Sunday, June 22, 2008
Graph on McCain's Support of Bush
Last week we posted a short article about John McCain's support of Bush in the United States Senate. Below is a graph we prepared on the same subject. Anyone who wants to use it is free to do so, but we would appreciate credit being given to the Medina County Democratic Action Committee.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Obama's Decision on Public Financing Attacks Media's Influence
Most media outlets that have commented on Obama's decision to foresake public financing have expressed disapproval. The editorial that the Washington Post ran, entitled The Politics of Spare Change, is typical. Also typical was the comments made by Charles Gibson of ABC News on the nightly news program for June 20, 2008, when he wondered if Obama's decision was "unfair" and whether Americans would disapprove because American voters want a "level playing field." (Interestingly we have never heard of such sentiments from Gibson when Bush was raising millions of dollars to run in 2000 against his primary opponents, or when right-wing 527s were impugning Kerry's military service in 2004. Apparently he is only concerned when Democrats raise a lot of money to take on John McCain.)
So why does Obama's decision cause such media concern? The media would have you believe that it is because it is concerned about the influence of big money in the political system, and that may very well be, but there are other reasons. One of them is the fact that the more money that a presidential candidate can raise to get his or her message out, the less influence the media has in the election.
When presidential candidates are limited in the amount of money they can raise and spend, it makes "free" media more important. There is an incentive for candidates to court media representatives to try and get free publicity.
This is because a political campaign is really an advertising process. Candidates have a message they want voters to hear and, hopefully, approve. If they are limited in what they can raise and spend on "paid" media, then free media becomes more important. If, however, they aren't limited, then paid media takes on more importance and free media loses importance.
From a candidate's perspective, free media is always more problematic than paid media because the candidate has much less control over free media. Thus, while there is an incentive to get free media, it always comes with a risk.
Look at it this way: The media is in business to make money. Media representatives work for profit-making organizations. It helps their employers if there is less competition from political advertisers because it makes their product, political reporting, more valuable. It also plays into their sense of self-importance.
Obama's decision affects the media's power and influence. Of course they aren't going to like it, and of course, they are going to tell you that their concern has nothing to do with their loss of power. They can say that, but we don't have to believe it.
So why does Obama's decision cause such media concern? The media would have you believe that it is because it is concerned about the influence of big money in the political system, and that may very well be, but there are other reasons. One of them is the fact that the more money that a presidential candidate can raise to get his or her message out, the less influence the media has in the election.
When presidential candidates are limited in the amount of money they can raise and spend, it makes "free" media more important. There is an incentive for candidates to court media representatives to try and get free publicity.
This is because a political campaign is really an advertising process. Candidates have a message they want voters to hear and, hopefully, approve. If they are limited in what they can raise and spend on "paid" media, then free media becomes more important. If, however, they aren't limited, then paid media takes on more importance and free media loses importance.
From a candidate's perspective, free media is always more problematic than paid media because the candidate has much less control over free media. Thus, while there is an incentive to get free media, it always comes with a risk.
Look at it this way: The media is in business to make money. Media representatives work for profit-making organizations. It helps their employers if there is less competition from political advertisers because it makes their product, political reporting, more valuable. It also plays into their sense of self-importance.
Obama's decision affects the media's power and influence. Of course they aren't going to like it, and of course, they are going to tell you that their concern has nothing to do with their loss of power. They can say that, but we don't have to believe it.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We Won't Be Swift-Boated Again
Barack Obama's decision not to accept public financing of his presidential campaign means that it will be much harder to Swift-Boat his campaign. The reason is that his campaign will have the resources to immediately respond and won't have to wait for Federal funds to be distributed between the time of his nomination and the time of the election.
In 2004 John Kerry agreed to accept Federal funding and, once he was nominated, couldn't spend the money he had raised for the primary campaign on television ads. He had to wait until the Federal Elections Commission distributed Federal funds to his campaign. Not suprisingly, that was the the exact time frame of the supposed independent group, "Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth" ran their ads.
Now, because of Obama's success in raising money, that kind of tactic will be much harder to duplicate. Now, if those kinds of ads are run, Obama will have the resources to quickly respond. This is just one more indication that he has learned the lessons of the 2000 and the 2004 campaigns.
In 2004 John Kerry agreed to accept Federal funding and, once he was nominated, couldn't spend the money he had raised for the primary campaign on television ads. He had to wait until the Federal Elections Commission distributed Federal funds to his campaign. Not suprisingly, that was the the exact time frame of the supposed independent group, "Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth" ran their ads.
Now, because of Obama's success in raising money, that kind of tactic will be much harder to duplicate. Now, if those kinds of ads are run, Obama will have the resources to quickly respond. This is just one more indication that he has learned the lessons of the 2000 and the 2004 campaigns.
So you're running for office...
A winning campaign plans ahead. That's why this post is timely and important for your race. In 2009.
Local elections happen in the "off-year" elections. That means city council members, some mayors, some municipal judges, municipal clerks, school boards, educational service center boards, and other municipal elections are on the ballot.
Now is the perfect time to start thinking about your run for office next year- I'm going to lay out some of the preliminary things you should accomplish during the coming months.
First things first:
1. Gather Information: You'll need to get two kinds of data together: public and personal.
Public: Go to your local board of elections- you're going to need to get some documents there. Medina County, for example, doesn't have any previous municipal election results listed on the internet. To my knowledge, no local board of elections has financial data online.
Get these documents:
- Election Results from the previous cycles. You'll want to get precinct by precinct results from the previous elections involving the position you're looking at. The last two times the position has been up is more than sufficient.
-Filing Deadlines for the position you're looking for. What are the requirements? How many signatures do you need to have? When do the petitions have to be turned in? Strategically, you may not want to pull petitions just yet- but you need to know what time frames you're working toward.
-Voter Files (you may be able to get this from your local party as well) with the registrations for your entire area. In "off-year" elections, you have to make sure you're hitting the voters who will definitely vote.
-Financial Data. Pull up any and all information on your potential opponents either in a primary or a general election. Pull up information on any local clubs (example: Lodi City Libertarian Club) that might be helping to fund a candidate.
-Other Considerations: be sure to find out what your district encompasses. Some school districts are not equal to the municipal areas and some municipal areas have pockets of townships.
Personal:
- People you know. Make a list of all the people you know on a spreadsheet. Get out lists of who you send holiday cards to, wedding guests, anything that you can think of. This is critical. It doesn't matter if they don't live in your city. This should also include any political contacts. All you know. Everybody. Don't skip anyone.
- Groups you're involved in. What kind of organizations are you involved in? If you're not involved in any, start getting out there. You need to be involved in the community you're planning to run in.
- Lists of party donors. Get any information you can about frequently donors in the Democratic Party in your county and in your city. Typically, these are your secondary donors including like minded groups like labor unions, progressive groups, etc.
2. Planning
-Materials: These will make your life easier. Buy a large calendar, get a map of the area you're campaigning in (broken down into precincts even!), at least one clipboard, have a spreadsheet program that you know how to use, and some envelopes/stamps.
-Media Costs: How much do newspaper ads cost in your area? How much do signs cost? What about mailings and literature? Figure these things out!
-Making the overall plan: This is going to brush over what can be a complicated process with a simple goal: how many votes do I need to win and how many times do I need to get my message to a voter to get their vote? Think: ideally I'd have a mailing at these times or I'll hit the doors this many times. Write it on the calendar.
-Make the Budget: This is also simplifying the process: but make a spreadsheet of the things that you wanted to do when you made your plan- place the costs next to it. What's the total? That's your fund raising goal. Place everything possible on here, you can take out things later if the money isn't coming in.
3. Action
-Get Involved!
-Work on campaigns now- pick a race that gets you knocking on doors and meeting people. The race that will help you the most ISN'T for President. It's a local race involving local issues. Also, if you help get someone elected to a county office they will still be around when you're running next year. No matter what amount you help Barack Obama in 2008, he won't be around to hit on doors for your school board race in 2009.
- Join community groups- being involved in local community groups will help you meet contacts and network. This is about the number of people that will vote for you and if you know more people you know more votes. Plus, this can be fun. Join a community service organization, or even one that relates to a hobby of yours. Just be smart- you can't put your membership in NORML on a campaign flyer.
-With the Democratic Party- is there a mailing list? Are there precinct chairs in your city? Is the party having an event coming up? Make appearances and network. If the first time you meet the democratic party in your county and city is when you start running and ask for help and money... don't be shocked if they're less than willing to support you.
-Remember that list of names? Keep adding to it. When you meet someone new...place them on it.
-Open a committee/fundraising- Depending on the amount of money you need and your budget, you may want to open a fundraising committee sooner rather than later. Find a treasurer and send out a mailer using the envelopes and stamps you bought that lets the people you know (remember that list?) know you're thinking of running and you'll need their help.
Summary: You've got to plan now to run in the future. It's like any business, sports team, or relationship. You need planning. A campaign is not magic- it's a strategic marketing campaign. Any questions? Or if you want to run- make a comment on this post or email MCDAC and let us know.
Local elections happen in the "off-year" elections. That means city council members, some mayors, some municipal judges, municipal clerks, school boards, educational service center boards, and other municipal elections are on the ballot.
Now is the perfect time to start thinking about your run for office next year- I'm going to lay out some of the preliminary things you should accomplish during the coming months.
First things first:
1. Gather Information: You'll need to get two kinds of data together: public and personal.
Public: Go to your local board of elections- you're going to need to get some documents there. Medina County, for example, doesn't have any previous municipal election results listed on the internet. To my knowledge, no local board of elections has financial data online.
Get these documents:
- Election Results from the previous cycles. You'll want to get precinct by precinct results from the previous elections involving the position you're looking at. The last two times the position has been up is more than sufficient.
-Filing Deadlines for the position you're looking for. What are the requirements? How many signatures do you need to have? When do the petitions have to be turned in? Strategically, you may not want to pull petitions just yet- but you need to know what time frames you're working toward.
-Voter Files (you may be able to get this from your local party as well) with the registrations for your entire area. In "off-year" elections, you have to make sure you're hitting the voters who will definitely vote.
-Financial Data. Pull up any and all information on your potential opponents either in a primary or a general election. Pull up information on any local clubs (example: Lodi City Libertarian Club) that might be helping to fund a candidate.
-Other Considerations: be sure to find out what your district encompasses. Some school districts are not equal to the municipal areas and some municipal areas have pockets of townships.
Personal:
- People you know. Make a list of all the people you know on a spreadsheet. Get out lists of who you send holiday cards to, wedding guests, anything that you can think of. This is critical. It doesn't matter if they don't live in your city. This should also include any political contacts. All you know. Everybody. Don't skip anyone.
- Groups you're involved in. What kind of organizations are you involved in? If you're not involved in any, start getting out there. You need to be involved in the community you're planning to run in.
- Lists of party donors. Get any information you can about frequently donors in the Democratic Party in your county and in your city. Typically, these are your secondary donors including like minded groups like labor unions, progressive groups, etc.
2. Planning
-Materials: These will make your life easier. Buy a large calendar, get a map of the area you're campaigning in (broken down into precincts even!), at least one clipboard, have a spreadsheet program that you know how to use, and some envelopes/stamps.
-Media Costs: How much do newspaper ads cost in your area? How much do signs cost? What about mailings and literature? Figure these things out!
-Making the overall plan: This is going to brush over what can be a complicated process with a simple goal: how many votes do I need to win and how many times do I need to get my message to a voter to get their vote? Think: ideally I'd have a mailing at these times or I'll hit the doors this many times. Write it on the calendar.
-Make the Budget: This is also simplifying the process: but make a spreadsheet of the things that you wanted to do when you made your plan- place the costs next to it. What's the total? That's your fund raising goal. Place everything possible on here, you can take out things later if the money isn't coming in.
3. Action
-Get Involved!
-Work on campaigns now- pick a race that gets you knocking on doors and meeting people. The race that will help you the most ISN'T for President. It's a local race involving local issues. Also, if you help get someone elected to a county office they will still be around when you're running next year. No matter what amount you help Barack Obama in 2008, he won't be around to hit on doors for your school board race in 2009.
- Join community groups- being involved in local community groups will help you meet contacts and network. This is about the number of people that will vote for you and if you know more people you know more votes. Plus, this can be fun. Join a community service organization, or even one that relates to a hobby of yours. Just be smart- you can't put your membership in NORML on a campaign flyer.
-With the Democratic Party- is there a mailing list? Are there precinct chairs in your city? Is the party having an event coming up? Make appearances and network. If the first time you meet the democratic party in your county and city is when you start running and ask for help and money... don't be shocked if they're less than willing to support you.
-Remember that list of names? Keep adding to it. When you meet someone new...place them on it.
-Open a committee/fundraising- Depending on the amount of money you need and your budget, you may want to open a fundraising committee sooner rather than later. Find a treasurer and send out a mailer using the envelopes and stamps you bought that lets the people you know (remember that list?) know you're thinking of running and you'll need their help.
