Live from Chicago Part 6: A Strong Mandate for Change

OVERDUE UPDATE WITH PHOTOS
What a night! Obama and the Democratic Party received a powerful mandate for change! With a popular vote lead of 52%-46% and an over 6 million (almost 7 right now) vote margin and with possibly as much as 375 electoral votes in Obam's column (it looks like the final total will be 364 electoral votes unless a recount in Missouri overturns a slight McCain lead there), this was a completely decisive victory. Obama gave a very powerful victory speech tonight (and yes McCain gave a good gracious concession speech) - America has a real opportunity to re-assert its leadership on the world stage and get its house in order at home - on finding solutions for the current economic crisis improving health care, education and their record on the environment. He will be facing some tough challenges though for sure. I am hopeful Obama will at the least do all he can to fulfill his potential with the mandate he received tonight and that, with control of Congress, he can carry out the bulk of his agenda in a responsible manner. I remain a bit disappointed the Democrats have not won more Senate seats (though 4 still remain officially uncalled, with almost all precincts in Dems are currently down in MN, Oregon, Georgia the Reps may win without the need for a run-off, and convicted felon Ted Stevens is still ahead) and they fell a bit short of expectations for the House despite a decent number of pick-ups. The biggest disappointment though is what looks like a victory for Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California (52% for Yes with 86% reporting) - it's very sad such a slim majority can decide the rights of a minority and amend the state constitution so easily. So while at the top of the ticket this was an emphatic victory for those looking for change after the last 8 years it was not an across the board win for progressives at the ballot box this year.... No question though tonight was history in the making and I was glad to be in Chicago for it. Goodnight!

OVERDUE UPDATE: Here are at last are some of the photos from the night (their quality is coming up somewhat poor on here though)....

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago...part 5

Even after 2 senior political aides to McCain see "no path to victory" and a GOP CNN political analyst sees no way for a GOP win, CNN is still not calling the election! Have some courage, its a pretty safe call guys.

Fitting that McCain is watching the results from the Goldwater suite. I would love to hear the discussion, wondering if he's blaming his "rogue" hand picked, novice running mate.

The crowd here at Grant Park gets very upset at every McCain pickup, not to worry my friends...let the man win the non-surprising red states to save some face. He's served his country well in his lifetime, more than his share, he's just lost his way (and his morals and positions that he's stood up during his career) and he's run a relentlessly negative campaign and that's what he can blame it on.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago...part 4

I find it humourous that the McCain camp is keeping their supporters at their rally from watching the news and results, and instead is trying to keep them distracted with guest performers.

CNN is also being humourous with their wild "for the sake of argument" best case scenarios for McCain. Why even bother, when they preface these arguments with that qualification and also a "not likely" on more then half of them. And more so, after all of that, with all of that in consideration, they won't even call the election!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago Part 3

Breaking news: Danielle Takacs beats CNN and projects Obama will be the next US president.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

Live from Chicago part 2

Pennsylvania called for Obama!!!! Crowd goes insane! Feeling much better now. Things are looking really good :)

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

US E-Day Live from Grant Park in Chicago Part 1

Excitement for Obama could be seen all over the place the closer you got to Grant Park where he will be speaking tonight.

I was at his campaign HQ this aft and it was literally overflowing with volunteers calling voters across the us to gotv for Obama. There were so many they had to set up a second campaign office across town. And all of the workers were using their own cell phones! We need this kind of operation for Liberals across the country!

So I am in Grant Park now Ill have lots of photos up later. I came to the park area around 3 PM. Now the crowd is completely overflowing. They go wild every time a new result goes on the jumbo screen with obama ahead anywhere even with only 1 percent precincts in

As for the results so far... I like what I see in Indiana and Florida but not Virginia at all so far. I don't trust any exit poll data and I think its too early to call it based on numbers so far

The states called so far are no surprise except I am a bit surprised nh has now been called so quickly. No surprises yet with Senate races either.

Will have more as the night goes on stay tuned...

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Recommend this Post

The Night Before E-Day in Chicago

Arrived yesterday morning in Chicago expecting to see a hustle and bustle of one of the world’s biggest cities, which is home to most likely the next president of the juggernaut of the United States. As I walked the streets, listened to conversations, I could not believe it, but I couldn’t tell that this was the base of Barack Obama’s campaign. I guess it may be just because Illinois is in the bag and the campaign is focused on the swing stages instead, but what I saw still took me by surprise.

I spent about five hours yesterday, walking the streets of Chicago to see if there was any excitement. I saw one businessman with an Obama button on his jacket quickly walking down the streets. I saw another man with a placard on both his front and back, detailing his lack of trust for Obama who seemed to have a resemblance to a man obsessed with saving one’s souls on judgment day. I guess not everyone is for Obama here in Illinois, but people didn’t seem to give this guy much attention..

Near the end of the evening and lack of signs of pre-election day life, I decide to take my chances and hike to Grant Park, the location of Obama’s E-day speech. As I walked though the park, I am sill amazed that the park seems unguarded, vast and empty. If it were not for the extensive amount of blue rows of porto-poties, it would have been any night in a big city. As I continued walking through the dark emptiness, I realize just how huge the park is. I realize that almost half of the park, the middle, is under construction and as such, the space will go unused.
I finally got to the one end of the park, and it was there that the excitement was…going to be. The only excitement at that moment was one block of media satellite trucks, at the end of the row was CBC (which did get a greeting from me and hence gave away my nationality). The event looks like a private yet intimate affair for 60 000, and a couple more thousand invited politicians and VIPs. The people that do not make it to this area, those without tickets, will experience the event outside in amazing weather fit to anoint a new era and its leader of change, watching the festivities on big screens and more likely just hearing I just like others in their homes.

But the experience will be going there, being around thousands of others, who, for a variety of reasons, support the Democratic party and its leader of yesterday and most likely its stander bearer for at least a decade. And during that time, those thousands of Americans and people from around the world who came to experience the man who they are putting much trust and faith in to deliver on his message of change and hope, will come together in what will be a goal that they hope will one day eventually last longer than a historic election night.

This election is historic – we will have a president who is African-American, but more importantly, someone who has reconciled the white and black vote and has recruited more first time voters and youth. Or we could (big long shot) will have a female vice president, who, many say, is less of a role model for women’s rights than her sex would have us believe. George Bush was able to connect with voters on the fact that if he could be president, anyone in the US could be president, and that he could relate to the “average Joe” and even be one of them. If Ms. Palin becomes VP, well I'll leave it others to note what that would say...

