Archive for the 2008 Presidential Election Category

John McCain- the Choice of those who accuse the U.S. Government of funding ‘Black Genocide’

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , , on May 11, 2008 by plinynovo

As noted in a prior post, John McCain has said that, even though Obama doesn’t support or endorse Hamas,   it is relevant that Hamas has said nice things about Obama.  The argument is apparently, if Hamas supports Obama – then that means that Obama implicitly supports their agenda.  This is a ridiculous argument, but as McCain apparently believes it, once again applying the ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,’ principal here is the next in our series of who supports McCain.  This one is even a bit stronger against Sen. McCain as, unlike Obama with Hamas, McCain has sought out Rod Parsleys endorsement. 


Parsley Claims that the U.S. Government is funding ‘Black Genocide.” 


John McCain – the choice of French Workers

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , , , on May 11, 2008 by plinynovo

John McCain has said that while he knows that Obama opposes the goals and aspirations of Hamas, it is relevant that Hamas supports Obama.  As what is good for the goose is good for the gander, we should apply the same standard to McCain.  I shall be posting a series that looks at those who support Senator McCain.  Today’s installment is from the French workers.  It is clear that manufacturing workers in France are happy with the Arizona Senator for helping Airbus gain a major U.S. Defense contract.  While, McCain may tell workers in Michigan that manufacturing jobs are not coming back, he doesn’t say the same thing in France.

How Hillary lost – It’s the War Stupid!

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , on May 11, 2008 by plinynovo

Over the past few days, I have read and watched the inevitable postmortems on Hillary’s campaign as pundits attempt to explain how HRC went from a planned coronation to being the houseguest who will not leave.  The analysis routinely focuses on a number of factors – usually beginning with her failure to sense the change mood, to poor planning for caucuses, to wasteful spending to a myriad of causes, but one that is rarely mentioned, to me seems to be the obvious elephant in the room – her vote on the Iraq War.


Yes, the fact that she voted for the authorization of force has been mentioned, but it has not been analyzed as a reason for her defeat – not truly.   Here is my attempt to explain that it was this vote that caused many voters to begin looking for an alternate candidate. 

 In 2002 most people who paid attention knew full well that G. W. Bush was marching this country to war with Iraq.  All of the media covered it (and indeed seemed to support it).  During this time period a substantial portion of the democratic activist base saw this and strongly opposed it.  Also at the time, it was apparent that the majority of the country was falling for the Bush Administration’s constant attempts to conflate Iraq with the 9-11 attacks and, helped by a media establishment that abdicated all responsibility for journalism, most Americans were supportive of the War. 

 The base looked to Democratic leaders in Congress to challenge the claims of the administration – indeed they looked to Hillary Clinton herself.  She let that base down – and indeed became one of the most active democratic cheerleaders against Iraq.  Why did she do this?  She has offered various explanations since the vote – none of which admit a mistake and moreover all of which lack creditability.  Perhaps we will never know exactly what was in Hillary’s mind at the time of the vote, but I can tell you want many Democrats believe.  Whether true or not, many see her vote as being purely political.  She was already thinking of a run for the Presidency.  She made a calculation that a vote for the War would show her as a strong leader willing to use force to defend the nation, thereby negating any questions about her future qualification as Commander-in-Chief.  On the other hand, she felt that a vote against the War would open her up to criticism as being a left wing “peacenik.”  Thus, the reasoning goes, she made the vote, not because she believed it was the right thing to do, but rather because it would help her become president. 

 The essence of a purely political act is not doing what you think is right, but rather doing what you think will benefit you.  This is what the activist base saw Hillary do in 2002.  Whether true or not, they knew in their hearts that Hillary, in her heart, agreed with them that the war was wrong.  She was too intelligent, too experienced, too – like them- not to know that going to Iraq was a disaster.  If she voted for it, she had to be doing it to help herself.  It is one thing to make a purely political vote on a spending bill – okay there is a bridge to no-where – but maybe she got something for it.  But it is completely another thing to make such a vote on the decision to go to war.  People die in wars.  It is absolutely immoral to vote to go to war if you do not believe in the justness of the war.  It is the moral equivalent of murder.  One can forgive a mistaken, but good faith, belief in such a vote, but not a politically calculated vote of self-interest. 