Summary: You've got to plan now to run in the future. It's like any business, sports team, or relationship. You need planning. A campaign is not magic- it's a strategic marketing campaign. Any questions? Or if you want to run- make a comment on this post or email MCDAC and let us know.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
MCDAC Survey on Clinton for VP
We surveyed the readers of our weekly email newsletter on whether they favored or opposed Hillary Clinton being the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. By a margin of 57.4% to 37.5% they favored Senator Clinton being the VP nominee.
Every time we run a survey on Barack or Clinton, we find that our readers have very definite feelings about them. This survey was no exception.
Below are some comments from our readers who participated in this survey:
She knows what our country needs to surivive
I think Obama should go his own way. Many people were attracted to Barak because he is a change from the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
We know nothing about this man. She should be her own WOMAN and stay away from him.
She needs to fight all the way to the convention.
I would prefer Hillary-Obama, but if I can't have it, the opposite would do, and be precedent setting!
This is the ONLY way Obama will have any kind of a chance of winning.
IF he will give her a major role in his administration and she can follow his lead - it would be a win/win for the country. And WJC can't be involved.
She should be president/he, vice president. Then it would work...oh my how the world would change.
It is the only way I will vote for Obama. I just don't like the guy.
Many people have called our office and will not vote or switch to R. So if they are both on ticket perhaps It will be a good thing
As a Barack fan, I was in favor of Hillary being on the ticket, but with this party threatening behavior of the last day, I think she should be tossed
bad idea!
It's the only way they will get my vote.
NO, she has not improved her negatives. She will cost more votes than she will gain. She and Bill have been too negative and given the RNC material
An excellent team!!! They both shared much of the same ideas and hopes.
That would not balance the ticket, Obama needs someone with strong executive skills, a CEO or a general.
Definitely not. She is a blue dog Democrat. Barbara Boxer would be a better choice or Dennis Kucinich !
Why not, it's seems like a winning ticket to me. It's a good way to bring the party together and to draw out votes from many who never voted before.
It's possibly the only way I'd vote for Obama. And I know many other Democrats who feel that way.
Unfortunately, racism and sexism are real. So we will need to add a white male to the ticket.
Still would prefer it the other way around to give him some actual experience and training, but hope he is smart enough to do this! You go, girl
ABSOLUTELY NO. BARACK must be free to take the world in a new direction without the CLINTONS. She IS NOT the FIRST woman to run for president!
John Edwards.
Of course she'll "consider" the vice presidency. Screw her!
Their agendas compliment each other.Together they can win this election and undo what has been done in the last 8 years.I do not want a 3rd Bush term.
Although I would rather that she was named Secretary of State.
Those two together would give us the best of both worlds, and hopefully, Hillary could negotiate for a strong VP role.
Together you're looking at over 40 million votes. And Bill should be included. 3 heads are better than none (GWBush).
It would be better of it was Hillary P and Obama VP. stacy414@yahoo.com
As she said: Remember Bobby!
That is probably the only way he can beat McCain. She has a lot of backing. Lot of people don't care for Obama.
I think it would be great. We need to beat the "R's" and get this great country new leadership.
ABSOLUTELY! She will then have the chance to truly show Americans what a great leader she will be.
I voted in favor, with this caveat: Former President Clinton must give up his investment dealings with foreign nations. And he must be reined in.
This is Obama's decision. It seems like she is forcing herself on him. I loved the Clintons back in the 90's. I now have grown tired of them.
I still want a woman for Pres in my lifetime, but I guess VP will have to do. I still hold hope that those super delegates will change their minds!
Would go against everything Obama has campaigned on over the last nine months.
I favor Clinton for VP. This is what the county needs. A historic time for all American's. Change come's with time and America is forever changing.
It's up to Obama.
He needs her for five reasons: Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, Florida!
I think she needs to run until the convention. She hasn't lost it yet.
The selection of Hillary as his running-mate is the ONLY way that I will vote for Barack as President. Without her, I do not intend to vote at all.
We can at least get that one step closer to having a female President. I think they could be a great team.
Too divisive and her illegal commodities deal will come back to haunt her. There are at least two highly qualified lady governors who would be great.
She has the poplular vote. I will vote for McCain before I vote for Obama for President.
Selling out!! Is there no pride or character left in our leaders? Picture dinner with Bill, Wright & Farakan? And i am a Hillary supporter!!!
of course it is up to obama to pick his running mate but if he feels comfortable with so do
Wouldn't it be great to have them both?
Needs his own person. Not someone with an agenda.
only way to unite the party and get the women who support Hillary to vote in November
Hillary should be the VP and then tackle health care
Hillary as VP would "accomodate" those (like me) who voted for her in the primary. Barack will be elected with Hillary on board!
If we can't have Hilary AND Bill. We'll take Hilary any way we can. What a strong ticket!
A Vice Presidential candidate virtually means nothing once the candidate is elected and becomes president- help for democratic image during election
This would become the "Dream Team".
I oppose, not because I have any particular dislike for her, but because I think another VP candidate might be more help in defeating John McCain.
Unite the party!
I favor assuming this will capture most of Clinton supporters for Obama and a win in November. Any other VP option that can provide this unity?
Obana & Clinton would probably be the best democratic team to win the presidency
Slightly favor. With or without her I think we are facing a tougher fight than most folks do. Like it or not, the short road to unity is through her.
It would never work, she would never take back seat to Obama nor would Obama be able to handle her. lcole.
I think it would be a marriage from hell,with obama as the DEVIL!!
Sounds like the dream ticket to me. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on policy issues. It may be the only way to unite the Democrats.
No way. He is the candidate of change, she represents status quo. She brings nothing to the ticket. She should stick with the Senate.
let's move on. it's time to get past the clintons.
If this is true NOW is the time to put it together so the Democratic voters can support them both in November. Seems like a "no brainer" to me.
United we stand, divided we fall....
I said it before: Dick Cheney has been running this country for the past 7+ years...
I would rather Hillary be President, but the only way I will vote for Barack is if she is on the ticket.
It would be something between a "dream ticket" and a marriage made in hell. It would probably win the presidency, though.
I have been wrong about VP candidates before, but can't see this happening. Although this is a great ticket, both have too many negs. Hope for Dodd.
If JFK could take LBJ in 1960 to win the presidency, then Obama can take Clinton in 2008.
I want Obama to pick whoever will do the most to help him win in November.
That's the only way Barack Obama will get my vote. Although I'm a lifelong Democrat, I'll vote for McCain in November otherwise.
She has passionate supporters who will guarantee a win in Nov, if Barack does not team with her, he might still win but we'll lose down ticket races
I grudgingly support it, for the good of working towards getting the majority in november only.
She's run a despicable "kitchen sink" campaign. She has purposely weakened Obama for the GE. That said, I would still vote for him with her on ticket.
Now she is talking the talk....when she should have walked the walk.....Perhaps John Edwards?
Dont trust the Clintons!
Every time we run a survey on Barack or Clinton, we find that our readers have very definite feelings about them. This survey was no exception.
Below are some comments from our readers who participated in this survey:
She knows what our country needs to surivive
I think Obama should go his own way. Many people were attracted to Barak because he is a change from the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
We know nothing about this man. She should be her own WOMAN and stay away from him.
She needs to fight all the way to the convention.
I would prefer Hillary-Obama, but if I can't have it, the opposite would do, and be precedent setting!
This is the ONLY way Obama will have any kind of a chance of winning.
IF he will give her a major role in his administration and she can follow his lead - it would be a win/win for the country. And WJC can't be involved.
She should be president/he, vice president. Then it would work...oh my how the world would change.
It is the only way I will vote for Obama. I just don't like the guy.
Many people have called our office and will not vote or switch to R. So if they are both on ticket perhaps It will be a good thing
As a Barack fan, I was in favor of Hillary being on the ticket, but with this party threatening behavior of the last day, I think she should be tossed
bad idea!
It's the only way they will get my vote.
NO, she has not improved her negatives. She will cost more votes than she will gain. She and Bill have been too negative and given the RNC material
An excellent team!!! They both shared much of the same ideas and hopes.
That would not balance the ticket, Obama needs someone with strong executive skills, a CEO or a general.
Definitely not. She is a blue dog Democrat. Barbara Boxer would be a better choice or Dennis Kucinich !
Why not, it's seems like a winning ticket to me. It's a good way to bring the party together and to draw out votes from many who never voted before.
It's possibly the only way I'd vote for Obama. And I know many other Democrats who feel that way.
Unfortunately, racism and sexism are real. So we will need to add a white male to the ticket.
Still would prefer it the other way around to give him some actual experience and training, but hope he is smart enough to do this! You go, girl
ABSOLUTELY NO. BARACK must be free to take the world in a new direction without the CLINTONS. She IS NOT the FIRST woman to run for president!
John Edwards.
Of course she'll "consider" the vice presidency. Screw her!
Their agendas compliment each other.Together they can win this election and undo what has been done in the last 8 years.I do not want a 3rd Bush term.
Although I would rather that she was named Secretary of State.
Those two together would give us the best of both worlds, and hopefully, Hillary could negotiate for a strong VP role.
Together you're looking at over 40 million votes. And Bill should be included. 3 heads are better than none (GWBush).
It would be better of it was Hillary P and Obama VP. stacy414@yahoo.com
As she said: Remember Bobby!
That is probably the only way he can beat McCain. She has a lot of backing. Lot of people don't care for Obama.
I think it would be great. We need to beat the "R's" and get this great country new leadership.
ABSOLUTELY! She will then have the chance to truly show Americans what a great leader she will be.
I voted in favor, with this caveat: Former President Clinton must give up his investment dealings with foreign nations. And he must be reined in.
This is Obama's decision. It seems like she is forcing herself on him. I loved the Clintons back in the 90's. I now have grown tired of them.
I still want a woman for Pres in my lifetime, but I guess VP will have to do. I still hold hope that those super delegates will change their minds!
Would go against everything Obama has campaigned on over the last nine months.
I favor Clinton for VP. This is what the county needs. A historic time for all American's. Change come's with time and America is forever changing.
It's up to Obama.
He needs her for five reasons: Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, Florida!
I think she needs to run until the convention. She hasn't lost it yet.
The selection of Hillary as his running-mate is the ONLY way that I will vote for Barack as President. Without her, I do not intend to vote at all.
We can at least get that one step closer to having a female President. I think they could be a great team.
Too divisive and her illegal commodities deal will come back to haunt her. There are at least two highly qualified lady governors who would be great.
She has the poplular vote. I will vote for McCain before I vote for Obama for President.
Selling out!! Is there no pride or character left in our leaders? Picture dinner with Bill, Wright & Farakan? And i am a Hillary supporter!!!
of course it is up to obama to pick his running mate but if he feels comfortable with so do
Wouldn't it be great to have them both?
Needs his own person. Not someone with an agenda.
only way to unite the party and get the women who support Hillary to vote in November
Hillary should be the VP and then tackle health care
Hillary as VP would "accomodate" those (like me) who voted for her in the primary. Barack will be elected with Hillary on board!
If we can't have Hilary AND Bill. We'll take Hilary any way we can. What a strong ticket!
A Vice Presidential candidate virtually means nothing once the candidate is elected and becomes president- help for democratic image during election
This would become the "Dream Team".
I oppose, not because I have any particular dislike for her, but because I think another VP candidate might be more help in defeating John McCain.
Unite the party!
I favor assuming this will capture most of Clinton supporters for Obama and a win in November. Any other VP option that can provide this unity?
Obana & Clinton would probably be the best democratic team to win the presidency
Slightly favor. With or without her I think we are facing a tougher fight than most folks do. Like it or not, the short road to unity is through her.
It would never work, she would never take back seat to Obama nor would Obama be able to handle her. lcole.
I think it would be a marriage from hell,with obama as the DEVIL!!
Sounds like the dream ticket to me. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical on policy issues. It may be the only way to unite the Democrats.
No way. He is the candidate of change, she represents status quo. She brings nothing to the ticket. She should stick with the Senate.
let's move on. it's time to get past the clintons.
If this is true NOW is the time to put it together so the Democratic voters can support them both in November. Seems like a "no brainer" to me.
United we stand, divided we fall....
I said it before: Dick Cheney has been running this country for the past 7+ years...
I would rather Hillary be President, but the only way I will vote for Barack is if she is on the ticket.
It would be something between a "dream ticket" and a marriage made in hell. It would probably win the presidency, though.
I have been wrong about VP candidates before, but can't see this happening. Although this is a great ticket, both have too many negs. Hope for Dodd.
If JFK could take LBJ in 1960 to win the presidency, then Obama can take Clinton in 2008.
I want Obama to pick whoever will do the most to help him win in November.
That's the only way Barack Obama will get my vote. Although I'm a lifelong Democrat, I'll vote for McCain in November otherwise.