I came here yesterday with the expectations that the US is onto election fever that we only dream about. And clearly yesterday, my expectations of that fell a bit short. They are not dashed – the only day that matters is E-day and what happens that day as a result of it. The Obama craze that is taking over the US and other parts of the world, can be attributed to good old fashioned Get Out the Vote efforts and political organization and fundraising, but more importantly, using those efforts with a little bit of creativity and the willingness to do those tried, tested and true efforts in a more risky, yet calculated way. And it’s also been a powerful example of a campaign that’s heavily tapped into grassroots involvement that Liberals could learn from.

As I ended my night, I snuck into a 7-11 for a late snack. At the cashier, there are a handful of Obama buttons and small florescent Obama posters for sale than the average button or poster. Ahh…at least some things don’t change with the smell of new change – good old American capitalism and free markets.

I’ll post some photos later from the scene of Grant Park from last night (and any photos I get tonight), so come back here later today for my thoughts throughout the day here in Chicago as “The Chase for Change, 2008” series finally concludes with the E-Day results and a hopeful victory speech for the ages…. I expect a MUCH larger crowd that the handful of people I saw last night to say the least.

History will be made today no doubt about that. America and the world badly need change after 8 disastrous years and it can't come soon ehough.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Election Countdown and Some Perspective from 2000/2004

Well for somewhat obvious reasons my focus was elsewhere these past two months, so I think this would be the first post in this series since Palin was picked as McCain's VP. Well what’s changed since then? Let’s see well Palin slowly lost credibly and has gone from being seeing as a genius gambit and to a massive drag on McCain’s campaign as she goes “rogue” for 2012, McCain lost credibility as the economy tanked and he suspended his campaign and seemed clueless what to do, McCain has launched desperate attack after desperate attack hoping something will stick, Joe the Plummer became official John McCain spokesman, and Sarah Palin’s friend Ted Stevens became a convicted felon and opened up another Senate on the Democrats’ quest for a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Meanwhile Obama has stayed consistently on message (notwithstanding some less than helpful remarks from some of his surrogates), put in 3 strong debate performances, responded to the economic crisis well and now has a chance to rout McCain on Election night. He’s put the Democrats back on the map in places where they’ve been out of the game for over a decade and has raised phenomenal amounts of money ($150 million in September alone!). Liberals here must make his campaign operation a case study for ourselves (and if they get some of the top guys who worked on his campaign to advise us all the better)

BUT, let’s NOT get too confident here. Obama is clearly leading, but McCain sits pretty much exactly where Al Gore sat in the polls at this point so late in the campaign in 2000. In the end he won the popular vote and should have won the election if they re-counted all the ballots in Florida. And in 2004...well take a look at these electoral college predictions from TWO DAYS before E-day last time. Kerry is seen is solidly ahead in Iowa, yet he lost. Kerry is ahead in Florida and he ended up being trounced losing by 5%. Kerry is ahead in Ohio and he lost there too. If you look at the next day you see Kerry up by 5% in Florida so that's 10% off the actual result.

So you can see that state polls in 2004 just two nights or even one night before E-day were off by more than 5 percentage points in several cases. Lucky for Obama he is in the lead in far more states than Kerry was, but if the national tide turns against Obama in the final days (as it did against Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004) then so would these state polls and McCain could pull ahead or Obama may only win by a razor thin margin late in the night. In 2000 the race was far closer than polls a week out predicted, in 2004 Bush won by many more votes than the polls a week out predicted, so let’s keep in the mind.

Even so, I'll be Chicago Tuesday cautiously optimistic that I’ll bear witness to Obama’s victory speech (and hopefully before midnight lest the crowd get too restless), but it definitely ain’t over till it’s over.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Sarah Palin Vs. Hillary Clinton – It’s No Time to be Fooled

So I've said what the pick means for Obama, but what do I think of Sarah Palin as VP? Well first of all kudos to McCain for picking a woman. We do need more women moving up the ladder in politics and it’s more than about time the Republicans finally did this. BUT while it’s important to have more women it’s MORE important to have those women fight FOR women’s issues and women’s rights. Hillary Clinton was certainly that kind of woman and Obama and Biden may not be women but I know they’ll fight for them. Sarah Palin? Well let’s see how she stacks up against Hillary Clinton on the issues:
On a woman’s right to choose: She is against abortion EVEN in case of rape. That’s even MORE conservative than the Bush administration’s official position.
On the environment: Doesn't believe that humans cause global warming and is in the pocket of Big Oil and mining companies. I thought John McCain was going to be a champion of the environment? I guess this pick says otherwise, no wonder the Sierra Club is angry.
On education: Wants creationism (not just intelligent design) taught in public schools
On life-saving research: Opposes stem-cell research (which McCain says he supports)
On pork-barrel spending: She supported the infamous "bridge to nowhere" that McCain claims she opposed.
On ethics: She’s supporting Alaska Senate Ted Stevens Senate re-election campaign while he is under indictment in a corruption scandal (don’t think that a big deal? Well the video in the post I link to curiously disappeared from her website). She also was a staunch backer of Pat Buchanan who has said so many offensive things that even the bulk of the Republican Party shun him these days.
On Hillary Clinton: Nothing but a whiner. According to Palin’s own words sexism is “just part of the game” in politics and she seems to imply that it should just be accepted and that it’s something women shouldn’t talk about. And the P.U.M.A. crowd like this woman? Palin mocks everything they stand for!

So does this woman have ANYTHING in common with Hillary Clinton other than her gender? No wonder the old boys club of the Republican establishment is ecstatic. John McCain/Palin have no plan for child care, poverty, extended parental leave (it’s shameful how far the U.S. is from Canada on that), and pay equity, while Obama/Biden do. If you read the latest article on McCain's website for why women should vote for him it just says McCain will help the economy and that will help women. What a champion!

The reality of the Palin pick though I think is summed up well by the National Organization for Women:
“What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.”

To be clear again I think Sarah Palin is to be admired for what she has accomplished, being a successful businesswoman and a very popular governor, and I’m not someone who’s gonna say she lacks the experience to be President. It’s good to see a woman on the Republican ticket as it will make it easier for other women to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. I hope Sarah Palin runs for the nomination in 2012, but given where she stands on the issues that matter to me and I’m sure millions of others who want to see women’s rights and issues ADVANCED not moved BACKWARD I can’t say she would be a friend of women as Vice-President or President. Therefore, if she and McCain pick up ANY Hillary Clinton supporters it would be profoundly disappointing because Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin (or John McCain) have virtually NOTHING in common on the issues.

