Friday Talking Points [24] -- Which Side Are You On?
Like the hapless characters in Waiting For Godot, America sits and watches in fascination as the Democratic nomination race grinds into yet another calendar season. At this point, it is looking like it may well go unresolved all the way to the Democratic National Convention in late August.
But it doesn't have to be this way. Nancy Pelosi and all the other undeclared superdelegates have it within their power to call "Palomino!" on this whole process. Because there are enough of them left to swing the contest to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They should do so now.
Mind you, I'm not calling on them to do so for either candidate in particular. I think it's up to them to decide who to back. But by almost all available math (feel free to play this game at home, courtesy of CNN), neither candidate will be able to rack up enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination in the remaining contests. So it's going to be up to the superdelegates no matter what. That's just a fact, no matter who you support in the race.
At this point, I would venture to guess there are a lot of Democratic voters out there who would agree with the statement: "I just want it to be over." They see the damage this prolonged contest could have on the Democratic Party itself, to say nothing of how it weakens whoever the eventual nominee will be against John McCain this November.
But, again, it doesn't have to be this way. As it stands now (depending on which source you rely on), Hillary is up by about 30 or 40 superdelegates. Barack has a lead in pledged delegates of over 150. But there are approximately 350 superdelegates who have not yet publicly stated who they are going to vote for. They could swing the contest to either candidate. Eventually they're going to have to -- at the convention, if it goes on that long. They should do so immediately, instead of dragging it out for another five months.
And the more prominent the superdelegate, the more the pressure should be on them to do so forthwith. Nationally-known superdelegates' endorsements carry a lot more weight than some guy you've never heard of from Kalamazoo. But the longer they wait, the less influence they'll have -- which should be an incentive for them to prove how much of a "party leader" they really are.
[Paging Al Gore... Paging Al Gore... It's the Democratic electorate on the phone, wondering where you stand....]
I even saw an interesting proposal to have a June "superdelegate primary" -- where they'd all have to "vote" for their candidate ahead of the convention. While this may present too many procedural problems to actually happen, I think it is imperative that by the time the last primary is over, every superdelegate should have announced who they intend to vote for at the convention.
Because it is time for all men and women to come to the aid of their party. Please, superdelegates, think of the party. Do what you have to do -- support whichever candidate you please -- but get off the fence. Now. End this sadistic and masochistic race once and for all.
Palomino!
Palomino!
Barack Obama deserves an honorable mention for giving a very impressive speech about race this week. Even if he does not become president, his speech was one for the history books. So he deserves special recognition for such an impressive performance.
But in keeping with my opening thoughts, this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes (in a tie) to Bill Richardson and John Murtha. Richardson endorsed Barack Obama today, and Murtha endorsed Clinton earlier in the week. Both, it should be noted, are Democratic superdelegates. They have shown the rest of the undecided superdelegates what needs to be done, right now. So for standing up for their respective candidates, they will share this week's MIDOTW award.
Well done, Congressman Murtha and Governor Richardson!
[Congratulate Congressman Murtha on his House contact page, and Governor Richardson on his Governor's contact page to let them know you appreciate their endorsement.]
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, misquoting Dante
John Edwards wasted everyone's time last night with his appearance on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. OK, maybe I'm just annoyed that I wrote about his possible endorsement announcement this week (twice!) and he showed me up to be nothing more than a rumor-monger. Sigh.
But seriously, after watching his performance on television, I couldn't help but think: "What a waste of perfectly good electrons!"
Leno didn't help, either. After running teaser ads all week long about how "maybe" Edwards will tell us who he's supporting, Jay didn't even ever directly pose the question to Edwards. Talk about bait and switch!
But the main fault is Edwards'. When politicians appear on gabfests like Leno's, they usually tell them in advance what to ask and what not to ask (this is the realm of softball questions, and should in no way be mistaken for a journalistic interview). So Jay not asking him wasn't really Jay's fault. But what other possible reason would Edwards have for appearing before a nationwide audience right now? He doesn't have a book or a movie to plug, he's not launching some program for the poor, he basically had a whole lot of nothing to say. So why even bother?