She has passionate supporters who will guarantee a win in Nov, if Barack does not team with her, he might still win but we'll lose down ticket races
I grudgingly support it, for the good of working towards getting the majority in november only.
She's run a despicable "kitchen sink" campaign. She has purposely weakened Obama for the GE. That said, I would still vote for him with her on ticket.
Now she is talking the talk....when she should have walked the walk.....Perhaps John Edwards?
Dont trust the Clintons!
A Maverick He Ain't
One of the myths that John McCain has been able to sell to the public through the mainstream media is the idea that he is some sort of maverick. Like with a lot of myths, however, this one doesn't bear close scrutiny.
Congressional Quarterly did an analysis of John McCain's votes in the Senate going back to the first year of the Bush Presidency. Over the last eight years, McCain has supported Bush 90.625% of the time with his Senate votes. The lowest percentage came in 2005, when he "only" supported Bush 77% of the time. So far in 2008, as of May 15, 2008 he has supported Bush 100% of the time.
So, given the fact that McCain has supported Bush over 90% of the time, why does the media keep referring to him as a "maverick"? Contrary to what liberals may believe, it is not their preference for Republicans. It is because most reporters and political commentators are part of a herd. Very few of them are original thinkers. Most of them just follow the lead of the rest of their group. The fact that they report it that way, however, doesn't make it so.
Congressional Quarterly did an analysis of John McCain's votes in the Senate going back to the first year of the Bush Presidency. Over the last eight years, McCain has supported Bush 90.625% of the time with his Senate votes. The lowest percentage came in 2005, when he "only" supported Bush 77% of the time. So far in 2008, as of May 15, 2008 he has supported Bush 100% of the time.
So, given the fact that McCain has supported Bush over 90% of the time, why does the media keep referring to him as a "maverick"? Contrary to what liberals may believe, it is not their preference for Republicans. It is because most reporters and political commentators are part of a herd. Very few of them are original thinkers. Most of them just follow the lead of the rest of their group. The fact that they report it that way, however, doesn't make it so.
Friday, June 13, 2008
McCain Quotes on Iraq War
So, which one of these predictions from John McCain turned out to be true?
“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]
“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]
“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]
“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]
“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]
“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]
“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]
“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]
“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Barack Obama's Nomination: The Democratic Party Comes Full Circle
From the time of its formation until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic Party was the political opponent of the African-American community. Its leaders championed slavery in the 1800s and helped start the Civil War over the issue. Its leaders, after the end of Reconstruction in 1876, dominated the states of the Old Confederacy and passed infamous Jim Crow laws. Laws that promoted segregation and deprived African-Americans of their political and civil rights.
Things started to change with the nomination of FDR. African-Americans in the north began voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in their political history. This trend continued at the 1948 Democratic convention with the adoption of a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform and the walk-out of several Southern delegates led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.
Even in 1960, however, African-Americans were skeptical of the Democratic nominee for president. While Kennedy did get around 60% of the African-American vote, it took Lyndon B. Johnson and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to convince African-Americans they could trust the Democratic Party.
During that process, the Democratic Party lost its hold on the states of the Old Confederacy. It saw the Republicans repudiate their own past and go from being the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Ol' Strom Thurmond. In so doing, the Republicans won 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. The GOP won these elections by combining the 11 states of the Old Confederacy with the farm belt states and enough border and industrial midwest states to win the electoral college.
It was fitting that a Democratic President be the one to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, given the fact that for most of the preceding 100 years, Democrats had been the party of white racists. It is also fitting, however, that the first African-American candidate for president nominated by a major political party be a Democrat. This is because, since 1968, the Democratic Party has done the most to advance the political power of African-Americans.
In about 100 years, the Democratic Party has gone from being the party of white racists to the party that embodies the hopes and aspirations of African-Americans. Now we will see whether it can get Barack Obama elected president.
Things started to change with the nomination of FDR. African-Americans in the north began voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in their political history. This trend continued at the 1948 Democratic convention with the adoption of a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform and the walk-out of several Southern delegates led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.
Even in 1960, however, African-Americans were skeptical of the Democratic nominee for president. While Kennedy did get around 60% of the African-American vote, it took Lyndon B. Johnson and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to convince African-Americans they could trust the Democratic Party.
During that process, the Democratic Party lost its hold on the states of the Old Confederacy. It saw the Republicans repudiate their own past and go from being the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Ol' Strom Thurmond. In so doing, the Republicans won 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections. The GOP won these elections by combining the 11 states of the Old Confederacy with the farm belt states and enough border and industrial midwest states to win the electoral college.
It was fitting that a Democratic President be the one to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, given the fact that for most of the preceding 100 years, Democrats had been the party of white racists. It is also fitting, however, that the first African-American candidate for president nominated by a major political party be a Democrat. This is because, since 1968, the Democratic Party has done the most to advance the political power of African-Americans.
In about 100 years, the Democratic Party has gone from being the party of white racists to the party that embodies the hopes and aspirations of African-Americans. Now we will see whether it can get Barack Obama elected president.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Are Caucuses Really Democratic?
Huffington Post has a great article up on how Harold Ickes, one of the key advisers to Hillary Clinton, was heavily involved in getting the Democratic Party to adopt reforms that have allowed Barack Obama to do well in 2008. Besides pointing out the irony of all this, the article also raises some interesting questions about the use of caucuses in the Democratic Party's nominating process.
This is from the article:
As of June 2, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama had a 157 delegate vote lead over Clinton, 2072 to 1915.
In the 14 states that picked some or all of their delegates through caucus systems this year, Obama won 400 delegates to Clinton's 193, a 207 delegate advantage that more than accounts for his overall delegate lead.
An analysis (pdf) published on TalkLeft found that total Democratic voter participation in the caucus states amounted to 1.1 million people, compared to the 32.4 million voters in Democratic primaries, a ratio of 30 to one. Caucus participants made up 3.2 percent of the total of 33.5 million primary voters and caucus goers combined.
In contrast to the relatively close results in most primary states, Obama won many of the caucus states by huge margins, often substantially exceeding 60 percent. As a consequence, he piled up large numbers of delegates in the relatively low turnout contests.
The TalkLeft analysis noted that Clinton won 11 more delegates than Obama in the New Jersey primary, which she won by 112,128 votes, while Obama won 12 more delegates than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses which he won by 13,225 votes. Similarly, Clinton netted 12 delegates by winning the Pennsylvania primary by 214,115 votes, while Obama came out ahead by 14 delegates by winning the Kansas caucuses by 17,710 votes.
Charles Stewart III of MIT did a separate analysis of primaries and caucuses with results similar to those of the Talk Left study, finding that in primary states, Clinton won 1,557.5 delegates, 16 more delegates than Obama's 1,521.5. In caucus states, Stewart found, Obama won 366 delegates, or 191 more than Clinton's 175.
If Barack Obama goes on to win the nomination and the presidency, then there will not be any great desire to change the system. For the next four years, Obama will control the Democratic National Committee and will have no incentive to change a system that nominated him. If he wins the nomination, but doesn't win the presidency, however, then there will be a lot of discussion about whether we should change the nominating process to reduce or eliminate the role of caucuses in determining the nominee.
This is from the article:
As of June 2, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama had a 157 delegate vote lead over Clinton, 2072 to 1915.
In the 14 states that picked some or all of their delegates through caucus systems this year, Obama won 400 delegates to Clinton's 193, a 207 delegate advantage that more than accounts for his overall delegate lead.
An analysis (pdf) published on TalkLeft found that total Democratic voter participation in the caucus states amounted to 1.1 million people, compared to the 32.4 million voters in Democratic primaries, a ratio of 30 to one. Caucus participants made up 3.2 percent of the total of 33.5 million primary voters and caucus goers combined.
In contrast to the relatively close results in most primary states, Obama won many of the caucus states by huge margins, often substantially exceeding 60 percent. As a consequence, he piled up large numbers of delegates in the relatively low turnout contests.
The TalkLeft analysis noted that Clinton won 11 more delegates than Obama in the New Jersey primary, which she won by 112,128 votes, while Obama won 12 more delegates than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses which he won by 13,225 votes. Similarly, Clinton netted 12 delegates by winning the Pennsylvania primary by 214,115 votes, while Obama came out ahead by 14 delegates by winning the Kansas caucuses by 17,710 votes.
Charles Stewart III of MIT did a separate analysis of primaries and caucuses with results similar to those of the Talk Left study, finding that in primary states, Clinton won 1,557.5 delegates, 16 more delegates than Obama's 1,521.5. In caucus states, Stewart found, Obama won 366 delegates, or 191 more than Clinton's 175.
If Barack Obama goes on to win the nomination and the presidency, then there will not be any great desire to change the system. For the next four years, Obama will control the Democratic National Committee and will have no incentive to change a system that nominated him. If he wins the nomination, but doesn't win the presidency, however, then there will be a lot of discussion about whether we should change the nominating process to reduce or eliminate the role of caucuses in determining the nominee.
Monday, June 02, 2008
This is Momentum?
Since March 1, 2008, there have been 12 primaries. During that period Clinton has won eight primaries while Obama has only won four. If you are an Obama supporter, this is not exactly how you wanted the primaries to end.
Information listed below was obtained from www.cnn.com. Only primaries in which both Clinton and Obama appeared on the ballot were counted. Florida fits into that category while Michigan does not.
Information listed below was obtained from www.cnn.com. Only primaries in which both Clinton and Obama appeared on the ballot were counted. Florida fits into that category while Michigan does not.
Did Clinton "Have" to Vote for the Iraq War Resolution?
One argument that women who support Hillary Clinton advance for why she voted the way she did on the Iraq War Resolution is that she "had" to vote that way in order to be a credible presidential candidate in 2008. The argument goes that since the public has questions over whether a woman can be "tough" enough to be president, she could not afford to vote against the Resolution because it would make her seem "weak." Thus, even though she might not have trusted what Bush would do with the power given to him by the Resolution, she had to vote "Yea" to maintain her political credibility.
Frankly, that argument makes Clinton look very calculating. Not only does it make her look calculating, it makes her look calculating with the lives of other people's children. What it basically says is that Clinton was willing to send other people's children off to die or be wounded so that she could be a valid presidential candidate in 2008.
There is only one reason to vote to send American troops into combat and that is because you believe that such action is absolutely vital to the security of the United States. You don't vote to send other people's children off to be killed because it helps improve your chances to become president.
It would be better to say that she believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that removing them was absolutely essential to the security of the United States. Of course, that argument would be undercut by Clinton's own speech on the floor of the Senate when she claimed that she was voting for the resolution in order to strengthen Bush's hand diplomatically. The problem with that rationale is that it assumes that she was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when there is absolutely no evidence he deserved it.
Frankly, that argument makes Clinton look very calculating. Not only does it make her look calculating, it makes her look calculating with the lives of other people's children. What it basically says is that Clinton was willing to send other people's children off to die or be wounded so that she could be a valid presidential candidate in 2008.
There is only one reason to vote to send American troops into combat and that is because you believe that such action is absolutely vital to the security of the United States. You don't vote to send other people's children off to be killed because it helps improve your chances to become president.
It would be better to say that she believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that removing them was absolutely essential to the security of the United States. Of course, that argument would be undercut by Clinton's own speech on the floor of the Senate when she claimed that she was voting for the resolution in order to strengthen Bush's hand diplomatically. The problem with that rationale is that it assumes that she was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when there is absolutely no evidence he deserved it.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Who Would Your Neighbors Support: Clinton or Obama?
Last week MCDAC did a survey on our readers about which of the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates their neighbors would be more likely to support.
Of those readers who responded to our survey, 43.2% said Hillary Clinton, 25.9% said Barack Obama, 11.1% said neither, and 18.5% said either they weren't sure of they didn't know.
Comments on the survey appear below. Please note that the comments expressed below are not comments written by the officers of the MCDAC. The listing of these comments do not constitute an endorsement of any views expressed herein.
Are you kidding, I am surrounded by Republicans in my neighborhood. I love to irritate everyone with my Dem yard signs!
Six democrats will vote for Clinton, if she losses they will vote for McCain, one is undecided, and three won't vote if Obama wins the primary.
Only 5 Dems live in my neighborhood including my wife and I! Deny being "racist" but say they won't vote for Obama. Won't vote for McKain,say they won't vote at all-and this from life-long democrats! SCARES ME!
they won't vote for obama
This is a Republican who doesn't like McCain or Hillary. But, who knows for sure!
My voter canvass data had most of them "undecided" on the Presidential race as of early May.
To quote my moderate Republican neighbor: "If the Democrat is Hillary Clinton, I'm voting McCain. If it's Obama...I'd have to think about it."
don't know about my immediate neighbors, but my family and network of friends is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama
At this point, have not discussed any with them.
This includes my red neck friends!
So far in conversation around here it is equal
Barack started his political career in CHICAGO writing programs and caring for the destitute. Hillary has no experience in these arenas.