I would have liked to have seen a woman (like the governors of Arizona or Kansas) on Barack Obama’s ticket but as I’ve said from the very beginning (before it was known who would win the Democratic nomination) it’s absolutely essential that all progressives line up behind the Democratic nominee because there is too much at stake on too many issues that matter to the U.S., Canada and the world (certainly not just women’s issues) to allow someone as Conservative as John McCain to become President. I'd say that case is even stronger now with someone more Conservative than Stockwell Day and Cheryl Gallant as McCain's choice for VP.

However, whether Barack Obama admits it or not will need Hillary Clinton’s supporters to win – he would do well to do more joint appearances with her and pointedly reach out to her supporters. The convention was not the place in my view, but I see little harm in doing an event with Clinton where Clinton lays out the case of why Palin is not a friend of women and Obama gives his standard stump speech but with added praise again for Clinton (I know he’s done this), but crucially with some lines about how he needs Clinton’s supporters and all Democrats to win and he asks for their support. Obama could say he doesn’t need 20% of Clinton supporters to win and surely some will never vote for him, but any voters gained leads to a much more comfortable lead-up to, and actual, election night.

I think Obama’s DNC speech made an excellent case for why all Americans should vote FOR him, but he hasn’t yet sealed the deal fully within his party. I hope he takes the next few weeks to do that. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d like to see him have an insurmountable lead in the polls weeks before Election Day.

h/t to mydd.com for the sources
Other Liberals have commented on the Palin pick here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

UPDATE: The Democrats definitely should not underestimate Palin’s appeal. As of now her favourability ratings are a fair bit higher than Biden's and I know there were some who argued that Biden’s favourables were a good reason to have him on Obama’s ticket. So for now Palin is clearly positive for McCain’s chances. But again I think the only way for Democrats/progressives to approach this pick is by focusing on her stands on the issues, anything else I think will backfire.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: John McCain’s VP Pick - McCain Admits Obama is Ready to Lead as President!

I’ll talk in the next post about what I think specifically about Sarah Palin as VP, but first I should say that I think the Obama camp’s initial response to it has been foolish. Right out of the gate they put out a press release saying Sarah Palin has little to no experience and no foreign policy experience and therefore she shouldn’t be a “heartbeat away” from the Presidency. I think Obama would do well to disavow the press release. Not to mention the release didn’t mention the historic nature of the pick, experience has been the central argument AGAINST Obama. Obama is just not going to win that argument. He’d be MUCH better to say “I believe Sarah Palin has the qualifications to be President, but I think it’s time for John McCain to stop the smears and admit that everyone on our tickets do – the American people deserve better”. If Obama and his supporters want to argue Palin is too inexperienced I think they’ll regret it and it will just end up in McCain ads. Sure Obama has more years of experience and more foreign policy experience, but Palin has executive experience which you really can’t deny is important (sure it’s only 2 years as a governor and being a mayor of a small town but it’s no coincidence there’s been very few Senators who have won the Presidency). Sure there were more experienced women (like Rice) McCain could have chosen as well but I don’t see how Obama benefits from making these arguments.

If Obama just cedes the argument that Palin has the qualifications necessary than what do the Republicans have left? I’m sure the plan for the RNC was to have speaker after speaker say Obama is “not ready to lead”, well it’s hard to argue that, if all agree that Palin is ready, that Obama isn’t. I know the Republicans are saying she has more exec experience, but the argument was always about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience so they can’t change their arguments credibly this far in the game.

So I hope the U.S. media does its job and calls John McCain on this question and just asks point blank “if you think Sarah Palin is ready to lead, how can you say Obama isn’t?” After spending so much on ads saying Obama is not ready to lead, I wonder what he’ll say?

If experience is no longer an election issue then change, judgment and the actual policy stances become the bigger issues. Palin definitely brings the change card, but Republicans trying to win on that is like Liberals in Canada saying they want an election to be all about crime, it’s just not their strong suit, just like national security remains a Republican strong suit whether Obama likes it or not (hence why I thought the 3 AM ads were dumb because it was trying to elevate an issue that Democrats lose on). Then there’s judgment, also where Obama wins and same with policy stances.

That said, Democrats would do well not to underestimate what Palin brings to the ticket. She’s very charismatic, is an extremely popular governor and her life story will appeal to many Americans. Rather than go after her experience which is dumb, they ought to focus on where she stands on the issues and point out what kind of President she’d be. That’s the topic of the next post here.

Other Liberals have commented on the Palin pick here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: DNC Thoughts

Despite John McCain stealing the thunder the day after I think the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week went as well as can be expected. The case was made better than ever for why Democrats should vote FOR Barack Obama and finally many Democrats went full blown after John McCain – it was more than past time for that. Aside from Obama/Biden I’d argue the best speeches were from Hillary Clinton (Obama could not have expected better), Bill Clinton (I was pleased that he made the parallel back to the dynamics of the 1992 race), John Kerry (finally got his revenge for the “Voting for it before you were against it” smear you got in the last campaign), Bill Richardson (made the points I’ve been making about how on the very few principled stands McCain has taken like on taxes, the environment and torture, he’s reversed on every one) and Al Gore (good to see he noted the uncanny Lincoln parallel in terms of their experience and that at least 1 and up to 3 Supreme Court justices could be selected by the next President which will resonate for decades not 4 years). I wish others got more time like Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano because with less time you obviously can’t give the show stopper speeches others could. They still did well though.

Joe Biden did quite well, but I wasn’t blown away – still he’ll make an excellent VP and I think he’ll be great for the ticket.

Obama’s speech was definitely as good as it had to be. Not sure I can say it was his absolute best, but definitely blows away what anyone at the Republican convention will offer. All in all I can’t say the Democrats have much to be disappointed about from their convention and early news is they’ve gotten a bump in the polls from it.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: A Missed Opportunity for Obama's VP

UPDATED
So the worst kept secret is finally out of the bag – it’s Joe Biden. I never got around to outlining what I thought was required for Obama’s VP pick, but had I done so I would have said (you’ll just have to trust me on this) that the VP pick should have executive experience (e.g., be a governor), be able to put some Southern and Midwestern states in play (e.g., be from the South or Midwest), be a woman (because so many female Democrats felt let down by Hillary’s loss and it would give them a milestone to still fight for, not to mention it's well past time), be able to reach out to Hillary Clinton’s supporters (e.g., someone who worked on Hillary’s campaign or Hillary herself) and have solid foreign policy experience. Joe Biden only has the last one so I would count him as a disappointment and a missed opportunity.

