Politirazzi

By Dontre

With all of the political maneuvering going on, it would be wise to consider the ramifications of an Obama-Clinton matchup. Considering that the Illinois senator based his campaign on the politics of “change,” and directly painted the former first lady as an establishment candidate of old Washington, it would be antithetical to his campaign ideals to even think of adding her to the ticket.

For Clinton, playing second string to a man whom she’s called “naïve” in his foreign-policy decisions, and “out of touch” with (her) voters, joining Obama would be a decision undertaken solely because of pressure from the party. For both candidates, the pairing would erode the central tenets of their candidacy, on which they both aggressively campaigned — it’s sure to draw lively criticism from Republicans later.

Furthermore, given their vastly different political styles (Obama, dovish; Hillary, hawkish), it’s almost certain that disagreements will abound as to how to best execute policy decisions. After all, the vice presidency is the most important of the Cabinet positions the president chooses, and should go to someone who shares his vision.

(continued)

(AP)

By Dontre

Even on the night of her "defeat," Sen. Hillary Clinton scored an impressive victory by winning the South Dakota primary. The achievement here isn’t the scant 10-point lead by which she won the state, rather that she still had any momentum to even compete (let alone win) in the first place. If Sen. Clinton had heeded the call of many, earlier on, who (because they were exhausted of the primary season) asked her to drop out of the race, we may never have seen some of her best political and character traits at work. Indeed, in the last few months the junior senator has not amassed five primary wins (Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Dakota) since upsetting her opponent’s 11-win steak, but in her underdog status, she gained the momentum and formidable stride of a powerful candidate.

As a supporter of Sen. Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination, it was most rewarding following her progress and wins in the final months of campaigning, when she truly found her voice amongst the raucous hollers of nay-sayers. Her tenacious spirit, indomitable courage and dogged determination are but a few of her superlative qualities that, coupled with her political experience and impressive command of policy, showed her to be best-suited for the job.

That Obama won is, yes, historic; but it would have been equally historic had she won, so this is a moot point. What should be noted, however, is that Obama did not win by much; and that’s saying a lot considering that Clinton’s campaign was considered ‘finished’ a long time ago.

As explained on TIME magazine’s Web site, in the article No Surrender (Yet) for Clinton:

“History will note that Barack Obama won the nomination in February and spent the next four months trying not to let her take it back.”

(continued)

By Dontre

I am in perfect concert with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement, "A win is a win. Let's just call it what it is." So much attention has been paid to Sen. Clinton's "narrow victory" that the most important fact is being overlooked: She won!

Not only is the "narrow victory" phrasing a media headline that discredits Hillary's win, it is an effective campaign tool that attempts to erode the meaning of her victory. This slogan ignores the glaring fact that Sen. Obama's campaign would like you not see: Even when she's behind, Sen. Clinton continues to win states and garner supporters — and she has done so three different times now (coming from behind to win New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana). Whether it was a difference of only 14,195 votes or seven — a win is a win. Someone prospered.

(continued)

(AP)

By Dontre

Defying calls from some to drop from the race, Sen. Hillary Clinton firmly holds her ground, wins states and vows to go all the way to the convention. Her tenacity is not only rooted in her wins, but in her lead amongst superdelegates, who have the ability to cast decisive votes that may decide the Democratic presidential candidate. In much the same scare-tactic fashion that was once accused of Sen. Clinton and the "3 a.m." phone ad, many in support of Sen. Barack Obama are attempting to scare the Democratic base with claims that the African-American base (most of whom support Sen. Obama), would simply sit this election out, or vote for McCain, to show their unhappiness in the case that their candidate loses. Their premise lies in the charge that the superdelegates would "steal" the election from him if they were to vote in favor of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, there is a passionate, divisive current running in the Democratic party that is leading many to threaten that they would vote against their interests by voting for Sen. John McCain, or simply not vote at all, in the case that their respective candidate doesn't win. Long have we known that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama split the dependable Democratic base, with African Americans voting in his favor, and blue-collar whites voting for her. In fact, because of this deep divide, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has said, publicly, that one of the candidates must step down after the final votes of the primary season, so that the party can throw its support behind one candidate to beat McCain. However, Dean's tough talk not only ignores the fact that neither of the candidates will have garnered the votes necessary to win the nomination, but his call would, once again, strip (super)delegates of their right to vote for their candidate of choice, much like in Florida and Michigan.

Furthermore, his calls would not, as he supposes, heal the wounds of the party, rather it would actually add insult to injury.

(continued)

By Dontre

I was not only appalled at Barack's "bitter" comment, I was even more aghast at the incredulity of his arrogance, declaring that questions of his patriotism were not substantive, merely because they rested with his refusal to wear a flag pin. Whether Sen. Obama deems it consequential or not, there are some voters for whom the signifier of the the American flag means a lot.

This is a national symbol that we hoist at our most important functions and events, that defines our countries, and unifies us all; and for many voters, it means a lot. His supercilious remarks, belittling those who merely inquired, not only show that he's out of touch, but in conjunction with his "bitter" comments, shows that he's not the candidate to represent ALL Democrats, or even all Americans. Outside of his base of the affluent, the African-American populace, and youth voters, there's a whole populace that needs to be considered.