My neighbors are a diverse group. If not a repub, they would most likely vote for Obama.
Very, very strong support for Hillary.
My neighbors want to see change in our foreign policy and more tax dollars spent here at home.
My neighbor is a woman. There are more women than blacks that vote.
Keep this in mind...not that Democrats have a penchant for winning.
This is a hard one; there is still prejudice and an "anti-black" undercurrent among an older generation of voters.
Um, where I live, I'm surrounded by idiots that will probably vote for John McCain. Truly, they've said they would never vote for a black terrorist!
Hillary, with her destructive, negative, selfish campaign has lost sympathy with many voters
This is a 'Red' neighborhood.
Many, many,activists in Lorain county say they will not support Obama. I am one of the few people willing to switch to support.
But I think they will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.
my neighbors are racist, honestly.
Hillary has the connections to deal with the Congress. Obama has not been around long enough to build those relationships,
They all want Obama. I say:It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take a Clinton to clean up after his son.
My neighbors are a grade school, and the rest are Repugnantcans. You never are quite sure what they might do.
Many of my Independent and Soft Republican neighbors have expressed a firm interest in Barack Obama's campaign.
Most of my close friends and neighbors support Hillary Clinton and could not support Obama.
iT GIVE ME IMPRESION THAT oBAMA PROMESS TOO MUCH.
My neighbor will support a women before a black person because they are taking over everything.The blacks think that the white man owes them still.
We actually took a survey and 3 support Clinton and 2 support Obama. The ones behind us support McCain.
Of those readers who responded to our survey, 43.2% said Hillary Clinton, 25.9% said Barack Obama, 11.1% said neither, and 18.5% said either they weren't sure of they didn't know.
Comments on the survey appear below. Please note that the comments expressed below are not comments written by the officers of the MCDAC. The listing of these comments do not constitute an endorsement of any views expressed herein.
Are you kidding, I am surrounded by Republicans in my neighborhood. I love to irritate everyone with my Dem yard signs!
Six democrats will vote for Clinton, if she losses they will vote for McCain, one is undecided, and three won't vote if Obama wins the primary.
Only 5 Dems live in my neighborhood including my wife and I! Deny being "racist" but say they won't vote for Obama. Won't vote for McKain,say they won't vote at all-and this from life-long democrats! SCARES ME!
they won't vote for obama
This is a Republican who doesn't like McCain or Hillary. But, who knows for sure!
My voter canvass data had most of them "undecided" on the Presidential race as of early May.
To quote my moderate Republican neighbor: "If the Democrat is Hillary Clinton, I'm voting McCain. If it's Obama...I'd have to think about it."
don't know about my immediate neighbors, but my family and network of friends is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama
At this point, have not discussed any with them.
This includes my red neck friends!
So far in conversation around here it is equal
Barack started his political career in CHICAGO writing programs and caring for the destitute. Hillary has no experience in these arenas.
My neighbors are a diverse group. If not a repub, they would most likely vote for Obama.
Very, very strong support for Hillary.
My neighbors want to see change in our foreign policy and more tax dollars spent here at home.
My neighbor is a woman. There are more women than blacks that vote.
Keep this in mind...not that Democrats have a penchant for winning.
This is a hard one; there is still prejudice and an "anti-black" undercurrent among an older generation of voters.
Um, where I live, I'm surrounded by idiots that will probably vote for John McCain. Truly, they've said they would never vote for a black terrorist!
Hillary, with her destructive, negative, selfish campaign has lost sympathy with many voters
This is a 'Red' neighborhood.
Many, many,activists in Lorain county say they will not support Obama. I am one of the few people willing to switch to support.
But I think they will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.
my neighbors are racist, honestly.
Hillary has the connections to deal with the Congress. Obama has not been around long enough to build those relationships,
They all want Obama. I say:It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take a Clinton to clean up after his son.
My neighbors are a grade school, and the rest are Repugnantcans. You never are quite sure what they might do.
Many of my Independent and Soft Republican neighbors have expressed a firm interest in Barack Obama's campaign.
Most of my close friends and neighbors support Hillary Clinton and could not support Obama.
iT GIVE ME IMPRESION THAT oBAMA PROMESS TOO MUCH.
My neighbor will support a women before a black person because they are taking over everything.The blacks think that the white man owes them still.
We actually took a survey and 3 support Clinton and 2 support Obama. The ones behind us support McCain.
Friday, May 30, 2008
If Clinton Loses, It Won't Be Only About Sexism
Campaigns are emotional things, not only for the candidates, but also for their supporters. When you invest time and/or money in supporting a candidate, and that candidate loses, it hurts. When the candidate is running for the presidency, a vote that political commentator Mark Shields once called "the most emotional vote in American politics", it hurts more. So it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are not happy with what seems to be her probable defeat for the Democratic nomination.
The bitter feelings were probably inevitable when the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination became Obama and Clinton. African-American voters have been, since 1964, the most reliable demographic group of voters in the Democratic coalition. They vote usually around 90% for the Democratic presidential nominee.
White women are the next most reliable group in the coalition. A lot of party activists are women. They do the work that makes the party competitive in a lot of races.
An Obama/Clinton confrontation meant that the historic opportunity for one of these groups to elect a president was going to be lost. Further, it could mean the loss of an opportunity that won't come again for a long, long time. Right now it is hard to imagine either an African-American candidate or a woman candidate for the presidential nomination that will have the opportunities that Obama and Clinton had this year.
Given all of that, it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are looking for an explanation for her possible loss. A lot of them blame sexism, especially from the media and also from the Democratic Party's leadership.
There is no doubt that in many cases Hillary Clinton has been treated in a condescending and sexist manner by the national media. There is also no doubt that Obama, like Clinton, has made comments that were inappropriate and unfortunate. Those two things don't mean, however, that Obama wins are only about sexism.
Here's what's not sexist. It wasn't sexism that made Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It wasn't sexism that made her campaign ignore the states that have caucuses instead of primaries. It wasn't sexism that allowed Obama's campaign to do a better job of mastering the rules of the Democratic Party, as this article points out. It wasn't sexism that caused her to allow Mark Penn to establish control of her message until it was almost too late. It wasn't sexism that made her make remarks about her appeal to "hard-working Americans, white Americans", comments that seemed to suggest that only "white Americans" are hard working. It wasn't sexism that made her talk about being under sniper fire in Bosnia or about the RFK assassination. It wasn't sexism that caused hundred of thousands of Obama's supporters to make small donations to help fund his candidacy.
The fact of the matter is that Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton, which is why he has won more delegates than Clinton. She started out with more money, more support among elected Democrats and among Democratic Party leaders, better name recognition, and the advantage of having been through two national campaigns, plus a campaign in a very populous state. She also had a very dedicated group of volunteers supporting her. Even with all those advantages, however, she couldn't close the deal with Democratic primary voters. The cause of that failure lies more with her decisions than with sexism in the media or in politics.
The bitter feelings were probably inevitable when the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination became Obama and Clinton. African-American voters have been, since 1964, the most reliable demographic group of voters in the Democratic coalition. They vote usually around 90% for the Democratic presidential nominee.
White women are the next most reliable group in the coalition. A lot of party activists are women. They do the work that makes the party competitive in a lot of races.
An Obama/Clinton confrontation meant that the historic opportunity for one of these groups to elect a president was going to be lost. Further, it could mean the loss of an opportunity that won't come again for a long, long time. Right now it is hard to imagine either an African-American candidate or a woman candidate for the presidential nomination that will have the opportunities that Obama and Clinton had this year.
Given all of that, it is understandable that Clinton's supporters are looking for an explanation for her possible loss. A lot of them blame sexism, especially from the media and also from the Democratic Party's leadership.
There is no doubt that in many cases Hillary Clinton has been treated in a condescending and sexist manner by the national media. There is also no doubt that Obama, like Clinton, has made comments that were inappropriate and unfortunate. Those two things don't mean, however, that Obama wins are only about sexism.
Here's what's not sexist. It wasn't sexism that made Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. It wasn't sexism that made her campaign ignore the states that have caucuses instead of primaries. It wasn't sexism that allowed Obama's campaign to do a better job of mastering the rules of the Democratic Party, as this article points out. It wasn't sexism that caused her to allow Mark Penn to establish control of her message until it was almost too late. It wasn't sexism that made her make remarks about her appeal to "hard-working Americans, white Americans", comments that seemed to suggest that only "white Americans" are hard working. It wasn't sexism that made her talk about being under sniper fire in Bosnia or about the RFK assassination. It wasn't sexism that caused hundred of thousands of Obama's supporters to make small donations to help fund his candidacy.
The fact of the matter is that Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton, which is why he has won more delegates than Clinton. She started out with more money, more support among elected Democrats and among Democratic Party leaders, better name recognition, and the advantage of having been through two national campaigns, plus a campaign in a very populous state. She also had a very dedicated group of volunteers supporting her. Even with all those advantages, however, she couldn't close the deal with Democratic primary voters. The cause of that failure lies more with her decisions than with sexism in the media or in politics.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Why Doesn't Clinton Mention 1976?
At least twice in the last three months, Senator Hillary Clinton has mentioned the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy, which occurred in June of 1968, when discussing her reasoning for continuing her campaign. She also mentions the 1992 campaign of her husband and the then California Governor, Jerry Brown. What's interesting is that she doesn't mention the 1976 campaign, which also involved Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter.
In 1976 Carter had won several primaries when Jerry Brown jumped into the race. He ran off several primary wins, mainly in the western states. On June 8, 1976, both California and Ohio held their primaries. Carter won both of them. Shortly after those two victories, in fact, if memory serves, the next day, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly, head of the Illinois delegation, announced his support for Carter. His announcement, combined with the wins in California and Ohio, sealed the deal for Carter.
The 1976 example is actually better for Clinton than either of the other two examples. First of all, mentioning 1976 doesn't raise references with the events of 1968, which included both the assassination of Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, not to mention the events at the 1968 Democratic convention. Second, it is actually more apt to her present situation with the super-delegates. As set forth above, it wasn't just the combination of the June 8Th primary victories, but also the endorsement of Mayor Richard Daly. Thus, you had the expression of Democratic voters combined with the expression of a Democratic insider.
Why not use 1976 instead of 1968 when making her case for continuing her campaign? Like so many questions about her campaign, the failure to do so is puzzling. Perhaps it boils down to this, the Clinton operation is not as intelligent as we all thought.
In 1976 Carter had won several primaries when Jerry Brown jumped into the race. He ran off several primary wins, mainly in the western states. On June 8, 1976, both California and Ohio held their primaries. Carter won both of them. Shortly after those two victories, in fact, if memory serves, the next day, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly, head of the Illinois delegation, announced his support for Carter. His announcement, combined with the wins in California and Ohio, sealed the deal for Carter.
The 1976 example is actually better for Clinton than either of the other two examples. First of all, mentioning 1976 doesn't raise references with the events of 1968, which included both the assassination of Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, not to mention the events at the 1968 Democratic convention. Second, it is actually more apt to her present situation with the super-delegates. As set forth above, it wasn't just the combination of the June 8Th primary victories, but also the endorsement of Mayor Richard Daly. Thus, you had the expression of Democratic voters combined with the expression of a Democratic insider.
Why not use 1976 instead of 1968 when making her case for continuing her campaign? Like so many questions about her campaign, the failure to do so is puzzling. Perhaps it boils down to this, the Clinton operation is not as intelligent as we all thought.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
MCDAC Readers Think McCain's Age Legitimate Issue
MCDAC readers by a margin of 66.2% to 32.3% think that John McCain's age is a legitimate campaign issue. Below are some of the comments we received from our survey:
But don't lie about his age, he's only 71. And I'm 76 if anone cares.
There are positives and negatives to age that balance out. Excellent life experience and lots of relationships established. Health is only issue.
Yes, if only because he seems to be having a lot of "senior moments" lately. He can't seem to remember who's in charge in Iran without help!
It places a priority on who is his VP candidate.
The older a candidate, the more skewed their view is of today's world. I'd like someone that understands what's going on and why.
I am 60 and healthy but a President needs to be even younger and more vital. The job is too stressful. McCain will not survive even 1 term.
He currently has trouble with details, I can only imagine what he will be like in the next 4 years.
Age doesn't matter. He's too Republican to be President! But he is too John McCain!
It would be a mistake for Democrats to push this issue. The media will do that for us.
Age discrimination is the hidden travesty of our nation. John McCain's policies are the issue. There are many young republicans who support him.
Hillary or McCain. No inbetwain...
He is obviously physically fragile and a bit disjointed in his speaking. LET'S just put him in front of the cameras and he will appear a bit senile.
Despite the lengthening life span of Americans, McCain is too old to be considered for the most powerful position of Earth.
Bush proved you can be cluelesss and run the country
Experience is the issue
Churchill was PM of the UK when he was 80. Let the quarter-century age difference between McCain and Obama speak for itself.
