Politics Blog

McCain has been making quite a few significant speeches lately, trying to charge up his base by outlining his plans on foreign policy, the economy, and health care. There’s just one problem. McCain’s message is a bit messy. The opening sentence of the linked article is a perfect summary: “Call it the McCainian Law of Inverse Proportionality: the more the Arizona senator is forced to talk about specific policies and proposals, the less ’straight talk’ he seems to conjure up.”

The article points out that McCain has fluctuated in his stance on several issues lately, in what seems to be an attempt to pander to a wide range of people. That’s nothing new in politics, but it certainly doesn’t help him in the face of the democratic candidates’ strong, consistent stances.

Speaking of pandering…

We all know gas prices are going to be terrible this summer - oil companies have promised us that. But Hillary and McCain are playing superheroes by saying they support suspending the federal gas tax for the summer. As many have pointed out, this is just ridiculous pandering by both of them when the facts are that supporting such a move means minimal savings for taxpayers and less funding for highway projects.

It’s a nice idea in rhetoric - saving people money at the pump. But it ignores the most important facts, and that’s what Hillary and McCain are counting on - that the majority of people won’t catch on to those “little” catches.

For more good perspective on the gas tax issue, look here.

Well, the next primaries will be in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6.

Hillary called for Obama to accept a one on one debate, without moderators. Obama refused to have another debate before May 6. In light of how the last debates went, it was smart of Hillary to offer a debate without mainstream media moderators hammering Obama, but I can also understand his refusal. He gave good reasoning - “We want to make sure we’re talking to as many folks possible on the ground taking questions from voters.”

Right now, Obama and Hillary are running a tight race in Indiana.

Does it really matter though? If they’re that neck-in-neck, with so few delegates left to be decided, it’s clear who has the majority and who should receive support at the convention.

Obama is already looking ahead to the race for November, launching a voter registration program and entering a joint fundraising program with the DNC.

And finally … just watch this video for some very true words that the country needs to hear.

Hillary won Pennsylvania Tuesday night with 55% of the vote to Obama’s 45%, but Hillary still faces challenges, including being in debt, though she raised enough to about break even.

Even foreign sources are skeptical that the win means everything Hillary makes it out to mean.

Hillary said that if she won by 10 points, it would mean an important victory, and 10 points is just what she got. (”Double-digits!” Sorry folks, but that’s the smallest whole double digit number there is.)

Now the question is, was it 9 points or 10? (The actual, un-rounded margin was 9.31%, according to CNN.)

Ok, I know … that’s getting into the nitty-gritty. I’m really not trying to completely diminish her win. I just thought I’d throw that in there.

Still, something to keep in mind is that she was ahead of Obama by more than 20 points in some of the early Pennsylvania polls. Obama made ground, and fought a hard campaign.

I just don’t feel that Hillary should be making her victory out to be as big of an event as she’s claiming it to be.

She’s also making a big deal out of having more of the popular vote, but she’s counting Michigan and Florida, whose votes are still unresolved, and we can only expect that - at the current pace of things - they won’t be resolved until June.

Howard Dean has, however, called for all of the superdelegates to announce who they are supporting by the end of June.

So … we’ll know by June, right?

I don’t even know what to say for the political world as of late.

As with any pathetic election-season squabble, the ‘Bittergate’ has come to a rightful close. Obama is far from elitist.

He pointed out “the fact that he was raised by a single mother, lived off food stamps, earned scholarships, and had to finance his own law school education.” I think that says it all.

From what I’ve seen so far, I know I would much rather have someone with Obama’s calm, collected poise handling our country’s affairs than someone like Hillary who jumps on the smallest mistake or words that can be misinterpreted and makes a fiasco out of it. (Can you imagine what diplomacy talks would be like?)

Polls show that Obama has not been hurt by the barrage of scrutiny.

Actually, he has pulled even further ahead of Hillary in national polls, though some polls show he’s only ahead by a few points.

The good news for both the dems?

Hillary and Obama are ahead of Mccain in polls of swing states.

And new dirt has been coming up on McCain.

Research by the New York Times found that McCain has a significant number of lobbyists on his fund-raising lists. Ouch. For someone who says that we need to take the money of special interest groups out of politics, that one is bound to hurt.

And with that we look forward to tomorrow’s results, after which (hopefully) the dems will be able to focus on such weaknesses in the Republican ticket.

Here’s to you, Pennsylvania!

Good news!

All of the candidates agree that it is time for change in policy on the environment. Now if only they could talk about it more in speeches, or if there was more detailed media coverage of exactly what the candidate’s individual plans are. It is definitely exciting and reassuring news. Climate policy is not something we can afford to wait to make changes on.