What states is Joe Biden going to help Obama with? Will he help win Virginia, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado? I’d say no – in fact McCain will be happy to cast the ticket as two liberal Northern Senators who don’t represent the rest of America.

How does Biden help counter the critique that Obama has no executive experience?

If Obama really wanted experience he should have gone with Bill Richardson, he doesn’t meet all my criteria (to be fair no one did), but at least he’s a Midwestern governor with solid domestic AND foreign policy experience, ties to the Clinton administration (even though Carville hates him now) and would have been another first – the first Hispanic (the fastest growing demographic) on the ticket. For those who say Americans couldn’t stomach two "firsts" and Obama needed an old white guy I say that’s offensive and I just don’t think that holds water.

I also thought the argument against Hillary Clinton was that she had been in Washington too long and it would go against his “change” message? So he picks someone who’s been in Washington two decades who has made countless gaffes while he’s been there and who said quite emphatically and he did NOT want to be Vice President? (Yes I know there was the Bill Clinton problem too but that could have been managed) How does Biden help reach out to Hillary supporters? The fact that he slammed Obama so much during the race doesn’t seal the deal I’m afraid and the disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters I fear are going to be fuming.

My top picks would have Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas) and Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona). While they lacked the foreign policy experience Biden has and were Obama supporters they satisfy the other criteria and were strong female governors (which would appeal to many disaffected Hillary supporters who still feel it’s crucial to have a woman in the oval office) who could have helped Obama win in the Midwest and ultimately that’s what Obama needs to win and Biden doesn’t really help much with that from what I can see.

John McCain may now pick a female VP (though I’m certain she’ll be anti-choice and not really onside with the women’s movement) and while I hope not many women get fooled (just imagine someone like Cheryl Gallant leading the country) – I think it would win over some former Hillary Clinton supporters and Obama has left this opportunity wide open for McCain by not just choosing a well-qualified woman himself.

To be clear I’m sure Joe Biden will make a great VP and he is well-qualified and certainly miles better than anything John McCain will put up. To be fair, I’ll refer you to two posts on why Biden will be good for the ticket. Still, from a strategic standpoint I personally just don’t understand this and I happen to feel strongly that there were better, more qualified people who deserved the position more. And as a woman I'm disappointed that this sends a message to wait until 2016 for a woman on the ticket.

The fact remains though that America and Canada and the rest of the world still needs Barack Obama as President. I’m disappointed because I think this pick works against that. No going back of course, but I’ve been frank on the faults made through this Presidential race by any candidate and will continue to do so. Obama is only human and he can learn from his mistakes pointed out by his supporters and recognize the weaknesses that still remain for a Obama-Biden ticket.

In the end I (and I hope many others, particularly in the U.S. so the media takes notice) and many others will continue to point out that John McCain would be MORE CONSERVATIVE on domestic policy and MORE HAWKISH on foreign policy than George W. Bush and would therefore be even worse on both fronts, not to mention he would set back women’s rights 30 years. And I will continue to point out all the great qualities an Obama Presidency would bring. So it won’t be hard to say Obama-Biden is by far the best option for Americans on November 4th. I still look forward to watching the Democratic Convention.

UPDATE: So after reading more posts in favour of Biden and watching his speech in Springfield with Obama, and a couple other videos, I must say I feel a lot better about him as the choice, I think he'll do better in states like Ohio than I gave him credit. When you are getting praise from Republican Senators AND Michael Moore at the same time, along with the high favourability ratings Scott Tribe noted, that is quite a good testament of cross-partisan support. I now feel better that he'll do well for the campaign and he definitely had some good lines in Springfield. That said some of the drawbacks I outlined remain - no executive experience, no regional balance to the ticket, and kind of goes agains the long-standing Obama arguments of "you can't change the culture in Washington by sending the same old faces back and expecting a different result" or that you can't credibly run against John McCain on Iraq when you voted for the war (which Biden did). Also the fact that Biden is on record saying he would be proud to be ON John McCain's ticket and that he encouraged John Kerry to take McCain as his running mate will take some of the sting out of Biden's attacks on McCain. Obama would do well to be well aware of these remaining weaknesses and Biden ought to have an answer ready of why he said he would be willing to be on McCain's ticket or wanted Kerry to have him in 2004.

But I did want to update this to say I feel better about him than I did before so the title of this post has changed a bit. Still a missed opportunity though, I would have liked to seen a strong female governor chosen and I still believe others would have done better and been more qualified for the ticket, for instance, I've yet to hear one argument why Joe Biden was a better pick than Bill Richarson. Biden will be a great VP though regardless. Still looking forward to the big convention speeches :).

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Hillary Clinton Endorses Barack Obama (Video)

I would say this was easily the best speech I've ever seen her give. She ran a very strong campaign and she laid out the stakes in this election and its historic nature extremely well. The speech was positive in tone from start to finish (no even mention of John McCain) showcasing the great message Democrats are bringing in this election. I think it's a great step in unifying the party and I know no matter what role Hillary Clinton is given, she can be a strong asset to Barack Obama's campaign. If Democrats are united that will defeat John McCain as America and the world so badly needs.

Recommend this Post

Deja Vu

The ad above is paid for by Republican Party (RNC).I warned this would happen, but I guess the Democratic leadership candidates didn’t pay attention to what happened after the Liberal leadership race. Even so turning down the negativity on Obama on all sides certainly couldn’t have hurt – it’s a lesson for all party nominations: stay positive and just watch you don't get too negative or else it will come back later. What was said in the Democratic race was actually far more negative than anything in the Liberal leadership race though (I still say the Conservative ads here were pretty weak).

I don’t think this will have large effect though just like in Canada the Liberals rebounded in the polls after a short drop. Obama would be wise though to hit back with an ad of his own and use his massive war chest to blanket the airwaves with it.

His ad should take the experience or “not ready” attack head on – perhaps it could contrast him to Lincoln who has the exact same political experience going into the Presidency while also noting the community work Obama has done in his life. So the ad could say he’s ready to bring the change we need on Day 1 whereas John McCain is only ready to carry on the same failed policies of the past. Or it could be similar to his previous ads that what is needed in a President is the judgment to make the right decisions and time and time again Obama has been right and McCain wrong.

