Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Clinton backer challenges Texas delegates
By AMAN BATHEJ - Fort Worth Star Telegram - June 24, 2008A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a written challenge to 126 Texas delegates elected to attend the National Democratic Convention in Denver.
Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws committee last week charging that the makeup of the Texas delegation violated a DNC rule.
The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates in part by the results of the March 4 primary and partly by the results of precinct caucuses held around the state that evening.
That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule requiring that delegate selection "fairly reflects" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.
Hillary Clinton won the primary vote in Texas but Barack Obama did better in the precinct caucuses. Texas delegates going to the national convention are split 99 for Obama and 94 for Clinton.
Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said the state's delegate allocation plan was approved by the DNC.
Smith said he's not filing the challenge in some last-ditch bid to boost Clinton. Rather, he wants to see an end to the so-called Texas Two-Step. He estimated that Clinton would gain six delegates if the state's delegation were altered to reflect the results of the Texas primary.
"This isn't anti-Obama," Smith said. "This is anti-caucus process."
Complaints about Texas' crowded and chaotic primary process have spurred the state party to launch a committee to recommend changes.
In April, Smith filed several challenges to the results of local Senate district conventions that elected delegates to the state convention in Austin.
DNC spokeswoman Natalie Wyeth declined to comment Monday on the number of challenges received regarding the upcoming convention.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws committee last week charging that the makeup of the Texas delegation violated a DNC rule.
The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates in part by the results of the March 4 primary and partly by the results of precinct caucuses held around the state that evening.
That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule requiring that delegate selection "fairly reflects" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.
Hillary Clinton won the primary vote in Texas but Barack Obama did better in the precinct caucuses. Texas delegates going to the national convention are split 99 for Obama and 94 for Clinton.
Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said the state's delegate allocation plan was approved by the DNC.
Smith said he's not filing the challenge in some last-ditch bid to boost Clinton. Rather, he wants to see an end to the so-called Texas Two-Step. He estimated that Clinton would gain six delegates if the state's delegation were altered to reflect the results of the Texas primary.
"This isn't anti-Obama," Smith said. "This is anti-caucus process."
Complaints about Texas' crowded and chaotic primary process have spurred the state party to launch a committee to recommend changes.
In April, Smith filed several challenges to the results of local Senate district conventions that elected delegates to the state convention in Austin.
DNC spokeswoman Natalie Wyeth declined to comment Monday on the number of challenges received regarding the upcoming convention.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS - Op-Ed Columnist New York Times - June 20, 2008
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Read more in the New York Times
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Read more in the New York Times
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Clinton wins in Puerto Rico, CNN projects
CNN - Sunday, June 1, 2008SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton will win Puerto Rico's Democratic primary by a wide margin, CNN projects, giving her the larger share of the territory's 55 delegates.
With about 70 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Sen. Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Puerto Rico was "another great win" for the New York senator.
Clinton swept Obama in every major demographic group, including groups Obama generally wins, such as younger voters and higher income voters, according to CNN's exit polls.
Clinton's campaign has been arguing that a landslide victory would push her ahead in the popular vote and help her convince superdelegates to pick her instead of Obama.
To cross that threshold, she would need to win 65 percent of the vote with a turnout of at least 2 million people.
But Luis Hector, an elections official, said only 1.5 million ballots were printed.
CNN estimates turnout will be between 325,000 and 425,000.
"Most people in Puerto Rico, I would venture to guess, they are not even aware that there's a primary going on," said Luis Pabón-Roca, a local political analyst.
He said the political atmosphere on the island this week is subdued compared to the fever that sweeps the island before local elections.
Some poll workers in small towns started abandoning the polling stations because turnout was so low, he said.
Part of the reason for the lack of interest, he said, is because voters feel the primary isn't meaningful since Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the general election.
The Democratic and Republican parties run the primaries and caucuses, and they allow U.S. territories, such as the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to take part in the process.
With about 70 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton was leading Sen. Barack Obama by more than a 2-1 margin.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Puerto Rico was "another great win" for the New York senator.
Clinton swept Obama in every major demographic group, including groups Obama generally wins, such as younger voters and higher income voters, according to CNN's exit polls.
Clinton's campaign has been arguing that a landslide victory would push her ahead in the popular vote and help her convince superdelegates to pick her instead of Obama.
To cross that threshold, she would need to win 65 percent of the vote with a turnout of at least 2 million people.
But Luis Hector, an elections official, said only 1.5 million ballots were printed.
CNN estimates turnout will be between 325,000 and 425,000.
"Most people in Puerto Rico, I would venture to guess, they are not even aware that there's a primary going on," said Luis Pabón-Roca, a local political analyst.
He said the political atmosphere on the island this week is subdued compared to the fever that sweeps the island before local elections.
Some poll workers in small towns started abandoning the polling stations because turnout was so low, he said.
Part of the reason for the lack of interest, he said, is because voters feel the primary isn't meaningful since Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the general election.
The Democratic and Republican parties run the primaries and caucuses, and they allow U.S. territories, such as the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to take part in the process.
DNC Decision on Seating MI and FL Delegates
Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy of the Hillary Clinton Campaign made the following statement regarding the May 31, 2008 decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee:
Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