It’s great that the environment is starting to receive some attention in this race, but it seems it takes British media to report on the problems with the No Child Left Behind Act, which, sadly, seems to be an issue that is shoved off the coverage list here in the states while the media focuses on the war and economy issues. Both of those issues certainly deserve the spotlight right now, but a better job needs to be done of covering the other prominent issues as well.

The Brits also seem to think the candidates aren’t talking enough about trade. It makes sense that the issue is something other countries want to hear about, and I found the article interesting for getting a glimpse into their views on how partisan politics prevents the trade issue from being addressed.

Well, maybe we should have a checklist for issues to be covered during campaign season. I have to admit I’m getting a little tired of hearing about the economy. I know it’s an important issue, but I’d like to think we’re all concerned with making well-rounded decisions. No one should be a one-issue voter.

For a look at Hillary and Obama’s remarks on some humanitarian issues, here’s a review of the Compassion Forum from CNN Sunday night.

Also, The New York Times site has an awesome recap of this week’s debate between Obama and Clinton. You can toggle back and forth between the actual transcript and video or commentary.

And, as always, I’ll leave you with that information to go out and form your own opinions.
Happy browsing!

There is going to be a “Compassion Forum” with Obama and Clinton exclusively on CNN, Sunday April 13, at 8 p.m., in which both candidates will discuss faith and values, and issues from human rights to AIDS. Keep in mind that this will be nine days before the Pennsylvania primary, in which 158 delegates are up for grabs. Will this affect the polls at all? Should be interesting.

Obama is closing in on Hillary in the most recent polls in Pennsylvania and in new polls, people believe Obama would be a better candidate to run against McCain.

If Pennsylvania’s delegates end up being as evenly divided as they look like they may be, it only means a longer period of ambiguity in who will be the nominee. Unless…

Though it seems there are few Democratic figures who are in the right position to make such a bold move, there may be one person who can convince the candidates that there can only be one of them by the end of June. There’s some worry that if the race is dragged out too long between Obama and Clinton, there won’t be enough time for them to focus on McCain for November.

On the other side of all that, some are arguing that the back-and-forth betwen the Democrats could actually benefit the party come fall. The reasoning for this cited in the article is basically:

• There has been an increase in organization of the Democratic party and the level of participation, which “improves Democratic odds in traditional swing states”
• “The pressure has made Obama a better candidate”, giving him experience in “political combat” and “proving his deft political skills”

Though I still believe there needs to be a clear nominee soon, those are pretty good points…

Ok, so maybe we can chill out a little bit.

Iran. Iraq. Israel.

Each presents its own unique set of issues for the leader of our country to deal with, and the way in which these issues are handled in the future will affect our international reputation, which desperately needs some shining up with real diplomacy and humanitarian-focused policy.

And when it comes to the race for the presidential office, the rest of the world is keeping close tabs in an effort to get a pulse for where those future policies may be heading.

There seems to be a lot of support for Obama in comments on BBC political articles, but I was curious as to what the Middle East may be thinking of the candidates.

I did some snooping, and was actually pretty surprised.

In Israel, Obama came in last in panelist rankings between him, Clinton, and McCain in the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz. This is a long excerpt, but its worth reading:

“The panellists worry that Mr Obama lacks experience and is insufficiently enthusiastic about the ‘war on terror’. In short they conclude that he may not be a good friend to Israel. In contrast Mr McCain is described as ‘hawkish but realistic’, the right person for the job. The Jerusalem Post is enthusiastic about him too and says simply: ‘McCain gets it.’

Whether such panellists and journalists are right, of course, is debatable. Mr Obama, who has greater popularity among Palestinians, could be a more credible peacebroker in the region. His comment that ‘nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people’ was well received in the Arab world (not so well in Israel), where in general Mr Obama is better liked than his Democratic and Republican rivals. His expressed willingness to talk to America’s enemies means he is generally reckoned to be less aggressive than, for example, Mr McCain, who talks of bombing Iran. Al Ahram Weekly, the English edition of the leading Egyptian daily, goes so far as to describe him as ‘the favourite US presidential candidate of people in this part of the world.’”

Reading about the differing opinions just reaffirms the varying viewpoints that arise from the complex situations in global politics, and I will definitely be trying to keep up on the world perspective of this race a bit more.