Either way Obama will be able to combat this and there's no point getting upset about the past and stopping it from the party coming together, but I do hope lessons can still be learned to make sure the next race for the Democratic Party leadership(which I hope isn't till 2016) isn't this negative.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Barack Obama for President of the United States

It's been a long hard and sometimes quite divisive campaign but it's finally over: Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee to go against John McCain. I know a lot of progressive minded people who are disappointed that Hillary Clinton didn't win and who are upset about some of the things that happened in the race, but for the greater good it's extremely important that all progressives unite up behind the Democratic nominee for reasons I've outlined before. Hillary was right to stay in until the last votes were counted and she come extremely close to being the first female Presidential nominee. Women ought to be proud of that and the 18 million votes she got and I hope in 2016 there are multiple strong female candidates in the race (with Barack Obama's VP being just one of those women). It may seem a long time to wait but the time will come and I know one day the Liberals will have a female leader as well. It remains important for women to know though that those who lead the Democratic Party and Liberal Party of Canada are committed to women's issues. I am certain Dion is and I am pretty sure Obama is as well and I believe they are both the right now to lead our countries.

I do hope all Clinton supporters can see that Barack Obama's platform was extremely similar to Hillary Clinton's and is committed to involving her in his administration (either as VP or in cabinet or perhaps endorsing her for Senate majority leader) and that Hillary's signature policies would become law under an Obama administration and she would receive the credit (I am also hopeful that a woman will be on his ticket whether it is Hillary or not). Virtually none of the changes that Hillary has called for would happen under a McCain Presidency and in fact women's rights would go backwards with McCain's next appointment to the Supreme Court.

It won't be an easy race but it would be dark days indeed to have another 4 years of a Republican Presidency and I believe in Obama's message so I'm certain the world and Canada would be much better off with him as President.

Be back later tomorrow tonight with my reflections on the race and thoughts about where it goes from here.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Many Democrats Losing Sight of Larger Picture Re: Offensive Supporters and Michigan/Florida

I know many Democrats and progressives have gotten very involved and committed to one side or another in this campaign, but when you are up against someone who will...

1) Set women's rights back 30 years through his promise to appoint a prolife judge to replace Justice Stevens - the most Liberal judge on the Supreme Court who WILL retire in the next term (he is 88 years old). Roe V. Wade would likely be overturned (it is 5-4 right now) and as many as 30 states would then criminalize abortion.

2) Wage a Mike Harris style war against the poor through his promise to balance the budget by "cutting spending dramatically" - remember he is NOT a moderate he has been rated as one of the most CONSERVATIVE Senators of all time by Conservative groups (see here and here - with a score over 70 points higher than Obama and Clinton and even 40 points higher than Republican Arlen Spector)

3) Undermine and slowly destroy the UN through his "League of Nations" (yes he did call it that) proposal to create a parallel organization that would exclude China and the entire Muslim world and also get to overrule the UN on every important world matter. Apparently McCain doesn't know how the first League of Nations turned out, repeating the same mistakes is a recipe for disaster.

4) Spending another trillion or more dollars on Iraq rather than putting that money into health care and education. Universal health care and quality public education once again denied to continue endlessly (because McCain has said they will NEVER withdraw without victory) a war that should have never been waged.

And a host of other problems it’s extremely important to focus on the bigger picture and ensure the Democratic nominee wins.

All of the above is in McCain's platform and public statements and it means we would see a President more dangerous on foreign policy (I'm disappointed no one in the media has really examined his League of Nations idea) and worse for the poor on domestic policy than even George Bush. If anyone can show me why I'm wrong on any of the points above please come forward. The media has done a real disservice by portraying McCain as a moderate.

The U.S. and the world desperately needs wholesale change after 8 years of George Bush not someone who would be even worse. Not to mention Obama’s and Clinton’s policy proposals 90% overlap with each other and hardly at all with McCain. So it troubles me when I see bloggers (yes this one has said she is a dual citizen so she can vote) and Democratic party activists musing about not being able to support the Democratic nominee.

The campaign has been brutally negative at some points with absolutely stupid and sometimes extremely offensive things were said by members of both sides. Geraldine Ferraro’s comments that Obama would be nowhere if it wasn’t black were extremely wrong and offensive. Samantha Power calling Clinton a monster had no place in the campaign, but neither did Hillary Clinton talking about how she is the choice of “white voters” (Clinton herself later agreed with a statement that it was “the stupidest thing she could ever say”) or talking about assassinations (I chalk that up solely to extremely poor judgment in choice of words but the example actually made no sense since the nomination was won in 1968 by someone who didn’t even compete in the primaries who a lot of historians think would have won no matter what, but any mention of assassination within the current election context is unacceptable) . The latest terrible insult was with Reverend Pfleger who basically inferred that Clinton and her supporters were racist and that her supporters were angry particularly that a black man might take the nomination from her (if that wasn’t what he was implying why did he keep invoking Hillary and Obama’s race in his sermon?). He has no place on any campaign and so Obama has denounced him, won’t have him involved with his campaign any longer and Obama is no longer part of the same church that invited this man and once had the even more offensive and bigoted Reverend Wright as pastor.

So while people on both campaigns have been hugely in the wrong on different occasions, the important thing is that these comments were later denounced and (when it wasn’t Clinton or Obama him/herself making the comments) the people involved were kicked off the campaign entirely. Sometimes you think you know someone well when you put them on the campaign, but if in the end you find out they hold bigoted or other unacceptable views there is no choice but to condemn their remarks and throw them off the campaign because these people don't belong in politics let alone a Presidential campaign. But its wrong to claim that Clinton or Obama must agree with the comments of their surrogates or that they must have known they held these views.

Now there is the issue of Michigan and Florida’s delegates.

I would say first of all the Democratic Party dropped the ball on this entirely. They should have done what the Republicans did and just say in advance the delegates would each only get half a vote and leave it at that. You don’t see any outrage on the Republican side on this so it’s clear that would have been best. But you can’t change the past so the Rules Committee had to do their best to repair this situation before more damage was done.

In the end the decision for Florida is EXACTLY the same as what the Republicans have done. Not to mention Terry McCauliffe is chair of Clinton’s campaign and said as DNC chair in 2004 that the appropriate penalty for moving up one’s primary is cutting the delegates from the state in half. So I find it puzzling to see a Democratic candidate say "If this is not resolved so that there is 100 per cent representation of every vote cast, I will never again vote for a Democratic candidate." So then he will vote for a party that did the same thing or stay home and allow that much worse party to win? Again losing sight of the bigger picture.

Michigan was the harder choice, but both Obama and Clinton’s camps were proposing completely unreasonable proposals. It would be ludicrous to split the delegates in half as Obama proposed since there is little evidence he would have gotten half the votes if he was on the ballot. At the same time it was ridiculous to give Clinton her share of delegates and leave the others as Uncommitted to be fought for at the convention when Obama wasn’t on the ballot and all the others campaigns have endorsed Obama now. So the Michigan Democratic Party proposed a compromise. Carl Levin, a Clinton supporter, backed the proposal. This WASN’T some 30 party hacks who came up with this idea it was the Michigan Democratic Party and the members of the Rules Committee endorsed the proposal.