Here is as close as they got, after Leno asked whether, when he dropped out, he expected the contest would go on so long:
EDWARDS: "...between the other two, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, what I thought, based on my experience was, the likelihood was, if I got out, one of them would start pulling ahead and I thought that would be good for the Democrats and help strengthen us for the fall. I did not expect what happened."
Got that? Not having a clear nominee would conversely be bad for Democrats and help weaken them for the general election. So what is he going to do about it himself?
LENO: This is something about the Democrats -- and we joke about it a lot -- but they always seem to kind of shoot themselves in the foot... I mean, it seems to me the two candidates are probably doing worse damage to each other than the Republicans. What do you do about that as a party?
EDWARDS: "Well, I don't think there's an easy answer. I mean, I think it's a close race, they're both fighting for the nomination. I mean, the key to this is to unite the party..."
[EDWARDS praises both candidates for a while, ending with:]
"...either of them, I think, will be a great candidate and I think either one will be a great president."
After jokes about this and that, Edwards left the door wide (WIDE) open for himself to accept a job in either candidate's administration, and even refused to rule out his making another run at the White House.
If the party needs to unite, and if only one candidate is going to be our nominee, then what exactly is Edwards doing to help move the party towards unity? Was Edwards' whole appearance a job application for a cabinet position? Sheesh. I lost a lot of respect for Edwards after watching this performance, I have to say.
In fact, I'll go further. John Edwards not only deserves the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, he also deserves to be locked in a room by union supporters, with Pete Seeger blasted into his ears at high volume in an endless loop, singing the old union song "Which Side Are You On?" -- until he emerges, ready to publicly endorse one candidate or another.
[You can try to contact John Edwards on his now-defunct campaign site to let him know what you think of his performance.]
OK, enough of that. On to this week's Friday Talking Points!
Volume 24 (3/21/08)
The sixth year of Bush's Iraq mistake
Our adventure in Iraq is now five years old. This grim anniversary came and went this week, without much attention in the mainstream media. The media, for the past few months, have all but dropped Iraq as a story. The American people are tired of hearing about it, they reason, therefore it's not "news" any more.
Democrats need to remind everyone whenever the subject comes up that we are now starting the sixth year of war, with no end in sight.
"We are now beginning the sixth year of war in Iraq. This war has gone on much longer than Republicans told us it would, and there is still no end in sight. I just hope in the future we aren't commemorating the tenth or fifteenth year of war in Iraq... or the 100th, if John McCain gets his wish... and I think the American people have spoken loudly in telling us that the sixth year in Iraq should be our last year in Iraq."
Four thousand dead American soldiers
A worrisome poll out shows that fewer and fewer Americans even know how many Americans have died in Iraq. Another grim anniversary is right around the corner, and because of this rampant ignorance, Democrats need to remind everyone of this number, in support and honor of the brave troops who have given their lives for this misguided cause.
"Four thousand American servicemen and women have now given the ultimate sacrifice in a war that we never should have entered in the first place. Four thousand sons, daughters, wives, and husbands have now been buried during this war. Four thousand. Never forget these noble Americans."
McCain doesn't even know who we're fighting
So John McCain wants to be elected because he has foreign policy experience coming out of his wazoo? Really? Then why, after five years of war, does he not know who our enemies are on the battlefield? I know these things, and I'm just some guy with a computer -- I'm not running to be our nation's leader or anything.
McCain made this mistake multiple times it should be noted, even after Joe Lieberman corrected him on camera (what are friends for, eh, Joe?). McCain is apparently unaware that the Shi'ite government in Iran is not supplying the Sunni "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with weapons.
This one is pretty easy, and deserves one heck of a lot more media attention than it has been getting.