 It was with this vote that Hillary lost the activist base of the party.  Had the war proceeded well, she might have pulled off her presidential bid.  But the war didn’t go well.  As the casualties mounted and as the war drug on, it became clearer and clearer that the war was, as the activist had always expected, a disaster.  As this happened, the small activist base grew.  Those who had originally ignored the issue or even supported the war began to join the anti-war contingent.  They began to ask how did we get here.  They looked at Hillary (and others in Congress) and asked “how could you have let this happen?’ 

 Some like Edwards and Kerry apologized, but Hillary didn’t.  She stood by her decision as being the correct one; then she tried to say that she hadn’t voted for war, but for diplomacy.  The fallacy of the argument was clear.  Hillary was seen as saying anything to help herself.  The Clintons have always been seen as being willing to say or do anything to win.  This is the narrative that has grown up around them since the early ‘90s.  It was easy to see her vote on the war as fitting into that pattern.  The more she tried to finesse her vote, the more she looked like a purely political creature with no principals.  The more she looked like she had no principals, the more people grasped for something new – for change.  People began looking for an alternative, for someone who would offer a way out of the mess in Washington.  There is something to be said for being in the right place at the right time.  Barrack Obama was the perfect person, with the perfect message to capitalize on the mood of the party. 

Does the Left admire Reagan more than Clinton?

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , , on May 10, 2008 by plinynovo

Have the Clinton’s damaged their reputations with the left?  I know this is not a scientific study, but I offer this evidence of the rift between themselves and the Democratic left.  Today I was participating in a discussion on Daily Kos.  It was one of those discussions not on the issues of the day, but one just for fun and talk about history.  The discussion contained a Poll as well as comments.  The topic – “the most admired US President of all time.”  185 votes were cast by the participants.  Why am I discussing this?  Bill Clinton got three votes from the Daily Kos crowd.  Ronald Reagan got four.  


Even in a non-scientifically selected cross section of Daily Kos readers, to me it seems significant that Reagan beats Clinton in a poll of great presidents.  I can only attribute this to dissatisfaction of the left with both of the Clintons due to the 2008 race.

Rasmussen to stop polling Clinton/Obama – The Race is Over

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , on May 9, 2008 by plinynovo


Okay, if there was any doubt that Obama is the nominee, there can be no more.  Rasmussen has decided that it will stop polling the Democratic contest and will instead focus on the Obama-McCain race.  To sum it up, Rasmussen stated:

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Hillary “Annie Oakley” Clinton shows how in touch she is(n’t)

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , , on May 5, 2008 by plinynovo

According to a Politico article, Hillary has been filling mailboxes across Indiana and N.C. with mailings questioning Obama’s commitment to the 2nd Amendment (and thereby demonstrating her gun bona fides).  The problem is that her ad men reversed the image of the gun, making it a non-existent left handed model of a highly expensive ($2,200 for the existent right handed model) German rifle customized for the European market.  You may say, so what – who cares?  If you are among the many that say that, you are not a gun owner (and that is the audience she is after with this mailing).  

Politico quotes gun enthusiasts as saying: “I find it laughable on its face,” he said. “It’s like a picture of Babe Ruth hitting right-handed,” and “I bet the Clinton folks did a mirror flip on the stock image to make it look more ‘aesthetic.’  What a latte-sipping, Gucci-wearing thing to do.”

This may not be the biggest gaffe in the campaign, but I find it hilarious (or should I say ‘Hillarious.”)


Obama-Clinton, a hate-filled dream ticket

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election with tags , , on May 4, 2008 by plinynovo

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting op-ed in today’s Times of London.  While I am not sure, I agree he makes an strong argument for an Obama- Clinton ticket.  

While I agree with the idiom advanced by Sullivan, that such a combination would ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” I am unsure whether this would serve to show Obama as the uniter he has campaigned to be.  Such a ticket might marginally show some effort at being a uniter, but this type of uniting has a long history (think of Kennedy-Johnson, Reagan- Bush, Roosevelt-Gardner etc).  For that component, I think Obama should take a true page from Lincoln’s playbook and look at a Republican running mate.  I suggest, Chuck Hagel would go much further to show Obama as a new kind of uniter.