty remarks he had been trading with Mrs. Hillary.

You have to wonder if these two are just diving into the ongoing barroom brawl only to jump back out with a little dirt on them and excusing ourselves to our humiliated girlfriend. In one fell swoop they were able to show their authority and conviction, be absolved of the abomination, and make those still throwing punches look even worse.

To sum it up: Much like every other presidential race in recent history, this one will have no shortage of attack ads. One difference this time, however, is the use of the meta-attack. Indirectly attacking the opponent by attacking one's own use of attack ads. If we can't vote for someone who refuses to use the demeaning tactic, I guess we should at least vote for the one who uses them with remorse.

Is Hilllary Racist? Was Hillary Dismissing MLK?

The answer is no, you flipping idiot. The media has been in a tussle over this race card, jumping on whatever they can to get someone to play it, and they finally got what they wanted with a quote from Hillary that could act as a spark.

>Political Punch (January 7): "Said Clinton, 'Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.'"

This does not mean that Hillary thinks Dr. King's work was fruitless. This does not mean that Hillary believes that Obama would be impotent in the White House because he is black. If you have honestly even slightly bought into the ridiculous notion that this woman whose husband is loved by the black community and who is a viable candidate for presidency of the United States is racist, then you should simply be denied the right to vote (just one qualification on a long list of people who shouldn't be allowed to participate, in my not-so-humble opinion). Does anyone really think that a politician could make it is far as they have in today's p.c. world and become an extremely likely next President if they were racist? Granted, Ron Paul has had his issues in the past, but chances are he wouldn't do anything outwardly racist if he were in office (and are we really going to go so far as to say he's a viable candidate?).

Well, founder of B.E.T. and "billionaire Clinton backer Bob Johnson," agreed with that general argument (though not in so many words) according to a FOX News article, an organization which is, as we all know, a bastion of fair and balanced truth. "'I think that’s taking it way too far,' he said while campaigning with Clinton in South Carolina. 'I think Barack understands clearly what the senator was saying.'” Even if the Clinton advocate turned out to be a patsy of the Republican Party, Mrs. Clinton, or FOX News itself (all of whom seem to have it out for Barack), I'd still be glad someone is pointing out that this is a worthless claim to belabor.

Let's drop this non-issue and talk about something with substance. For example, the fact that Barack's Economic Stimulus plan would include "an immediate $250 tax credit to workers that could double if the economy worsens," among other components, while Hillary has proposed her own plan that I would argue is more realistic and effective.

To Sum It Up: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Any argument that involves a claim that doesn't seem to make any effing sense if it were interpreted in a certain way, probably shouldn't be interpreted in said way. Instead, let's turn away from over-simplified arguments and irrational claims this political season. Let's look at important issues and actual beliefs that our candidates hold.

The Night of the Living Hillary

National Ledger - Hillary Clinton Campaign Back From the Dead (Jan 9, 2008): "The Hillary Clinton campaign was supposed to be dead this morning, figuratively speaking that is. According to nearly all political wizards, the Hillary campaign was destined to be over and mowed down by the Barack Obama campaign juggernaut in the hinterlands of New Hampshire... Down by double digits in polls just a day earlier, Hillary was able to parlay a flood of tears and sobs into a stunning upset victory over the inexperienced, but (as Joe Biden would say) the "clean and articulate," senator from Illinois. Pundits were thus sent scrambling for answers to this post-Christmas miracle."

Watching a story like this develop from the beginning was a painfully clear example of how the media influences the decisions of the public. First, they were just coming off a wave of accusations that Hillary's campaign, the most well-funded one on the Democratic side I might add, was over after Iowa. Give up, folks, she lost the first of 50 primary races in a non-representative sample of the country, she may as well stop trying. In just four years, we have gone from calling the results of crucial states too early, and therefore getting it plainly wrong out of nothing but childish impatience and a 'me first' reporting style, to calling the results of an entire primaries battle based on the non-final opinion of less than 250,000 people whose judgment I wouldn't trust anyway.

From there, stories abounded of Obama's unforseen (really? I always thought he was a viable contender), absolutely unstoppable momentum and Hillary's demise. Barack dominated the New Hampshire polls, his words were treated like gold, young girls swooned as he got off airplanes. Then came the waterworks. As drops of pure emotion fell down Hillary's cheeks, the women of America (or at least New Hampshire) had a collective bonding moment and decided to stand with solidarity with this generation's equivalent of Rosie the Riveter. Their points of disagreement, their distrust of a heavily embedded politician, their yearning desire for someone fresh and inspiring (the reasons they were intending on voting for Obama in the first place), all were put to the side as they held hands in a strength circle and nudged Hil (as they now call her) to victory.

The news outlets were so prescient in their coverage of this event. They claimed that even though it was a barely a day and a half before the vote took place, that this could turn the unturnable tide and get this struggling candidate back in the game. Day and night they showed the image and retold the humanizing tale to emphasize how this could be the moment that changes everything. This could be the pivotal point that brings her "back from the dead." Lo and behold, the votes come in and while Barack got the 37% he was predicted to receive in the now worthless poll projections, Hillary had jumped 9 points to receive the blessing of a state that only weeks before had been considered in the bag, and had slipped out of her grasp for an excruciating 5 days.

"Did the the tears win the people back?" some journalists asked.

"This was obviously a ploy," certain pundits demanded.

"The polls said that Barack was clearly in the lead, Hillary cried, and then Hillary won. The event was undoubtedly staged and is clearly the cause for the win," an imaginary commentator was quoted as saying.

* * *

The problem with the entire situation is that every source was inundated with an overstated, and often false claim. Namely, that Hillary Clinton was bawling at that diner. However, because the aforementioned claim was spouted from any reporter who wanted to keep his damn job, people believed the statement even if they wouldn't have come to that conclusion by watching the video on their own. She didn't cry, she got slightly choked up. Granted, it was a show of some emotion, but a mere whimper doesn't qualify you as a particularly emotive person. If that widely-held opinion could be swayed that easily, then it certainly shouldn't have been something that determined their vote so vehemently in the first place.

Most people report that their opinions are not shaped by the news. Rather, they believe that they take in bits of information from numerous sources and come to their own conclusion. Psychological studies have indicated in more than one instance, however, that a person may perceive an opinion to be more widespread if the claim is repeated often, and that an opinion that is believed to be widespread is more likely to be considered true.

Therefore if the major media outlets incessantly repeat that Hillary's tears [sic] will influence the vote in New Hampshire, and if one believes that many understand the purported event to be an acceptable reason to sway their vote, and if the actual conclusion is that the vote was swayed to Hillary, then the reporting of the event should be considered a main definable cause for that sway.

The counter-argument is that you can't be sure that it was Hillary's sniffles that swung it over. Well, I suggest you look at the video yourself and determine if it warranted the massive, simultaneous change of heart.



To Sum It Up: Barack's final percentage was 37%, the same number in pre-election polls that show him winning as was in post-election results that proved him lost. Hillary was predicted to win New Hampshire for weeks before the Iowa caucuses, so the actual results could, in a way, be seen as a correction of the overblown impact of Barack's win.

Hillary got about the same results as pre-Iowa polls predicted. Barack got the more than pre-Iowa polls predicted, but the same as pre-New Hampshire polls predicted.

Conclusion: All Iowa served to do was boost Obama's popularity at John Edward's expense, while Hillary remained scathed but relatively stable.