R. Regan was proof of aging. blueberrymouse6@yahoo.com
He seams to be in good health and fit. We can't make age an issue. kpreachc@dishmail.net
Someone in her/his 70's should be at their intellectual peak but some people like McCain can go through their entire lives and no learn very much.
While I don't believe that age is an impediment to be successful on the job, I do think the challenges of the presidency rate a question about age.
I try to find ANY reason for him not to be president. That's the least of the reasons, but he is awfully old.
Age should be no more relevant than race or sex. Look at the individual, not the "ism."
He's just starting to show signs of dementia. It's subtle but it's there.
Reagan was too old and he had alzheimers. How do we know McCain won't develop that in the next couple of years. He better have a good VP if elected.
There have been great leaders of the past that were of an older age for their time. No matter who takes office, I think they will only be in one term
Because John McCain is an "old" 73. His cancer, his war injuries, etc.appear to leave him less strong than others of that age.
What scary person will the GOP put on the ticket as VP? Please, please no Cheney....(et al)
We need some one young to run this country,we do not need a Senior Citizen running this country again.Remember Reagan and Alzhimer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both his age & health areissues. He has not released his health report, and by all appearances the left side of his face appears to have problems
With due respect to the Senator, an American hero he is, however, too old to lead us in these challenging times. Evidence his confusing Iraq and Iran.
Is America to vote for an elderly President or his much younger Vice President?
Not age alone, but health history and recent performance give pause,
Not only is his age an issue, so is that look in his eyes that says "the lights are on, but nobody's home"!
Health, and policy decisions are far more important. Regardless of how sharp his mind may be, it's a biological issue: our bodies age and with age comes a slowdown and medical problems.
If Hiliary or Obama were his age, would they be too old. He wasn't too sharp when he was younger...what makes us think he could possibly be now?
John McCain may appear feisty, but he is mentally well past his peak. He is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
As is his health and military injuries
Ronald Reagan was younger than McCain in 1980, but by his second term, it was clear that he was distracted, and scandals like Iran-Contra happened.
It's one of the lesser issues. Being owned by lobbyists and being willing to bomb the middle-east back to the stone age far more troubling.
John McCain is 71 and age alone should not be determinative,...but in John McCain's case, it is obvious that his reasoning is impaired.
In fact, I would like to see the minimum age requirement lowered by five years. We don't need to have another Reagan-esque, nonfunctional president.
McSame is a dinosaur with antiquated attide problems.
Agism is as bad as any prejudice. It's about time Americans started valuing experience, perspective and sense.
The Presidency is a job that requires physical stamina and mental sharpness, both are generally diminished with advancing age.
Mental capacities decline as we age--its a fact-- and we have already had a president with deficient mental abilities the past eight years.
Given the demands of the job, it is important to find out if McCain is up to being president. That won't happen unless Dems push the issue.
I don't believe prejudices of any kind are appropriate. He is apparently healthy. I just don't agree with him on most issues.
But don't lie about his age, he's only 71. And I'm 76 if anone cares.
There are positives and negatives to age that balance out. Excellent life experience and lots of relationships established. Health is only issue.
Yes, if only because he seems to be having a lot of "senior moments" lately. He can't seem to remember who's in charge in Iran without help!
It places a priority on who is his VP candidate.
The older a candidate, the more skewed their view is of today's world. I'd like someone that understands what's going on and why.
I am 60 and healthy but a President needs to be even younger and more vital. The job is too stressful. McCain will not survive even 1 term.
He currently has trouble with details, I can only imagine what he will be like in the next 4 years.
Age doesn't matter. He's too Republican to be President! But he is too John McCain!
It would be a mistake for Democrats to push this issue. The media will do that for us.
Age discrimination is the hidden travesty of our nation. John McCain's policies are the issue. There are many young republicans who support him.
Hillary or McCain. No inbetwain...
He is obviously physically fragile and a bit disjointed in his speaking. LET'S just put him in front of the cameras and he will appear a bit senile.
Despite the lengthening life span of Americans, McCain is too old to be considered for the most powerful position of Earth.
Bush proved you can be cluelesss and run the country
Experience is the issue
Churchill was PM of the UK when he was 80. Let the quarter-century age difference between McCain and Obama speak for itself.
R. Regan was proof of aging. blueberrymouse6@yahoo.com
He seams to be in good health and fit. We can't make age an issue. kpreachc@dishmail.net
Someone in her/his 70's should be at their intellectual peak but some people like McCain can go through their entire lives and no learn very much.
While I don't believe that age is an impediment to be successful on the job, I do think the challenges of the presidency rate a question about age.
I try to find ANY reason for him not to be president. That's the least of the reasons, but he is awfully old.
Age should be no more relevant than race or sex. Look at the individual, not the "ism."
He's just starting to show signs of dementia. It's subtle but it's there.
Reagan was too old and he had alzheimers. How do we know McCain won't develop that in the next couple of years. He better have a good VP if elected.
There have been great leaders of the past that were of an older age for their time. No matter who takes office, I think they will only be in one term
Because John McCain is an "old" 73. His cancer, his war injuries, etc.appear to leave him less strong than others of that age.
What scary person will the GOP put on the ticket as VP? Please, please no Cheney....(et al)
We need some one young to run this country,we do not need a Senior Citizen running this country again.Remember Reagan and Alzhimer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both his age & health areissues. He has not released his health report, and by all appearances the left side of his face appears to have problems
With due respect to the Senator, an American hero he is, however, too old to lead us in these challenging times. Evidence his confusing Iraq and Iran.
Is America to vote for an elderly President or his much younger Vice President?
Not age alone, but health history and recent performance give pause,
Not only is his age an issue, so is that look in his eyes that says "the lights are on, but nobody's home"!
Health, and policy decisions are far more important. Regardless of how sharp his mind may be, it's a biological issue: our bodies age and with age comes a slowdown and medical problems.
If Hiliary or Obama were his age, would they be too old. He wasn't too sharp when he was younger...what makes us think he could possibly be now?
John McCain may appear feisty, but he is mentally well past his peak. He is the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
As is his health and military injuries
Ronald Reagan was younger than McCain in 1980, but by his second term, it was clear that he was distracted, and scandals like Iran-Contra happened.
It's one of the lesser issues. Being owned by lobbyists and being willing to bomb the middle-east back to the stone age far more troubling.
John McCain is 71 and age alone should not be determinative,...but in John McCain's case, it is obvious that his reasoning is impaired.
In fact, I would like to see the minimum age requirement lowered by five years. We don't need to have another Reagan-esque, nonfunctional president.
McSame is a dinosaur with antiquated attide problems.
Agism is as bad as any prejudice. It's about time Americans started valuing experience, perspective and sense.
The Presidency is a job that requires physical stamina and mental sharpness, both are generally diminished with advancing age.
Mental capacities decline as we age--its a fact-- and we have already had a president with deficient mental abilities the past eight years.
Given the demands of the job, it is important to find out if McCain is up to being president. That won't happen unless Dems push the issue.
I don't believe prejudices of any kind are appropriate. He is apparently healthy. I just don't agree with him on most issues.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Growth in Medina County Democratic Vote in Presidential Primaries
As the chart to the left shows, the Medina County Democratic vote has grown dramatically over the last three presidential primaries, especially when compared to the Republican vote in the same period.
The Democratic vote in the 2008 Ohio presidential primary in Medina County was 3.90 times the 2000 presidential primary vote and it was 2.40 times the 2004 presidential vote. Over the course of that eight year period, the Democratic vote went up by 24,574 votes. The biggest increase was in the period between 2004 and 2008 when the Democratic vote in the presidential primary went from 13,836 to 33,283, an increase of almost 20,000 voters.
Does these numbers mean that Medina County is turning "blue"? No, but it is certainly becoming more and more purple. It also means that the Democratic Party can be competitive with the Republicans in gubernatorial elections, and possibly even in presidential elections.
During that same period, the Republican vote went down in 2004, as compared to 2000, and then back up in 2008, but nearly as much as the Democratic vote. In 2000, 18590 Medina County voters took Republican ballots in the March primary. In 2004, that figure declined to 12,109, and in 2008, it went up to 18,994, an increase of only 404 between 2000 and 2008.
Of course, to a certain extent, these figures represent the fact that in 2004 and 2008, there were contested Democratic primaries for president in Ohio. Among Republicans, there was no contest in 2004, since Bush was unopposed.
Still, considering that Republicans outnumbered Democrats by over 10,000 in the 2000 primary, but were outnumbered by over 14,000 in the 2008 primary, the GOP has to be worried. This is especially true when you consider that the Democratic vote in the 2006 primary was almost double that of the 2002 primary. In both types of primaries, presidential and gubernatorial, the Democratic vote has seen significant growth, while the Republican vote has gone up only incrementally.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Money Follows Vision, Vision Doesn't Follow Money
At a recent meeting, a participant in a discussion among members of the board of trustees for a non-profit organization made the following observation:Money follows vision, vision doesn't follow money.
That simple observation grabbed the attention of several board members. Although the statement was made in the context of charitable giving, it also applies to political giving.
Most people give money to candidates and/or political organizations that have a vision of what they want accomplish and are able to articulate that vision. Candidates who have a vision and can give voice to that vision are going to do much better at raising money than those who cannot.
The Bible teaches us that "without a vision, the people perish." Well, in politics, the same is also true. Without a vision, the candidate and/or political organization doesn't raise money.
The vision, by the way, can't simply be "I want a political office, so elect me." Such a message is self-centered and conveys an attitude that the person is only interested in themselves. The vision has to be "other-centered". It has to be rooted in service to others, not service to self.
People have a lot of causes that want donations. Your campaign or organization is just one cause among many. You have to grab their attention with your vision, or else, you cause will perish for a lack of resources.
That simple observation grabbed the attention of several board members. Although the statement was made in the context of charitable giving, it also applies to political giving.
Most people give money to candidates and/or political organizations that have a vision of what they want accomplish and are able to articulate that vision. Candidates who have a vision and can give voice to that vision are going to do much better at raising money than those who cannot.
The Bible teaches us that "without a vision, the people perish." Well, in politics, the same is also true. Without a vision, the candidate and/or political organization doesn't raise money.
The vision, by the way, can't simply be "I want a political office, so elect me." Such a message is self-centered and conveys an attitude that the person is only interested in themselves. The vision has to be "other-centered". It has to be rooted in service to others, not service to self.
People have a lot of causes that want donations. Your campaign or organization is just one cause among many. You have to grab their attention with your vision, or else, you cause will perish for a lack of resources.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Pictures from the Medina County 2008 Spring Dinner
Below are some pictures from the 2008 Medina County Spring Dinner. The pictures were provided by Medina County Democrat Pat Chaloupek. The Dinner was held on Saturday, May 17, 2008, and was well attended. The keynote speaker was Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Joe Russo, who is running for the Ohio Supreme Court. Guests included Representative Betty Sutton from Ohio's 13th Congressional District; Akron Municipal Court Judge Eve Belfance, who is running for the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and State Senator John Boccieri, who is running for the 16th Congressional District. The Dinner was hosted by Medina County Democratic Chair Pam Miller.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Vote Video 2008
MCDAC publishes a weekly newsletter. One of our readers sent us this video entry that his daughter produced. We liked it, so we are sharing it with our visitors.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Did Hillary Clinton Lose the 08 Race on October 11, 2002?
On October 11, 2002, the United States Senate voted 77-23 to authorize the use of military force against the government of Iraq. Of the 23 Senators who voted against the resolution, 22 were Democrats and one was a Republican. Senator Hillary Clinton was not among them. She voted for the resolution. That was the day that she lost the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
The following is our analysis. It makes certain assumptions about Clinton's thinking and motivation. Obviously, these assumptions may be incorrect. If so, then our analysis is wrong, but, given the way events unfolded, we think they are reasonable.
The problem that Clinton has had during this campaign is that she never expected to have to run against a viable candidate who could attack her from the left on the issue of the war. If you look at the 22 Democratic Senators who opposed the war resolution, none of them were Senators being talked about as possible presidential candidates in 2004, let alone 2008. What she was looking to do was make sure that Republicans couldn't attack her in 08, or for that matter, in her re-election big in 06, as being weak on national security. She wanted, however, to give some public explanation that would give her some political cover from anti-war activists.
That reasoning explains the speech she gave explaining her vote. In that speech she argued that the Senate vote authorizing military force wasn't a vote for war. Of course, anyone who thought that Bush wasn't going to use the vote as an excuse to go to war was either naive or dumb. There was nothing in Bush's past behavior to indicate that he was going to do anything other than to go to war. Those two words have never been used to describe Hillary Clinton.
A lot of people were disappointed in Clinton for casting that vote. Her explanation didn't make a lot of sense. It made her appear that she was voting for war not because of principle, but because she wanted to increase her political marketability. The full extent of their anger, however, wouldn't be seen until 2008.