McCain made an embarressing mistake while talking about Iran. He said that the mainly Shiite Iran was aiding the predominantly Sunni Al-Qaeda … oops. A true slip of the tongue or a lack of understanding of a fundamental issue? I’m not sure what to make of it, but it certainly is a little disconcerting. At least Sen. Joe Lieberman was there to quickly correct him. You might want to look into keeping him around, Mr. McCain, while you’re looking for a VP.

Whoever is elected president will certainly have tough foreign policy issues to deal with. They will need to have a deep understanding of the issues in the region, and they will need to be willing to talk before reacting with force. Words have their own power, and the next leader of this country will need to be able to utilize that power wisely in these trying, tricky times.

There may be hope for Michigan’s delegates yet.

Michigan Representative Bart Stupak suggested to the DNC that 83 of Michigan’s delegates be based on the January vote, with the remaining 73 superdelegates and delegates allotted based on the national vote. The plan would mean that Clinton receives 47 delegates and Obama receives 36 from the “uncommitted” voters in January until the other 73 are decided. It’s certainly an interesting proposal, but there seems to be no word from the Obama or Clinton camps yet on what they think of it, so who knows where it will go.

In the nationwide delegate issues, Clinton is still reminding people that pledged delegates can change who they are pledged to support. (And yes, it’s true. The rules are complicated, but they’re there. Seriously, who wrote this rule book?)

Twenty Hillary Clinton supporters criticized Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that superdelegates should stick with who had the most pledged delegates. (Yeah, because that suggestion wouldn’t make sense or be fair at all…)

Pelosi said the Democratic race has “run its course,” and she encouraged standing behind one candidate. She also said that the letter from Clinton supporters did not affect her. Kudos to Pelosi for sticking to her position and not firing back with nasty politics that the party doesn’t need ripping even more at the seams.

Some are calling for Clinton to drop out of the race, and Clinton has accused Obama of suppressing the vote, leading him to clarify that he believes she can stay in as long as she wants. (Not that she needs his permission, but it is nice that he’s making it clear he is not pushing her out.)

The intensity and complications of this race are leading some to question the election process itself. Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson is calling for a ban of the Electoral College. Not that it’s ever led to a president that the popular vote didn’t elect or anything….

So how will all of this controversy over delegates affect the parties?

“There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall,” Mr. Clinton said. “Chill out.”

Okey-dokey sir, but history would suggest otherwise. Anyone remember 1960 or 1968?

The rest of us will chill out when we see that the Democratic party is not going to implode. Thanks anyways, mon, and enjoy your time chillin’. Send us a postcard from De’Nial.

Both Clinton and Obama are tied with McCain in national polls. Republicans know that the extended uncertainty of who will be the Democratic nominee only aids them for the November race.

So here’s what really gets me: what’s with the Republicans for Hillary? This article had some pretty interesting theories on what some members of the GOP may be up to in supporting her, but I have to wonder if all of them are really “up to something.” Are some of them really supporting her because they believe she is more conservative than McCain?

At the same time, all of that is unfair to jump to, because they may just really be Republicans who support her. You see, there are these people called “moderates” on both sides of the political spectrum….

There are Republicans supporting Obama, too. However, CNN’s Cafferty points out in the article:

“Consider this: up until recently, Obama was getting a lot more support than Clinton was from Republicans in the primary contests. At the time, many traditional GOP voters said they liked Obama and were willing to cross party lines. But, once McCain sealed the deal with his party’s nomination, things started to change.”

No matter what happens as a result of this election, more people are registering to vote. Regardless of what party they do or don’t belong to, at least people are getting involved, and (assuming they are being responsible, informed voters) that makes this election a success already.

Well, who could have guessed it? After all the bickering between the candidates, the Democratic party is being divided.

Numbers are already showing that some Obama and Clinton supports would go to McCain if their own favorite doesn’t take the nomination. It doesn’t make any sense to me that an Obama or Clinton supporter would go to McCain instead of whichever democrat took the nomination. Have these people really looked at the issues? If they’re going to vote for McCain just because their own democratic favorite doesn’t win, they don’t care about the issues. McCain is quite different in policy from Obama and Clinton, and so to all those considering the ol’ switcheroo, I simply ask:

1. Look at McCain’s views on the issues.

2. Now compare to Clinton and Obama.

3. …case closed.

Games like these are how we end up with presidents that are not good for the country. Can we please have a resolution for a maturity quotient prerequisite to vote?

On the upside, Obama and Clinton are finally double-teaming McCain. Perhaps they realized that they do still need to run a strong race against him - their real opponent. Now if only their supporters can come together in the same way once the Democratic nominee is decided…

Here’s hoping that, in this case, the numbers are wrong.