"John McCain can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite in Iraq... and this man wants to be our president?!? I think voters will realize that anyone this misinformed -- or this senile -- would be dangerous to have as Commander-in-Chief."
Bush fights for corruption [part 1]
Abraham Lincoln called war profiteers "worse than traitors." Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke against "war millionaires." Harry Truman used the word "treason" to describe war profiteers.
George Bush, to no one's surprise, enables them. And he needs to be called on the carpet for doing so. The White House is currently fighting any questioning of a gigantic loophole in U.S. law (which they mysteriously inserted) big enough to drive a Halliburton truck full of Blackwater employees through. This rule exempts all "contracts to be performed outside the United States" from a rule intended to expose contractor fraud. How convenient.
"The White House needs to explain why it wants to protect war profiteers from wasting more than the already unaccounted for billions of dollars in Iraq, by specifically exempting contracts performed outside the U.S. from federal anti-fraud rules. Why is President Bush making it easier for contractors to defraud the American government? Rather than 'the buck stops here,' Bush seems to have a sign on his desk reading 'help my Republican buddies steal from the American taxpayer.'"
Bush fights for corruption [part 2]
Voices are calling for the resignation of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, since he apparently takes into consideration party loyalty when handing out HUD money. This is so corrupt it stinks to high heaven, but (as usual) the mainstream media is largely silent. Read about the whole disgusting mess for yourself.
"We call on President Bush to immediately fire Secretary Jackson, or to accept his resignation the way he did with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It is one thing to hire and fire lawyers at the Justice Department based on whether they were sufficiently Republican enough, but it is quite another to hand out taxpayer money based on party affiliation. If Republicans don't want their party to be permanently branded the "party of corruption," they need to join with us in demanding Jackson's resignation from President Bush as well.
Bush makes things up out of thin air [part 4,829]
Dan Froomkin's "White House Watch" column has a good rundown of this one. President Bush is apparently ignoring his own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, in favor of just making stuff up when he feels like it.
This would be laughable if it weren't such a deadly game of "chicken" to be playing. Bush recently said that Iran "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people." Only problem, Iran has never said any such thing. When asked about it later, a White House spokesman said he was "shorthanding," which is apparently Washington-speak for "making things up off the top of his head."
This, again, is more evidence that Bush's reality is just not the reality the rest of us share, and are two separate things altogether. Which needs (yet again) pointing out.
"As Democrats, we hope and pray every day that America gets through the next election and swears in a Democrat to the Oval Office -- without President Bush starting another war in the meantime, based on (to put it politely) 'false intelligence.' Two wars at a time is enough, Mr. President. Stop trying to start another one with Iran."
See, Bush actually wants low poll numbers
Bush's Press Secretary Dana Perino said some amusing things recently as well. First, she compared herself to a duck. To the question "How do you stay so calm?" Perino replied:
"Well, maybe I might look like it on the outside sometimes. But it's like a duck. You look really calm above the water, but underneath, you're churning."
Oooo-kay. She also "churned" out this gem this week, speaking on Iraq, and Bush and Cheney's relationship to the polls:
"Both the president and the vice president have long believed, and it's a part of what has made them the leaders that they are, which is not to chase popularity polls but to hold themselves to a standard that requires people not to like them."
Um, OK, Dana. You sure you don't want to go lie down or something? This one's pathetically easy for Democrats to knock down, should they feel the urge:
"Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino apparently believes that Bush and Cheney hold themselves to a standard, quote, that requires people not to like them, unquote. That certainly explains why only about three in ten people do in every recent poll I've seen! Maybe Bush needs a new Press Secretary. I hear Socks The Cat is available...."
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HuffPost's Pick
The MIDOTW should have gone to Barack Obama for one of the most amazing speeches I have heard. I've worked for both Obama/Clinton and have gone back and forth the past few weeks, but if Obama can inspire the country with his actions as he did with his words....