By then, the war had dragged on for over five years. Anti-war activists were frustrated beyond belief that they had not been able to stop the war. They were hungry for a candidate who had been against the war from the start. Barack Obama fit that description. The fact that he was also charismatic and African-American made him a formidable opponent.
His charisma would make sure that he would get the support of white, anti-war activists. The fact that he was African-American would make sure that he had significant support in Democratic primaries from the most reliable group of voters. He was, in retrospect, the worse candidate that Clinton could run against.
Imagine how different things would have turned out if she had voted against the Iraq War resolution. By 2006, when she ran for re-election in New York, she would have looked brilliant. Her 2002 vote would not have cost her any support during her re-election campaign. More importantly, she would have been the anti-war candidate in 2008. There would have been no constituency for Obama to have tapped into to help support his effort.
Not only would Clinton have gotten support from the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, she would have gotten overwhelming support from the African-American community. She would have also gotten support from feminists in the Democratic Party. The race would probably have come down to her and a white candidate like Edwards. She would have easily won the nomination.
Instead, like so many of her Republican colleagues, her political future was seriously harmed by supporting Bush on the war. She didn't know it, but when she voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2008, she was voting against her own political future in 2008.
The following is our analysis. It makes certain assumptions about Clinton's thinking and motivation. Obviously, these assumptions may be incorrect. If so, then our analysis is wrong, but, given the way events unfolded, we think they are reasonable.
The problem that Clinton has had during this campaign is that she never expected to have to run against a viable candidate who could attack her from the left on the issue of the war. If you look at the 22 Democratic Senators who opposed the war resolution, none of them were Senators being talked about as possible presidential candidates in 2004, let alone 2008. What she was looking to do was make sure that Republicans couldn't attack her in 08, or for that matter, in her re-election big in 06, as being weak on national security. She wanted, however, to give some public explanation that would give her some political cover from anti-war activists.
That reasoning explains the speech she gave explaining her vote. In that speech she argued that the Senate vote authorizing military force wasn't a vote for war. Of course, anyone who thought that Bush wasn't going to use the vote as an excuse to go to war was either naive or dumb. There was nothing in Bush's past behavior to indicate that he was going to do anything other than to go to war. Those two words have never been used to describe Hillary Clinton.
A lot of people were disappointed in Clinton for casting that vote. Her explanation didn't make a lot of sense. It made her appear that she was voting for war not because of principle, but because she wanted to increase her political marketability. The full extent of their anger, however, wouldn't be seen until 2008.
By then, the war had dragged on for over five years. Anti-war activists were frustrated beyond belief that they had not been able to stop the war. They were hungry for a candidate who had been against the war from the start. Barack Obama fit that description. The fact that he was also charismatic and African-American made him a formidable opponent.
His charisma would make sure that he would get the support of white, anti-war activists. The fact that he was African-American would make sure that he had significant support in Democratic primaries from the most reliable group of voters. He was, in retrospect, the worse candidate that Clinton could run against.
Imagine how different things would have turned out if she had voted against the Iraq War resolution. By 2006, when she ran for re-election in New York, she would have looked brilliant. Her 2002 vote would not have cost her any support during her re-election campaign. More importantly, she would have been the anti-war candidate in 2008. There would have been no constituency for Obama to have tapped into to help support his effort.
Not only would Clinton have gotten support from the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, she would have gotten overwhelming support from the African-American community. She would have also gotten support from feminists in the Democratic Party. The race would probably have come down to her and a white candidate like Edwards. She would have easily won the nomination.
Instead, like so many of her Republican colleagues, her political future was seriously harmed by supporting Bush on the war. She didn't know it, but when she voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2008, she was voting against her own political future in 2008.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Can Obama Make Confederate States Competitive for Dems?
In an earlier post, we asked the a question about how much of the white vote could Barack Obama take in November. The point of the post was that while Barack Obama doesn't have to take all of the white vote, he has to get a certain percentage of it in order to win the presidency. Indeed, implicit in the argument of the Clinton campaign about her "electability" in states like West Virginia is that Obama can't get enough of the white vote to win the presidency.
The flip side of that issue is by how much will Obama increase the black vote in November. The New York Times has an article about that in its May 16, 2008 edition. Here is a lead paragraph from the article:
The sharp surge in black turnout that Senator Barack Obama has helped to generate in recent primaries and Congressional races could signal a threat this fall to the longtime Republican dominance of the South, according to politicians and voting experts.
The article goes on to point out that while Obama probably won't carry states like Mississippi, he could make states like North Carolina and Virginia competitive. He could also carry states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with an energized vote from the African-American community.
If Obama could increase the African-American vote by 30% in November, he would handily win the presidency. He would carry states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and would be competitive in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. He would force McCain to spend a lot of money in states that Republicans normally take for granted. Given the fact that McCain will have to rely on Federal financing, that would make it much tougher for him to beat Obama.
Given how the GOP has worked to suppress the African-American vote in elections, ic would be only just if a huge increase in that vote elected Barack Obama.
The flip side of that issue is by how much will Obama increase the black vote in November. The New York Times has an article about that in its May 16, 2008 edition. Here is a lead paragraph from the article:
The sharp surge in black turnout that Senator Barack Obama has helped to generate in recent primaries and Congressional races could signal a threat this fall to the longtime Republican dominance of the South, according to politicians and voting experts.
The article goes on to point out that while Obama probably won't carry states like Mississippi, he could make states like North Carolina and Virginia competitive. He could also carry states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with an energized vote from the African-American community.
If Obama could increase the African-American vote by 30% in November, he would handily win the presidency. He would carry states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and would be competitive in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. He would force McCain to spend a lot of money in states that Republicans normally take for granted. Given the fact that McCain will have to rely on Federal financing, that would make it much tougher for him to beat Obama.
Given how the GOP has worked to suppress the African-American vote in elections, ic would be only just if a huge increase in that vote elected Barack Obama.
New ODP Video Clip on McCain Comments
John McCain made the comment that a lot of the economic problems that people face today are psychological. The Ohio Democratic Party took a video camera out and asked Ohioans if they thought the problems with today's economy are "psychological." You can see the video clip here.
Is McCain's Age a Legitimate Campaign Issue?
A group of Democrats have created a website at www.youngerthanmccain.com that has a great, but snarky, video up about McCain's age. In the video they show all the things that are "younger than McCain" including things like television, aluminum soda cans, etc. It is a funny video. It has lines like "He's older than his wife, but younger than his Mama/He is as old as one and a half Obamas." Or how about this one: "He's older than the Golden Gate Bridge/He's younger than Bob Dole, but only by a smidge."
While the video is funny, the issue it brings up is whether McCain's age is a legitimate subject of political debate during this presidential campaign. If McCain wins, he will be the oldest person ever sworn in as president.
Age is a good thing in certain situations. It gives you experience and it allows you to have patience. Things that get younger people riled up don't affect you as much. All of us know people who are in their 70s and even their 80s and have a great disposition.
On the other hand, age can also be a problem. A person's endurance is not as great as it used to be. People in their 70s have a much narrower margin of error physically than younger people.
The presidency is a very demanding job. All of us have seen pictures showing how people have aged while serving as president. It's legitimate to ask whether McCain is up to the challenge physically of serving as president.
In McCain's case, given the fact that he has a quick temper, it would be possible to run a campaign around the theme of "Let's not elect the crazy old guy as president." There are two questions about such an approach. The first is whether it is fair. The second is whether the public would perceive it as unfair. The first is objective. The second is subjective.
We don't know the answer to either question, but you can bet that the Obama campaign is polling on that issue. The answer they receive could end up being very important in this campaign.
While the video is funny, the issue it brings up is whether McCain's age is a legitimate subject of political debate during this presidential campaign. If McCain wins, he will be the oldest person ever sworn in as president.
Age is a good thing in certain situations. It gives you experience and it allows you to have patience. Things that get younger people riled up don't affect you as much. All of us know people who are in their 70s and even their 80s and have a great disposition.
On the other hand, age can also be a problem. A person's endurance is not as great as it used to be. People in their 70s have a much narrower margin of error physically than younger people.
The presidency is a very demanding job. All of us have seen pictures showing how people have aged while serving as president. It's legitimate to ask whether McCain is up to the challenge physically of serving as president.
In McCain's case, given the fact that he has a quick temper, it would be possible to run a campaign around the theme of "Let's not elect the crazy old guy as president." There are two questions about such an approach. The first is whether it is fair. The second is whether the public would perceive it as unfair. The first is objective. The second is subjective.
We don't know the answer to either question, but you can bet that the Obama campaign is polling on that issue. The answer they receive could end up being very important in this campaign.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Results of HIllary Clinton Survey
MCDAC readers responded to our survey on whether Hillary Clinton should drop out following the results of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. Our readers voted 56.1% to 43% that she should drop out. Less than 1% of those responding didn't vote. Below are some comments by our readers:
If she were considering the best interest of the country she would have already. No chance to win without foul play.
never give up
The delegate math says it is near impossible for her to win the nomination. For the sake of the party, she needs to gracefully step aside.
With as much grace as she can and start supporting Obama.
She fought the good fight, now it's time to exit and stop wasting money on a campaign she can't win.
Hillary Clinton is best qualified to beat John McCain and correct the ills that permeate this nation and lead this country to our former glory.
Keep voting for Clinton
I just cannot vote for Obama
Hillary has almost no chance and has damaged the democratic party with her negative comments and ads. She should drop out the sooner the better.
stay in there till the last dogs dead
i'm foh hillary, shes best for for the job
quit hounding her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is not presidential material and has no experience in global affairs. Only knows old
Washington politics. Not a creative thinker.
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can beat McCain !
Her husband efficiently balanced the budget, she will also. So fear an October surprize: his VP sellection? Gov. Richardson, a loser choice.
This fun to watch, keep the battle going, helps keep money spent now!
It really doesn't matter. Once again the D's have come up with two unelectable candidates. Either will be toast in November.
She made a valiant attempt, but it is time to go. She should go back to the Senate and take over as Majority Leader.
As her campaign grows more futile, she becomes more and more combative and ugly. Time to quit.
The situation is getting ridiculous. I feel pity for her. She seems obsessed.
We need to get this party united behind one great candidate. Let's stop picking on ourselves.
I wouldn't care if Hillary and Obama both dropped out of the race, human or otherwise.
I support Hillary it but appears the numbers are against her. Hillary needs to see the light and Obama to realize Hillary will guarantee his election
She should have dropped out long ago.
No way, Jose.If all votes are counted Hillary will win. We don't want to be short-changed or have a quick-change artist. We need Hillary.
It's time for Democrats to avoid attacks on each other, and to concentrate on exposing what can be expected from a continuation of the Bush policies.
We need to rally around our nominee now and focus on beating John McCain in November.
As much as I want her as our nominee, I don't think she is going to win. I believe our party needs to come together now or we may lose in November.
This is a hard one, but Obama seems destined. I just hope he can beat whiney McCain. An Obama-Hillary ticket might ensure that.
Enough of this we need one candidate
Sadly, she should so that the dems can begin campaigning to win the White House in November.
It's over, and she needs to face it.
I still think she is more trustworthy than Obama. I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. A vote for McCain is more of the same.
We have much work to do to unify the party and focus our energy on McCain and the General Election.
don't know what she expects to gain by staying, the contest is over. rush's dittoheads have propped her up lately but won't be there in november.
She's doing too much harm, seeming self-righteous, but injecting nastiness and divisiveness into this campaign.
She should drop out for the good of the party, although I doubt if that concerns her. She's entitled to the presidency, dammit! Bill promised her.
She is too polarizing to win in Nov. Obama has a much better chance in the general election. Waiting until August only benefits the Republican party.
Let them fight it out at the convention.
It's history in the making. A woman president and
a Democrat too boot. WOW
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, hey hey hey, goodbye
But that would require her to care about someone other than herself.
Both are needed down to the wire. They may yet realize they need to give specifics and the cost of their platforms so Democrats have a real choice.
If she is honest about her desire to serve her party and nation, now is the time for her to say she and her supporters fought the good fight.
I want a woman in the White House. I continue to support her.
It is time to put things back together for the general election.
YES. YES. YES! She's destroying our Party and alienating Independents who are willing to vote for Obama.
I don't think she will, but I would very much appreciate it.
Vice President is not a bad thing. Look at Cheney -- he's been running the country for the past seven years.
She is better than Obama,she has more experiance than him and is better qualified for the job of running this country and she believes in GOD.........
Hell no! Her victories have come in big states we need to win. Obama wins only in small states or caucuses. Hillary is better candidate.
she only divides the party and helps the republicans. that is why russ limbaugh is supporting her.
Unless she can get committed super-delegates to reverse themselves, the result is a mathematical certainty.
Continue until she wins the White House!
I don't like Obama. In fact I can't even imagine us having a black President nor a black family in the White House. It isn't that I am prejudice.
It has been close , it will continue to be close, which can impact policy decisions and choices at the convention. we deserve a complete process.
She is a former Republican and a waffler.