I tend to think things would have been a lot easier if Obama was just given the 55 uncommitted delegates but you could certainly argue that more of his supporters would have turned out if he was on the ballot and some people who voted for Clinton wouldn't have if there were other candidates on the ballot. You can’t just pretend it’s no big deal that Obama wasn’t on the ballot, it’s hardly even a Democratic election when there is only one major candidate on the ballot so again the Michigan Democratic party tried to forge a compromise and I don’t think it’s worth dividing the party further to fight over 4 half-delegates (so 2 votes on the convention floor). I think Harold Ickes would have been better to just say “we respectfully disagree with this decision but it is more important for the party to be united” rather than going on a large tirade about how this doesn’t help to unify the party and it was unprecedented and so on. I do hope they can see the larger picture and realize that this wasn’t such an outrageous proposal and it is more important to unify the party. This kind of fiasco should never be allowed to happen again though.

So Democrats or other Clinton supporters can get all bitter and support McCain or stay home and see the country and the U.S. reputation destruct for another four years so you can say “I told you Obama couldn’t win!” but small comfort that will be to the millions more thrown into poverty and losing their health insurance and the women who would then have to travel across the country or to Canada to exercise their choice over whether to have an abortion.

People who would continue to wage old battles that would lead others to suffer just because they are angry that their preferred candidate didn’t win or angry at some things the opposing candidate’s supporters did is the height of narrow-mindedness and selfishness. If you supported Clinton’s ideas then why in the world would you help someone who has NOTHING in common with Clinton against someone who would do as President 90% of the same thing Hillary Clinton would?

So there are just a few primary contests left, it will all be over June 3rd and officially then or very soon thereafter. I really hope the Democrats can put these divisions and grievances behind and focus on the larger picture. Americans and the world can’t afford to wait another 4 years for change. Just like with the environment the longer you wait to change the more it will cost to fix and the more irreversible damage will have been done. So I think goal number one for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the next month and beyond HAS to be unifying the party.

With the party united John McCain can be defeated, but if they can’t unite, millions will suffer and it will have been a real opportunity blown simply because people couldn’t put their minute differences aside.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: West Virginia Edition

So last night was not a great for Obama, but it also wasn't unexpected. Last week many journalists predicted a 40 point blow-out and that's what we saw (67% - 26% was the final tally -though am I the only one wondering where the rest of the 7% went? The numbers added up roughly to 100% in every other primary). I'm sure Obama hoped to close the gap though and he failed to do so. I do note though that he got more votes last night than John McCain did :). I'm not sure he will win West Virginia but I'm confident that with the massive Democratic turnouts in every state in these primaries Democrats will turn out in November in large enough numbers in enough states to give him the White House.

That said, two things are clear after last night: Clinton will now almost certainly stay in until the last primary state has voted and Obama has to pick his VP very carefully with an eye to bringing in voters in states where he did not perform as well. Once the nomination race is officially over and assuming Obama wins (which is still extremely likely), I'll lay out my thoughts on who Obama's VP should be, but how these next few weeks play out I think will play a role in that, as it will be important to see if Obama does manage to do better in areas where he hasn't in the past.

I think it's absolutely terrible of Clinton to be focusing on how whites versus blacks vote and making any arguments versus Obama's candidacy on that basis, but Obama does need to do better in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida then he has in these primaries so hopefully his VP will help with that.

As for Clinton going forward, her victory speech was interesting. It had some good messages and good lines - the one about the woman who was born before women had the right to vote who cast an absentee ballot for Clinton in South Dakota literally from her death bed was a compelling story (though I didn't think the story of how an 11 year old boy was donating to her campaign was a particularly strong follow-up). Importantly she refrained from attacking Obama directly, but the speech did sound mostly like a final plea to superdelegates (in fact her speech said plainly they will decide the race) and a plea to be the VP if she loses (before North Carolina and Indiana I supported the idea as her as VP, but after the past week and some of her comments I have had second thoughts though I think an experienced woman definitely should be on the Democratic ticket). Though saying no Democrat was won the White House since 1916 without West Virginia ignores that Democrats owned the deep South and pretty much the opposite regions of the U.S. than they do today right up until the Nixon years (and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are the only Democrats elected since then and Bill Clinton won with heavy vote splitting on the right). It was interesting though that she only said she would be in the race until the last state had voted (as opposed to the convention) and talked about how "we" will come back to West Virginia and win. I would say though the speech didn't focus enough on John McCain which I hope she will do more of if she's staying in the race.

I think at this point Clinton knows she won't win, but despite what so many were saying about her refusing to be VP it seems she wants to be on the ticket more than Obama wants her. No matter what though Obama would have to find some way to reach out to her supporters when it is all said and done, he will regret it if he doesn't.

So now it's on to Kentucky and Oregon, where we will see a repeat of West Virginia in one state but Obama should at least be able to cushion the blow with a win in another. It will all be over soon though...

UPDATE: John Edwards endorsing Obama tonight will certainly help towards bringing this race to a close.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: Obama Vs. McCain?

So after what I noted was a very bad night for the Clinton campaign and a good night for Obama, we have heard many voices now say the race is over for the Democratic nomination.

However, what's most telling this time is when you actually look to what Clinton's own supporters are saying.

For instance, one of her supporters George McGovern (someone who is no stranger to having party division damage the Democratic Party's chances of winning the Presidency) today has called on Hillary Clinton to withdraw. I won't be surprised if some of her other supporters follow suit.

You see as well among Clinton supporters on the blogs that they now see the race as essentially finished. For instance, if you go over to mydd.com (which I read every now and then for progressive commentary on American politics) you have one Clinton supporter (Todd Beeton) who regularly posts there who says "there is no way to spin away what happened tonight: Senator Clinton had a really bad night and Senator Obama had a phenomenal one. ...sadly I no longer see a real path to victory for Hillary Clinton and I now believe Barack Obama will be the nominee of our party. "

Another Clinton supporter (Jerome Armstrong) posts "As for Clinton's chances going ahead, they are minimal. I gave about a 10% shot after she won TX & OH, and upped that to 15% after her PA win, and around 20% a week ago. Now, it's slimmer than ever before. There's little doubt that, considering any marker, Obama is on the path to the nomination, now more than ever. Congrats to all his supporters on a good night."