John Edwards should have said exactly what you suggested to "DemandTruth", pushing both candidates to actively address those issues important to him, BEFORE endorsing. But, MDDOTW? Surely, there is someone else out there more disappointing than John Edwards? I hope neither he, nor Al Gore endorses either any time soon. I don't buy into the sentiment that it alienates voters, who just want it to be over..let it run it's course, EVEN if it means all the way to the convention. The convention used to be the place and time to declare the nominee, didn't it? Any sooner, one side or the other is definitely alienated..at least, the convention gives the process some transparency. Meanwhile those of us in primary states with late elections have increased interest in the campaign, along with increased voter registration. That may have had something to do with Barack Obama having spent yesterday here in Oregon, eh? We appreciate getting the opportunity to see the candidates, vote in the primary and influence OUR Superdelegates!
Love your posts and talking points, Chris..but, if you insist on calling up favorite musicians in making your arguments, you're going to push me over the edge. I am still in shock, trying to recover from your use of "King Leadhat." Oh, the sacrilege..not "Before and After Science!" Every time that I have listened to Brian Eno, David Bryne, Talking Heads since then, my head conjures up visions of Ms. Jones and Mr. Smith rumbling in the head. Now, Pete Seeger..as torture, in a Robert Fripp-esque endless loop? Where will it end?..will I ever again be able to get past these images? If you insist on this practice of using musicians, please restrict yourself to the likes of Debbie Boone's "You Light up my Life"..I can definitely live without that one. (although Patti Smith's version is amusing!) Otherwise, I may have to flag you with my "Danger, Danger..Will Robinson!" alert!
O.K., rant over...
JoDeeVa -
And here I thought nobody noticed my Eno reference! I dunno, the Red Cross might classify Frippertronics of Pete Seeger as torture... maybe Eno will put out a "Music For Blogs" ambient sort of thing...
Because, seriously, Debbie Boone would be cruel and inhumane punishment...
:-) heh heh.
Thanks for writing!
-CW
Obama slipped in the polls this past week or so. Wright appeared to tarnish his armour a bit. Two weeks ago, that was not on the horizon.
What if all of the super delegates committed to Obama and it turned out he had done something that ensured he would lose the election?
None of the super delegates should openly support either candidate until they have to, at the convention.
Richardson is getting praised. For what? For committing after it seems to be a mathematical certainty. It is impossible to look at his action without wondering how much bargaining went on and what he's getting in return. We need a real democratic party - one without any corporate-owned candidates.
Je pense, donc je suis populiste.
Now I understand why Hillary Clinton abandoned Socks, She didn't want the competition.
Dap -
Press Secretary Socks: "Those scratches on Buddy's face are completely coincidental! I had nothing to do with them! I resent the insinuation you are making! Mrrroww! Hisssss! Fffftt! Fffftt!"
"Next question... Helen?"
Heh heh. Isn't that a great photo?
-CW
Thank you John Edwards for not WASTING OUR TIME with an endorsement of Clinton or Obama since neither has any chance of winning in November, and you endorsing either would just get you sucked into the boxing match between both of their CLUELESS groups of supporters.
You have a very apt moniker.
At least as far as media reporting goes, neither candidate seems to be talking about your talking points. They are discussing endlessly race, Wright, passports, other things than your talking points.
As a populist I supported Edwards and Huckabee. I still support Huckabee, but he's in the strange position of possibly becoming McCain's running mate. How tragic that people didn't see what he had to offer--didn't see beyond his "handicap" as an Evangelical--to see the great jobs he did as governor in many practical fields. He was much more than a preacher, although he, like Obama, is eloquent.
If I were Edwards I too could not decide who to support. I myself cannot decide whom to support. All I know is I will vote for Huckabee in my very late primary. Beyond that, I see not.
Maybe Edwards really can't see beyond June either.
To all -
Don't miss checking out the very last link in this article (Socks the Cat), if you want to see the cutest official White House photo of all time!