This needs to be done in a manner that facilitates the unification of the Democratic part.
NO, HELL NO!
She should concede but be proud of what she accomplished. Obama should pick her as his running mate; Obama/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable.
Hell, no, she shouldn't go.
This should be a mute questions ~ she should have already dropped out.
I have been a Hilary supporter since day one, but things have not gone her way. We need a Democrat to win this election! Barack is our hope.
She is obviously a poor sport and a non team player. Why is she so hell bent on staying in? What is her hidden agenda? I do not trust her.
But it surely is much more interesting with her in there fighting and keeping McCain off the front page.
please. drp out. the majority of democrats want change.
We need Obama to unite the party. Hillary is polarizing - and mean.
There's a deeper agenda here. A Wellesley/Yale grad can easily read the tea leaves and still she remains. Battle for the party, maybe?
The race is too close to call. Should be more fun for the convention delegates to go beyond the 1st ballot.
ABSOLUTELY STAY IN THE RACE!I am so tired that the media and powers-that-be have been trying to push her out from the get-go.
My concern is that alot of Black people voted
for Obama simply because of his color. I think
Hillary should stay in and fight to the end.
Her own political future has more potential if she steps down gracefully now.
Her words and actions in the past weeks have shown her to be a politician of the old school--do anything to stay in office.
Hillary should immediately drop out UNLESS she can make a credible case, with real numbers, that she still has a chance to be nominated.
I applaud Barack & Hillary for engaging many new voters. Finish all 50 states, let the voter's voices be heard, even if she can't win the nomination.
If she were considering the best interest of the country she would have already. No chance to win without foul play.
never give up
The delegate math says it is near impossible for her to win the nomination. For the sake of the party, she needs to gracefully step aside.
With as much grace as she can and start supporting Obama.
She fought the good fight, now it's time to exit and stop wasting money on a campaign she can't win.
Hillary Clinton is best qualified to beat John McCain and correct the ills that permeate this nation and lead this country to our former glory.
Keep voting for Clinton
I just cannot vote for Obama
Hillary has almost no chance and has damaged the democratic party with her negative comments and ads. She should drop out the sooner the better.
stay in there till the last dogs dead
i'm foh hillary, shes best for for the job
quit hounding her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She is not presidential material and has no experience in global affairs. Only knows old
Washington politics. Not a creative thinker.
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can beat McCain !
Her husband efficiently balanced the budget, she will also. So fear an October surprize: his VP sellection? Gov. Richardson, a loser choice.
This fun to watch, keep the battle going, helps keep money spent now!
It really doesn't matter. Once again the D's have come up with two unelectable candidates. Either will be toast in November.
She made a valiant attempt, but it is time to go. She should go back to the Senate and take over as Majority Leader.
As her campaign grows more futile, she becomes more and more combative and ugly. Time to quit.
The situation is getting ridiculous. I feel pity for her. She seems obsessed.
We need to get this party united behind one great candidate. Let's stop picking on ourselves.
I wouldn't care if Hillary and Obama both dropped out of the race, human or otherwise.
I support Hillary it but appears the numbers are against her. Hillary needs to see the light and Obama to realize Hillary will guarantee his election
She should have dropped out long ago.
No way, Jose.If all votes are counted Hillary will win. We don't want to be short-changed or have a quick-change artist. We need Hillary.
It's time for Democrats to avoid attacks on each other, and to concentrate on exposing what can be expected from a continuation of the Bush policies.
We need to rally around our nominee now and focus on beating John McCain in November.
As much as I want her as our nominee, I don't think she is going to win. I believe our party needs to come together now or we may lose in November.
This is a hard one, but Obama seems destined. I just hope he can beat whiney McCain. An Obama-Hillary ticket might ensure that.
Enough of this we need one candidate
Sadly, she should so that the dems can begin campaigning to win the White House in November.
It's over, and she needs to face it.
I still think she is more trustworthy than Obama. I'll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. A vote for McCain is more of the same.
We have much work to do to unify the party and focus our energy on McCain and the General Election.
don't know what she expects to gain by staying, the contest is over. rush's dittoheads have propped her up lately but won't be there in november.
She's doing too much harm, seeming self-righteous, but injecting nastiness and divisiveness into this campaign.
She should drop out for the good of the party, although I doubt if that concerns her. She's entitled to the presidency, dammit! Bill promised her.
She is too polarizing to win in Nov. Obama has a much better chance in the general election. Waiting until August only benefits the Republican party.
Let them fight it out at the convention.
It's history in the making. A woman president and
a Democrat too boot. WOW
Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, hey hey hey, goodbye
But that would require her to care about someone other than herself.
Both are needed down to the wire. They may yet realize they need to give specifics and the cost of their platforms so Democrats have a real choice.
If she is honest about her desire to serve her party and nation, now is the time for her to say she and her supporters fought the good fight.
I want a woman in the White House. I continue to support her.
It is time to put things back together for the general election.
YES. YES. YES! She's destroying our Party and alienating Independents who are willing to vote for Obama.
I don't think she will, but I would very much appreciate it.
Vice President is not a bad thing. Look at Cheney -- he's been running the country for the past seven years.
She is better than Obama,she has more experiance than him and is better qualified for the job of running this country and she believes in GOD.........
Hell no! Her victories have come in big states we need to win. Obama wins only in small states or caucuses. Hillary is better candidate.
she only divides the party and helps the republicans. that is why russ limbaugh is supporting her.
Unless she can get committed super-delegates to reverse themselves, the result is a mathematical certainty.
Continue until she wins the White House!
I don't like Obama. In fact I can't even imagine us having a black President nor a black family in the White House. It isn't that I am prejudice.
It has been close , it will continue to be close, which can impact policy decisions and choices at the convention. we deserve a complete process.
She is a former Republican and a waffler.
This needs to be done in a manner that facilitates the unification of the Democratic part.
NO, HELL NO!
She should concede but be proud of what she accomplished. Obama should pick her as his running mate; Obama/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable.
Hell, no, she shouldn't go.
This should be a mute questions ~ she should have already dropped out.
I have been a Hilary supporter since day one, but things have not gone her way. We need a Democrat to win this election! Barack is our hope.
She is obviously a poor sport and a non team player. Why is she so hell bent on staying in? What is her hidden agenda? I do not trust her.
But it surely is much more interesting with her in there fighting and keeping McCain off the front page.
please. drp out. the majority of democrats want change.
We need Obama to unite the party. Hillary is polarizing - and mean.
There's a deeper agenda here. A Wellesley/Yale grad can easily read the tea leaves and still she remains. Battle for the party, maybe?
The race is too close to call. Should be more fun for the convention delegates to go beyond the 1st ballot.
ABSOLUTELY STAY IN THE RACE!I am so tired that the media and powers-that-be have been trying to push her out from the get-go.
My concern is that alot of Black people voted
for Obama simply because of his color. I think
Hillary should stay in and fight to the end.
Her own political future has more potential if she steps down gracefully now.
Her words and actions in the past weeks have shown her to be a politician of the old school--do anything to stay in office.
Hillary should immediately drop out UNLESS she can make a credible case, with real numbers, that she still has a chance to be nominated.
I applaud Barack & Hillary for engaging many new voters. Finish all 50 states, let the voter's voices be heard, even if she can't win the nomination.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Beating Republican Incumbents in Medina County
Including 1980, only three Democrats have beaten elected Republican incumbents in the last 28 years. Those three are Greg Happ, who defeated Roger Ingraham for County Prosecutor in 1980, Dean Holman, who defeated Jill Heck for County Prosecutor in 1988, and Ferris Brown, who defeated Charles Hawley for County Commissioner in 1992. All three of these candidates ran aggressive campaigns. All three of these candidates focused on one or two issues and hit those issues repeatedly.
In the case of Greg Happ in 1980 it was the fact that Roger Ingraham's name was reportedly on the list of people known by a Medina County bookmaker who had been murdered in an unsolved case. The murder was widely reported in the local Medina County newspapers.
In the case of Dean Holman, it was the fact that Jill Heck's office had lost more jury trials than it had won as county prosecutor and also the fact that she had taken the Fifth Amendment while testifying in front of the Ohio Elections Commission.
In the case of Ferris Brown, it was the fact that Charles (Chuck) Hawley had backed a unvoted on increase in the sales tax while Ferris Brown had led a petition drive against the tax. The petition drive was successful, the tax was defeated, and Ferris beat Hawley in the next election. (By the way, if you believe that Medina County residents should have the right to vote on increases in the sales tax, thank Ferris Brown. Since his successful petition drive, Republicans have never backed an unvoted sales tax increase again.)
The point of this essay is that defeating elected Republican incumbents in Medina County is not easy. Successful Democratic candidates who have done so have focused in on one or two issues and have hit those issues repeatedly. They have done this even though they were told by other Democrats that it was wrong to go "negative."
Well here is a tip: voters remember so-called "negative" information about four times as long as they remember so-called "positive" information. This is because humans are "hard-wired" to remember negative information longer than positive information. If you think about it, it makes sense. When human society was developing, what was more important, to know which plant smelled nice, or which plant would kill you in you ate it?
So, here is the situation: if you are a Medina County Democrat running for county office against an elected Republican incumbent, and you are told that you shouldn't go "negative" and run ads that point out legitimate differences between you and your opponent, ignore that advice. It isn't good advice and it is probably being given by a person who has never ran or won an county-wide campaign.
In the case of Greg Happ in 1980 it was the fact that Roger Ingraham's name was reportedly on the list of people known by a Medina County bookmaker who had been murdered in an unsolved case. The murder was widely reported in the local Medina County newspapers.
In the case of Dean Holman, it was the fact that Jill Heck's office had lost more jury trials than it had won as county prosecutor and also the fact that she had taken the Fifth Amendment while testifying in front of the Ohio Elections Commission.
In the case of Ferris Brown, it was the fact that Charles (Chuck) Hawley had backed a unvoted on increase in the sales tax while Ferris Brown had led a petition drive against the tax. The petition drive was successful, the tax was defeated, and Ferris beat Hawley in the next election. (By the way, if you believe that Medina County residents should have the right to vote on increases in the sales tax, thank Ferris Brown. Since his successful petition drive, Republicans have never backed an unvoted sales tax increase again.)
The point of this essay is that defeating elected Republican incumbents in Medina County is not easy. Successful Democratic candidates who have done so have focused in on one or two issues and have hit those issues repeatedly. They have done this even though they were told by other Democrats that it was wrong to go "negative."
Well here is a tip: voters remember so-called "negative" information about four times as long as they remember so-called "positive" information. This is because humans are "hard-wired" to remember negative information longer than positive information. If you think about it, it makes sense. When human society was developing, what was more important, to know which plant smelled nice, or which plant would kill you in you ate it?
So, here is the situation: if you are a Medina County Democrat running for county office against an elected Republican incumbent, and you are told that you shouldn't go "negative" and run ads that point out legitimate differences between you and your opponent, ignore that advice. It isn't good advice and it is probably being given by a person who has never ran or won an county-wide campaign.
Pictures from Mike Todd Fundraiser held in Wadsworth
Below are some scenes from the Mike Todd for Treasurer Fundraiser held in Wadsworth in March. If you have any pictures from a Democratic event, feel free to send them to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and we will publish them on this site.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Results from New L.A. Times/Bloomberg Poll
If the November election were held today, Clinton leads McCain by nine points, Obama leads McCain by six points. This is a slight turnaround from the Times/Bloomberg poll in February where McCain led Clinton by six points and Obama by 2 points, within poll’s margin of error, but the direction has changed in favor of the Democrats.
Now 2/08 1/08
Hillary Clinton 47% 40% 46%
John McCain 38 46 42
Other cand/Don’t know 15 14 12
Barack Obama 46% 42% 41%
John McCain 40 44 42
Other cand/Don’t know 14 14 17
McCain is competitive against his Democratic challengers because he is neutralizing some of the groups that are mainstays for each Democratic candidate – older, white voters for Clinton and upscale voters and independents for Obama. Looked at another way, just three in 10 voters said they would vote for either Democrat, one in 10 said they would only vote for Clinton, less than one in ten would only vote for Obama and another three in 10 said they would vote for McCain in either match-up. If you combine all the Democratic options, 85% of Democrats would support either or both Democrats, almost the same share of Republicans that would support the lone Republican running. Among all registered voters, Clinton would beat McCain by 41% to 30% or Obama would beat McCain by 39% to 30%, with a fifth undecided.