But do I think the race for the nomination is over? Well the math is now very close to impossible now for Clinton even if Michigan and Florida are counted (and if they are, it's reasonable to presume that at the the least Obama will get Michigan's uncommitted delegates) - you can see CNN's delegate counter for the evidence (h/t).

I'm cautious never to say it's over until it's officially over as I know a week is a lifetime in politics and things can change in an instant, but if I were a betting person, I would be putting my money heavily on Obama at this point. Hillary Clinton will win big in West Virginia and Kentucky most likely, but she faces extremely long odds now. Just because Obama made a dumb comment about Indiana being a "tiebreaker" (and even then she barely won there) doesn't mean all the superdelegates remaining will believe that. She would have to at this point take more than 60% of the remaining pledged delegates AND more than 60% of the superdelegates in order to win and I think that's why her supporters are quite somber today.

The second question though is should she now drop out? I would argue actually that she can stay in the race until the end of the primary season without harming the Democratic Party and if something very dramatic happens to shake up the race that leads a huge majority ofsuperdelegates to flock to her, then she could at least in theory still win (but yes the chances are extremely remote at this point). However, in order to ensure she is not harming the party's chances in November by staying in she should stick to a few things:

1) Stop running negative ads directed at Obama. Given his huge front-runner status she's not going to be winning over superdelegates now by throwing the kitchen sink at the guy most Democrats now are sure is going to be the nominee. At the same time I would hope Obama stops running any negative ads directed at Hillary Clinton.

2) Continue to push for a fair solution to have Michigan and Florida's delegates counted. This has to be resolved or Democrats will pay the price in November. I think a fair solution might be to either count both delegations at half-strength (the Republicans did this and you don't hear the cries from their side about being disenfranchised) or if they are to count fully then at the least Obama has to be given the uncommitted delegates in Michigan (it is simply not reasonable to assume that Clinton should get to take such advantage of no one else being on the ballot there). This will have to wait until the end of the month until a decision is made but it must be addressed.

3) Focus her message now primarily on why John McCain needs to be defeated in November and why Democrats need to be united. By spending the next few weeks rallying her supporters with this message and still holding large rallies for the cause she would be promoting the same message Obama is. She actually started this well last night, but continuously saying "we" need to stop John McCain and by complimenting Obama. Of course she can continue to stress her own personal positives, but her supporters have to get the message loud and clear just how awful John McCain is and how badly the Democrats desperately need to win back the White House in November. If Obama becomes the nominee and she fails to get her supporters to back him, then even if the Democrats lost in November (which would be a catastrophe for Americans and the world at large at this critical stage) Democrats might not ever forgive her if it's perceived she didn't pull her voters to vote for the Democratic nominee. If by contrast she is seen as contributing to a Democratic victory even if she isn't on the ticket (which will be the subject of a later post - I think she should be on the ticket but I'm not sure it will happen) then Democrats won't forget it either and she would become Obama's heir apparent (if you say she would be too old, just look at McCain right now who took his party's nomination 8 years after losing the first go at it).

If she sticks to these things without going negative then I think she should be able to stay in the race as Mike Huckabee did on the Republican side until Obama reaches the magic number for an overall delegate majority (which could happen in the next month if enough superdelegates come off the fence) or either until all the states have voted (whichever comes first). If her and her supporters continue a negative path against Obama then I think it will backfire and the calls for Clinton to withdraw will grow louder so I think it would be in her own self-interest not to take that road. As of now though it looks like she definitely wants to continue on to West Virginia at the very least.

So it's far from clear if Clinton might concede anytime soon. Regardless there are still primary states left and the Chase for Change series will continue to cover them as they go on. So there will another edition next week when West Virginia votes. Till then I think it will be a tough week for the Clinton campaign.


UPDATE: So she hasn't followed my advice. This is quite disappointing. Her remarks were completely wrong and I think the calls for her to withdraw will get louder now.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change Week in Review: Scandals, Speeches and Endorsements

So I had said the Chase for Change series would go on a hiatus until the next primary, unless there were any major developments, well I’d have to say the events of this week were pretty big. When I last wrote about this race the Clinton campaign was still reeling from Ferraro’s offensive comments and she had just resigned. I said she was probably desperately hoping for something to knock Obama off stride. Well at the least to begin the week she got her wish.

So I don’t think there’s any question that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments are extremely offensive and deserved to be condemned in every way. He should certainly have no place in Obama’s campaign going forward. Certainly now Obama will face questions for some time about what he heard while sitting in Wright’s church for the past 20 years and why he never left. If it turns out to be shown that Obama was not truthful when he said he never heard the words directly out of Wright’s mouth that were the source of this controversy then he may be in deeper trouble (arguably it could sink his candidacy), but until proven otherwise I think harshly condemning and denouncing Wright’s words and ensuring he has no future role in the campaign were about as much as Obama could have done.

Honestly though while these are legitimate questions to ask Obama (though what matters far far more is what Obama has said he would do as President) why does no one ask McCain? I understand McCain has said he is proud to have had (or in the case of those still alive, still have) the support and endorsements from several crazy and bigoted preachers like Jerry Falwell (who said America deserved 9/11 for being too tolerant of “abortionists, feminists and gays”) and Rod Parsley (who has called for a war of Christians against Muslims and called Islam a “false religion”). McCain should be denouncing them as well, not embracing them. The media seems to be dropping the ball on this by focusing only on Obama if they want to make this an issue.

Though of course that was at the start of the week. Then there is the matter of Obama’s speech on race that can now be found be on probably thousands of blogs by now (so I don’t think you need me to post it too). Now as someone who has not endorsed Obama over Hillary or vice-versa, If found it pretty impressive. I think the major points about it have now already been made on so many other blogs: that it was amazing to finally see a major politician not give a safe speech but one that tackled the issue of race relations and racism head on and how it can’t be ignored going forward. Is it up there with the greats? I think I’ll leave that for others to judge, but it certainly was a strong departure from politics as usual and I think we need to see more of that in politics these days. While some people have deplored the speech (and even said they might now back McCain despite him being more Conservative than any Premier or Prime Minister we’ve had in Canada in decades and pretty much a direct continuation of George Bush foreign policy), for me it added to my respect of Obama, as I think it has for most of the U.S. and Canadian media. I think one thing is almost certain, if Obama does lose the nomination he will end up on the ticket, I think it’s clear he’s earned that.