By Dontre

Following the voting debacle in Florida in the 2000 presidential race — where “hanging chads,” and allegations of Black voters being turned away from polling stations led the media headlines — it’s appalling to me that the Democratic leadership would seek, once again, to discount the votes of the Florida (and Michigan) constituency. Indeed, the willingness to discount two states in the primary season highlights the flaws of our current Democratic primary system, and how a single day of voting might benefit voters better than a lengthy season of primaries, which respond only to the caprices of voters and the latest political scandal.

On Monday, April 28, 2008, Democratic National Committee chairman, Howard Dean, who, himself, sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2004, appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America, where he warned that one of the two remaining Democratic candidates must drop out of the race when the primary season comes to a close. “We want the voters to have their say,” he stated. “That’s over on June 03.”

However, in his actions as DNC Chairman, he has effectively denied almost 2.5 million voters “their say,” by discounting the value of their votes and nullifying their states in the Democratic primary race.

Upholding a rule passed in 2006 by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, both Florida and Michigan were “stripped” of their delegates when they broke rules and held their primaries earlier than allowed. According to the rule, only four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) were permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008) (1), which saw 24 states hold their primary or caucus. Of those four states, two of those states — South Carolina and Nevada — were permitted to move up their primary for the first time this year; all others who sought to move their dates were denied.

Angered by this decision, Florida and Michigan defied the party rule and moved their primaries to January 29 and January 15, respectively; as they and many states have desired to boost their state’s influence in the primary season, which can sometimes decide a presumptive nominee before many states even have the ability to hold their respective primary or caucus. In fact, Florida and Michigan’s nullification is, arguably, one of the reasons the current race is going on so long. Democratic elders have repeatedly pushed for one of the candidates to drop out, such that the party can unify — a move that, if heeded at its initial call, would have denied about 12 states their right to vote for their candidate of choice.

(continued)

(AP)

By Dontre

Given their strikingly similar, almost indistinguishable platforms, it would make sense that any Democrat would vote for the party’s nominee, regardless of which senator took the honor. However, as the battle wages on for the nomination, supporters of each of the respective candidates are increasingly becoming disenchanted with the opposing senator; some are even vowing to vote against the party’s nominee in a move that, as the saying goes, cuts off the nose to spite the face.

A sharp contrast from a time when Democrats said they would vote for either of the candidates, a recent Washington Post poll finds that one-third of Democrats say they may not even support the party’s nominee in the fall, if it is not their candidate. In fact, a similar poll by Time magazine shows that while 68 percent of Obama’s supporters say they would support Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination and faced Senator McCain, only 56 percent of her supporters say they would support Obama if he is chosen; one in four would vote Republican.

While the Republicans are steadily mobilizing their base behind Sen. John McCain, the Democrats are suffering an internal struggle with each passing day that their two candidate spar over the nomination. Their continued fights pulls their party base into competing directions, which party officials worry will hurt the eventual nominee that faces Sen. McCain, who will have had months of unfettered campaigning and fundraising, strengthening his support.

(continued)

Hillary should play up her experience, her command of foreign and domestic policy, and her well-established cache of service.

She can point to tangible results in a way that Obama cannot; she has allies on both side of the aisles; and her ideas are shaped within the confines of the political system that operates not on idealism and pretty language, but on commonsensical resolve to uphold the Constitution and to work with all, regardless of political identity. Hillary is best prepared to do that!
— Dontre

Having a husband as a former president is not a detriment. Arguably the best of the last five presidents, Bill was a huge asset to this country and his counsel is still sought by the Party; there's nothing to say that his political advice would hurt our country with Hillary in the White House.
— Dontre

"Charlie, I confess I haven't looked at all the briefs and studied all the evidence," he admits his laziness. Now, someone should call him on his absence at committee meetings and dearth of overall political experience and working with the Republicans, a strong point that Hillary has over him.
— Dontre

Thankfully, we see Obama's policy called onto the carpet and when it matters most, he stutters, flubs and is disoriented. When you pull the comfortable rug out from under him and take away his media bedfellows, it renders him clueless and out of his element. It's about time we called him out onto the carpet, head-on.
— Dontre

This is Hillary at her best: she is articulate, she answers with knowledge and policy information, not speaking off the cuff and stumbling about.

Her ideas are clear, and her points are easy to understand, well-researched, and grounded in pragmatic diplomatic solutions.
— Dontre

With poise, openness and honesty, Hillary bares all; her baggage has been "rummaged through," her tenacity tested, and her experience called into question, and she still stands on top as the candidate with the most experience, the best chance at beating McCain, and the most pragmatic strategy with working with the Republicans and not just trying to win them over with svelt rhetoric and idealism.
— Dontre

IF there is one thing that the Pennsylvania debates and the recent flack leading up to it has demanded of the candidates, they are more honest, more open, more transparent, and more forthright, given the fact that the voters are able to verify "facts," explore relationships and associations with former pastors, and are, generally, able to get to the truth.

They realize that their credibility is on the line, as the voters — through direct YouTube style videos — are able to express their opinions and Demand answers for them in real time with no real time for them to come up with scripted, political answers.
— Dontre