Now 2/08 1/08
Hillary Clinton 47% 40% 46%
John McCain 38 46 42
Other cand/Don’t know 15 14 12
Barack Obama 46% 42% 41%
John McCain 40 44 42
Other cand/Don’t know 14 14 17
McCain is competitive against his Democratic challengers because he is neutralizing some of the groups that are mainstays for each Democratic candidate – older, white voters for Clinton and upscale voters and independents for Obama. Looked at another way, just three in 10 voters said they would vote for either Democrat, one in 10 said they would only vote for Clinton, less than one in ten would only vote for Obama and another three in 10 said they would vote for McCain in either match-up. If you combine all the Democratic options, 85% of Democrats would support either or both Democrats, almost the same share of Republicans that would support the lone Republican running. Among all registered voters, Clinton would beat McCain by 41% to 30% or Obama would beat McCain by 39% to 30%, with a fifth undecided.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
MCDAC Newsletter Readers Back Dann Resignation
MCDAC Newsletter readers responded to our question about whether Marc Dann should resign following his admission of a "romantic" relationship with a staff member; the firing of two of his staff members; and the resignation of two others. MCDAC readers voted 75.2% in favor of resignation with only 22.4% voting that he shouldn't resign. Readers not voting amounted to 2.4% of those responding.
Below are some comments from our readers:
It's all out he just need to keep his nose clean from hear on out
If no harassment is involved and both people are doing their job, I don't think would be grounds for dismissal.
As a politician, Mr. Dann should know he is under public scrutiny. He is being either dumb or arrogant. We don't need either.
His operation makes a frat house look respectable. Get him out of there.
He has lost my confidence and blew an opportunity to further his good name and that of the Democratic Party. He apparently was not ready for the job.
His enabling a sexual predator on his staff(because he feared exposure?) put the credibility of his whole office at risk.
who does this guy think he is? for the good of the party and the state of ohio he should resign.
We need every Democrat we have. Do you think the Republicans aren't doing the same thing? They hide it better!!
Marc Dann was elected to clean up and reform the Attorney General's office, not to use it for pajama parties. He should resign -- right now!
If Taft and his "gang" did not have to resign, then Dann should not have. I do not condone his behavior, but he should have another chance.
We need to replace him. That office needs to be clear of all scandals.
He has create an unnecessary problem in 2008. He has not displayed a high degree of ability in his choice of staff or integrity in his own behaviour.
Bill Clinton stayed in office after his "cigar twirling" incident.
Since creditability in public offices is difficult to obtain and easily stained, he should do the party a favor by leaving.
The sooner the better.
And Ted Strickland should appoint Subohd Chandra.
After what Bob Taft did this is nothing.
This has hurt the Democratic Party. He's using a double standard. He should be fired too.
We shouldn't have to put up with that from anyone...I am ashamed that Dann is a Democrat.
No governmental law was broken.
obviously things are out of control, time for new people with some integrity.
He obviously has no control of his office and his staff. He's a distraction.
If Mr Dann was from the other party then he would be yelled at because he only had 1 affair and not more.Everyone makes mistakes.
Shit happens. Take it like a man.
If all men who had an affair with a fellow employee resigned, Ohio's unemployement would skyrocket. It's disgusting, nonetheless, and an embarrassment
Both he and his administration are corrupt. He has violeted the public trust and should resign.
Yes, Just when the party is poised to win back control of the state here comes this clown giving the party the "lack of morals" label yet again.
Had he committed a sexual harassment crime yes. Committed moral against wife thats private. If jurys judged by morals and not laws we'd all be guilty
Marc could have been one of the greatest AG's in Ohio history. But he won't survive this. Better to deal with it now ... less damage.
The employees who were fired should be reinstated. Marital infidelity is commonplace in our society. Better to impeach Bush and Cheney!
He's evidently incapable of good leadership. I don't care about the affair per se.
He is an embarrassment.
obviously not the type of person who should be attorney general
He can weather this. He must stake out a pro consumer agenda and stand for something. Otherwise there is no compelling reason to fight for him.
Am very disappointed in Dann. Our party MUST screen candidates more carefully. His behavior is doing major damage to the entire party.
Eventually, yes.
We still have six months before the Nov election, we cannot afford to have a single candidate lose votes because of Dan. He must resign.
He is a disappointment to all of us. It is time for him to leave before he does more damage!!
It will be hard for dem candidates to run with the AG overhang. Subodh Chandra would make an outstanding replacement. The governor must move quickly.
He actually participated in these teenage activities that were unethical if not illegal while being the figurehead of law in the State.
Once again we have a public official who believes he should give jobs to friends and not people qualified. He seet the example and they followed.
Even Betty Montgomery would be better!!!
We Democrats waited too long and suffered through too much Republican ineptness, immorality, and illegal activities to put up with this. Join Taft.
I regret having contributed to him and having campaigned for him. He is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.
.....an Subodh Chandra should be appointed to the position! He was a better choice all along. We Democrats should demand it!
Is the Democratic party serious about higher standards or not?
How can he not?
Poor judgment and a lack of ethics indicate a very deficient human being unfit to lead.
Absolutely. If the man had any honor he would already have resigned.
Biggest embarassment to Dems since Clinton/Monica. He is done, anyway, put someone in who can hold the seat in 2010.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Sign up for the MCDAC Newsletter at www.mcdac.org.
Below are some comments from our readers:
It's all out he just need to keep his nose clean from hear on out
If no harassment is involved and both people are doing their job, I don't think would be grounds for dismissal.
As a politician, Mr. Dann should know he is under public scrutiny. He is being either dumb or arrogant. We don't need either.
His operation makes a frat house look respectable. Get him out of there.
He has lost my confidence and blew an opportunity to further his good name and that of the Democratic Party. He apparently was not ready for the job.
His enabling a sexual predator on his staff(because he feared exposure?) put the credibility of his whole office at risk.
who does this guy think he is? for the good of the party and the state of ohio he should resign.
We need every Democrat we have. Do you think the Republicans aren't doing the same thing? They hide it better!!
Marc Dann was elected to clean up and reform the Attorney General's office, not to use it for pajama parties. He should resign -- right now!
If Taft and his "gang" did not have to resign, then Dann should not have. I do not condone his behavior, but he should have another chance.
We need to replace him. That office needs to be clear of all scandals.
He has create an unnecessary problem in 2008. He has not displayed a high degree of ability in his choice of staff or integrity in his own behaviour.
Bill Clinton stayed in office after his "cigar twirling" incident.
Since creditability in public offices is difficult to obtain and easily stained, he should do the party a favor by leaving.
The sooner the better.
And Ted Strickland should appoint Subohd Chandra.
After what Bob Taft did this is nothing.
This has hurt the Democratic Party. He's using a double standard. He should be fired too.
We shouldn't have to put up with that from anyone...I am ashamed that Dann is a Democrat.
No governmental law was broken.
obviously things are out of control, time for new people with some integrity.
He obviously has no control of his office and his staff. He's a distraction.
If Mr Dann was from the other party then he would be yelled at because he only had 1 affair and not more.Everyone makes mistakes.
Shit happens. Take it like a man.
If all men who had an affair with a fellow employee resigned, Ohio's unemployement would skyrocket. It's disgusting, nonetheless, and an embarrassment
Both he and his administration are corrupt. He has violeted the public trust and should resign.
Yes, Just when the party is poised to win back control of the state here comes this clown giving the party the "lack of morals" label yet again.
Had he committed a sexual harassment crime yes. Committed moral against wife thats private. If jurys judged by morals and not laws we'd all be guilty
Marc could have been one of the greatest AG's in Ohio history. But he won't survive this. Better to deal with it now ... less damage.
The employees who were fired should be reinstated. Marital infidelity is commonplace in our society. Better to impeach Bush and Cheney!
He's evidently incapable of good leadership. I don't care about the affair per se.
He is an embarrassment.
obviously not the type of person who should be attorney general
He can weather this. He must stake out a pro consumer agenda and stand for something. Otherwise there is no compelling reason to fight for him.
Am very disappointed in Dann. Our party MUST screen candidates more carefully. His behavior is doing major damage to the entire party.
Eventually, yes.
We still have six months before the Nov election, we cannot afford to have a single candidate lose votes because of Dan. He must resign.
He is a disappointment to all of us. It is time for him to leave before he does more damage!!
It will be hard for dem candidates to run with the AG overhang. Subodh Chandra would make an outstanding replacement. The governor must move quickly.
He actually participated in these teenage activities that were unethical if not illegal while being the figurehead of law in the State.
Once again we have a public official who believes he should give jobs to friends and not people qualified. He seet the example and they followed.
Even Betty Montgomery would be better!!!
We Democrats waited too long and suffered through too much Republican ineptness, immorality, and illegal activities to put up with this. Join Taft.
I regret having contributed to him and having campaigned for him. He is a disgrace to the Democratic Party.
.....an Subodh Chandra should be appointed to the position! He was a better choice all along. We Democrats should demand it!
Is the Democratic party serious about higher standards or not?
How can he not?
Poor judgment and a lack of ethics indicate a very deficient human being unfit to lead.
Absolutely. If the man had any honor he would already have resigned.
Biggest embarassment to Dems since Clinton/Monica. He is done, anyway, put someone in who can hold the seat in 2010.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Sign up for the MCDAC Newsletter at www.mcdac.org.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
The Importance of Working Class White Voters
Here's an interesting statistic from a Associated Press article about Barack Obama's problems with white working class voters: Such voters made up 43% of the electorate in 2004. This means that a Democratic candidate who gets blown out in this demographic group is going to have a hard, if not impossible, time of winning the presidency.
The article notes that such voters have a more negative impression of Obama now than they did in February. This is from the article:
In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.
One obvious reason that Obama has trouble with such voters is race, but its not all about race. As the article makes clear, Clinton's campaign has more specific policy proposals aimed at such voters than Obama's campaign. The recent controversy over the gas tax is a good example.
There are a lot of reasons why the idea of a summer recess for the gas tax is a bad idea, but if you are struggling with higher fuel bills for your car, the prospect of lowering the cost per gallon is attractive. Its not that Clinton's policy is likely to be adopted, its that by coming up with the policy she is showing working class voters that she understands their concerns.
There is always tension in the Democratic Party between candidates backed by the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party and candidates backed by the working class wing of the Democratic Party. Candidates who can bridge that gap can win, but candidates who can't, don't. Kennedy in 1960; Johnson in 1964; Carter in 1976; and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, were able to bridge the gap, and they won the presidency.
Right now the problem that Obama has is that there is mounting evidence that he will have a lot of problems bridging that gap. If he doesn't, and he is the nominee, Democrats will lose the race to McCain.
The article notes that such voters have a more negative impression of Obama now than they did in February. This is from the article:
In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.
One obvious reason that Obama has trouble with such voters is race, but its not all about race. As the article makes clear, Clinton's campaign has more specific policy proposals aimed at such voters than Obama's campaign. The recent controversy over the gas tax is a good example.
There are a lot of reasons why the idea of a summer recess for the gas tax is a bad idea, but if you are struggling with higher fuel bills for your car, the prospect of lowering the cost per gallon is attractive. Its not that Clinton's policy is likely to be adopted, its that by coming up with the policy she is showing working class voters that she understands their concerns.
There is always tension in the Democratic Party between candidates backed by the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party and candidates backed by the working class wing of the Democratic Party. Candidates who can bridge that gap can win, but candidates who can't, don't. Kennedy in 1960; Johnson in 1964; Carter in 1976; and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, were able to bridge the gap, and they won the presidency.
Right now the problem that Obama has is that there is mounting evidence that he will have a lot of problems bridging that gap. If he doesn't, and he is the nominee, Democrats will lose the race to McCain.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Strickland Not Making Taft's Mistakes
Governor Ted Strickland is not making the mistakes that Taft made which were to look as if he didn't care that Republicans were violating the public's trust. Strickland, by saying that there seems to be a double standard at work in the AG's office when four people lose their jobs but Dann doesn't, is trying to make sure that the damage is limited to Dann.
One of the problems that Dann has is that when you win election by talking about the faults of the other team, your margin of error is substantially reduced. You have to keep out of trouble yourself. You can't afford to be involved in a "romantic" relationship with a 28 year old employee.
The Ohio Constitution allows the Governor to appoint someone to the position of Ohio Attorney General if the position becomes vacant. If Dann resigned and such a vacancy occurred, then, depending on when the vacancy occurred, Strickland's appointee would either run this November in the 2008 election, or would run in the 2010 election.
In a state that usually tilts Republican, and with a Republican party that is usually well-funded by business interests, the Ohio Democratic Party can't afford to keep Dann around as Attorney General. Look for more pressure to be put on him to resign in the coming weeks.
One of the problems that Dann has is that when you win election by talking about the faults of the other team, your margin of error is substantially reduced. You have to keep out of trouble yourself. You can't afford to be involved in a "romantic" relationship with a 28 year old employee.
The Ohio Constitution allows the Governor to appoint someone to the position of Ohio Attorney General if the position becomes vacant. If Dann resigned and such a vacancy occurred, then, depending on when the vacancy occurred, Strickland's appointee would either run this November in the 2008 election, or would run in the 2010 election.
In a state that usually tilts Republican, and with a Republican party that is usually well-funded by business interests, the Ohio Democratic Party can't afford to keep Dann around as Attorney General. Look for more pressure to be put on him to resign in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)