However, I completely agree with Radwanski that it’s extremely unfortunate that in today’s 24/7 news cycle such a monumental speech can get so easily buried and replaced by talk once again of polls and momentum and “was it enough?” Yes Hillary has gained ground in the polls this week, but it’s sad that the media couldn’t just appreciate the speech on it’s own as an important event from the campaign and had to go right back, seemingly within less than 24 hours, to the same horse race lexicon. Well that’s political media coverage for you these days. Maybe some day it will change, but I won’t hold my breath.

So a major scandal, a major speech, you’d think that would be enough for a week, but I guess I picked the wrong week for a hiatus. So just yesterday, New Mexico Governor and former Democratic candidate Bill Richardson endorses Obama. I don’t think people can underestimate the importance of this.

Richardson had arguably the longest CV in this race among the Democratic candidates and has great depth in foreign policy and executive experience so for Richardson to endorse Obama really helps to take the sting out the “he’s not experienced” critique against him. As well, Richardson was Bill Clinton’s energy secretary so if anything the smart money would have been on him endorsing Hillary Clinton, so the fact that he’s gone to Obama must really bother the Hillary campaign.

That said, despite what others are saying, Hillary Clinton is not out of the race because you know the saying “a week is a lifetime in politics” and this week showed that Obama could be knocked off course and in the end whether anyone likes it or not it’s almost assured that super-delegates will decide this race.

I personally think it would be insane for them to go against Obama if he has a clear lead in pledged delegates (BEYOND what Hillary would have won in Michigan and Florida which is a separate messy issue) AND popular vote, but Hillary can still win the popular vote if she pulls out big victories from this point on and I’ve seen at least one poll (likely an outlier but still) showing her with a 25 point plus lead in Pennsylvania, if she actually got close to that result that would be a massive blow to Obama going towards Denver. IF (still a big if) Hillary ends up winning the popular vote I think that would carry tremendous momentum and might actually make her the favourite. As well, if there is something else big happens to bring Obama off side in this campaign then the super-delegates might just argue that he’s unelectable and had the earlier states known more, Hillary would have done better. A dubious argument for them to make perhaps (and one they might live to regret), but not one that is not out of the question.

Personally I still say Obama is the favourite, but never count out the Clintons and Pennsylvania will still matter so the next month of the campaign will be crucial. We’ll see if this time the hiatus in the Chase for Change series holds or if big news strikes again in the coming weeks before the next primary.

In the meantime I am looking forward to seeing 3 new Liberal members in the House of Commons.

Recommend this Post

The Chase for Change 2008: TX, OH, VT, RI Edition: Why's It's Anyone's Game Again for the Democratic Nomination

So this past Tuesday has another big night. For the Republicans, no big surprises, I predicted McCain would wrap things up on March 4th and he did. For the Democrats though it's a whole new ball game again. Watching the CNN coverage you could tell the Clinton campaign played their cards right over the past two weeks. Remember after Obama's 11th straight victory so many people were saying that she had to win HUGE in Ohio AND Texas in order to stay in the race. So she won Ohio by 10% (not huge compared to Obama's recent margins) and Texas by 4% (though she's on pace to lose the caucuses there) and won big in Rhode Island, but it's clear from all the coverage that's all she needed to get right back in this race. So how did she pull it off? Well some people think it was the negative ads about how Obama can't answer calls at 3 AM, but I'd like to think not since those ads really looked like something the Republicans could have put out.

I hope Hillary Clinton learns that it's not wise to try and make the general election about national security, because while she thinks it may help her win against Obama, it won't against McCain. The Democrats shouldn't want an election on national security for the same reason Liberals in Canada don't want an election on crime, it's just an issue that the public as a whole tends to be less rational and more emotional about (even more so in the U.S. than in Canada) and in turn that favours Conservatives on those issues.

But Hillary's 3 AM ads play into the notion that national security is what this election is about, she even says "John McCain is going to make this election about national security", why in the world should the Democrats let him? Shouldn't they do everything they can to focus on the other issues plaguing America at home and abroad? Because everything else aside from national security (and maybe crime) are the Democrat's strong suit. I hope Hillary changes tack because it's not worth winning the nomination if you've boxed yourself in for the general but running on an issue you won't win against McCain on.

Though to get back to answering the question of why she dominated Ohio, I think the extreme downplaying of expecations combined with the gift wrapped NAFTA leak about Obama played a big role. Liberals here in Canada are right to continue asking Harper questions about the leak because it had an undeniable impact and the source may yet lie in Harper's entourage. Obama was dead even or leading in Ohio and Texas until that story broke that Obama wouldn't really do much to re-negotiate NAFTA as it played right into Hillary's desired narrative that Obama isn't as genuine as he claims. So with that gift Hillary attacked Obama's biggest strength (which given the enormity of the revelation was the smart thing for her to do) and pulled out a big win as a result. Truthfully I don't think either Obama or Hillary would do much to re-negotiate NAFTA (it would probably be similar to the few concessions Chretien obtained when he came into office and I don't think many remember what those were, but he did put up a fuss after he became PM about not ratifying until concessions were made) but now only Hillary can credibly claim she would.

So where do things go from here? I'll make one prediction now: This will go to the convention and it will not be pretty. Why? Because Obama has an almost unssailable lead in pledged delegates, yet Hillary just won some big states that have earned her the right to stay in until Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd and she'll probably win there too, so she will maintain enough momentum to stay in and will have more tail end victories in the big states to claim people are having buyer's remorse over Obama and that will justify her remaining. So the superdelegates will have the last say.

As well, there remains the unresolved issue of Michigan and Florida's delegates. It is quite plausible that Obama's pledged delegate lead will not exceed what Hillary would have gotten if Michigan and Florida counted. This would allow to Hillary to say that she would really be ahead if voters in those two states weren't disenfranchised and she'll use that argument to woo superdelegates. So foreseeing this in sight Obama and Hillary may yet agree to a do over in those states, but that also benefits Hillary because she will win those races comfortably (running as the one who stood up for their votes all along) and this time there would be no dispute over their status and Obama would have to accept them. So Hillary could still win this race yet, I'm not placing any bets yet.

Obama should win the next primary in Mississipi next Tuesday so that should help him a bit, but the calendar ahead points to enough victories on both sides that this thing won't end without a big fight unless something dramatic happens that leads one of the campaigns to self-destruct between Missisippi and Pennsylvania (as we go over a month with no primaries scheduled in the interim). Unfortunately, McCain will be laughing all the way, but I see no other way of how this could end, I just hope Democrats and all progressives can all come together behind their nominee when it finally does because America and the world cannot afford another 4 years of more of the same failed Republican policies.

Recommend this Post