-CW
Before I even read your talking points this week, I must address what you say about John Edwards. Edwards made it VERY clear when he dropped out of this race that he would continue to focus on poverty and socioeconomic injustice and inequality as some of the most important issues facing us today.
Earlier in the race, Edwards supposedly met with both candidates, and for a moment - a moment - they seemed to inject some of that populism into their campaigns. But in all the race/religion/kitchen sink hypocrisy fracas, where has that gone? Maybe - just maybe - Edwards was trying to use this public appearance to remind the two remaining candidates that he (and his endorsement) is still out here - and that his issues (OUR issues) are still out here, just waiting for somone to embrace them. Maybe he feels that the candidates have lost their way, and he was trying to lead them back just a little bit. Maybe he was trying to get their attention. Hey you two - start refocusing on populist America, working America, and maybe you'll get my endorsement, and by the way - I'm still here to give an endorsement. (Be honest, Chris - have you really been thinking about Edwards's populist endorsement amongst all the accusing and NAFTA memo-gate and Powers-gate and Ferraro-gate and Wright-gate and Passport File-gate and CINC Threshold-gate lately?)
I think it was good of Edwards to remind people of his existence (and thereby his populist agenda's existence (our existence)) with a public appearance without an endorsement. I mean, who is he going to endorse? Who has been talking about and addressing his most important issues lately - a definite criterion for his support (he was honest and upfront about that from the start) ?
With his re-emergence, just maybe the candidates can get back to some of the populist/Edwardsian issues that matter to us working folks struggling out here.
Doncha think?
DemandTruth -
Actually, the first thing that struck me about Obama's speech was the populist tone to parts of it. Read my piece (it's short) from Tuesday if you don't believe me:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/03/18/edwards-endorsement-continued/
And I was one of the first to notice and point out the fact that Clinton and Obama had changed their tune to try and woo Edwards (everyone else thought it was just because Ohio was looming) -- back in FTP [19]:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/02/15/friday-talking-points-19-a-rare-uprising-of-democrats/
As well as following it up with a special "Populism 101" FTP the very next week:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/02/22/friday-talking-points-20-populism-101/
But you're right, neither Clinton nor Obama has really strongly come out with what I would call a Populism platform, which is why I continue to try and hold their feet to the fire. Especially when they talk about Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, but then suggest absolutely nothing to change this! [this one in particular reallly burns my toast...]
But seriously, did you see Edwards on Leno? He talked more about home-schooling his kids than he did about poverty. He did tell one heart-wrenching story from New Orleans, and offer some boilerplate on the subject, but that was it. I'm sorry, but the disappointment (for me) was that here Edwards was -- already an also-ran in the race -- with a rare gift from the TV gods: a national audience -- and he squandered it. If he had said something along the lines of: "Well, Jay, I still haven't made up my mind who to endorse -- both have made movements towards my positions on the issues, but they have yet to convince me. So I decided to take this opportunity to challenge Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tonight. I want them to promise that they will do [X, Y, and Z -- insert specifics here], and the first one who strongly comes out for such an agenda will get my endorsement!"
But he didn't do that. Seriously, go to the Tonight Show page and watch the segment, and then tell me it wasn't disappointing. If you do so and still think the way you do, I'll respect that, but even hardcore Edwards supporters were telling me today they were underwhelmed by his performance.
Thanks for writing -- I do indeed share your support for a Populist platform. And I share Edwards' frustration about it, but I still think he deserved the MDDOTW. I calls 'em as I sees 'em....
-CW
Populist tone? It's easy to mimic a tone. It's easy to say a few populist words. It is just totally meaningless when the candidate is corporate-owned.
Squandered opportunity? What opportunity? Nothing he could have said would have made any meaningful difference in the candidates. It might have brought one or both to mouth some words. I want more than words. How can anyone think that either will return all of the corporate money and tell them where to shove it?
You're going to hold their feet to the fire? Their feet, their candidacies are totally insulated and isolated from the public. You want their promises? And we fully trust any politicians to honor their promises, don't we?
Je pense, donc je suis populiste.
My respect for Edwards will grow exponentially if he refuses to endorse, considering the choice he and the rest of us have.
There is only one sort of candidate that deserves any kind of endorsment in this presidential race. That would be the candidate who possesses an intimate understanding of what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and withdraw US forces without leaving a failed state behind - end of story.
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a candidate left standing who can fit that bill.
As for the Richardson endorsement today...all I can say is that birds of a feather, flock together. Sorry, I tried to resist but could not...I'm just not that strong.
I agree that the party's power brokers should step in and end this now. Edwards, Gore, etc. The reason they won't is because there aren't enough superdelegates willing to hand it to Clinton, but there are enough superdelegates who fear the Clintons and their powerful allies in the Party to keep them from handing it to Obama. If it was anyone but the Clinton's hanging in it would have been done already. I think you know this. I also suspect you want to support Obama, but know the way the wind is blowing. The next democratic administration will almost certainly want YOU, Chris Weigant, to help deal with Congress. But there is no way in hell that the hyper-vindictive Clintons will let you, or anyone else who supports Obama, near their halls of power once those halls are theirs again, if they manage it. Hence you hedge your bets, refusing to do what you call on others to do, perhaps because you think it would dampen your message to come out for one candidate or another. On another note...
I cannot believe that MIDOTW didnt go to Obama for the race speech. Come on, Chris, that race speech was the most impressive thing a democrat has done since... it is difficult to say, but at the very least since John Murtha came out against the Iraq war, deflating the argument that opponents of the war must not support the troops. Yes, it was good that Richardson and Murtha took sides, but the race speech hit the impressive ball way out of the park.
ulmew -
Holy moley! Me, Chris Weigant, in Washington? Now there's a scary thought. Although the temptation to be congressional-head-knocker-in-chief would be immense, there are two reasons it'd be hard to get me to DC -- February and August ("in joke" on DC weather, for those who have lived there). Hey, I'd be happy to get a decent salary for blogging, personally!
Actually, to tell you the truth, it has been fairly liberating to not be supporting anyone, since I am thus free to praise and condemn both at will. Maybe that's part of what is holding superdelegates back, I dunno...
You're right, the MIDOTW really should have gone to Obama (and it was a great speech), but right now what would impress me the most is a definitive answer on the nomination.
Thanks for the kind words, the megalomaniacal suggestion of me in the White House, and just for commenting in general!
-CW
To the beginning of your article - I grant Hillary's right to continue, but not in the manner she is conducting her campaign. I heard Bill Clinton talk that both Hillary and McCain love America - implying Barack doesn't. Hillary herself said she and NcCain are qualified, Barack isn't. I guess she isn't honored "to be sitting next to Barack Obama" anymore.
Is Hillary looking for the VP slot with McCain?
That would be hysterical! Hillary and Teflon John! It is just about as ridiculous as Hillary continuing to act as if she is the frontrunner. No one can convince me that the Rev. Wright and other hits against Obama are not the work of the Clintons or McCain. The media needs to move on about that Rev. Wright thing or give equal credit to Hillary's compulsive lying.
Also, am I the only one who thought about the passport caper of Obama's passport suddenly becoming the passport caper of all three candidates as odd? I mean odd in the fact that first it was Obama's passport, and then it was all three passports. Something sounds fishy here, like perhaps the other two passport breaches were added to make things look "fair."
"I heard Bill Clinton talk that both Hillary and McCain love America - implying Barack doesn't."
Apparently, Michelle doesn't. And now we know why she thinks its okay to say so.
Have you ever loved someone who did something that disappointed you? That made you not proud of them? Did you stop loving them? Or were you only disappointed in them BECAUSE you loved them so much and wanted them to do the right thing?
You have no depth of understanding - you must be a Republican or Hillary supporter.
Loading comments…
Posted March 21, 2008 | 08:33 PM (EST)