Political Comments Response (part 2)

I know that the Democratic Nomination Race is over, so most of what I say in this post is now “post-relevant,” but I promised a response to comments posted about my post “Tell the Truth,” so here it is!

“Everybody except Kucinich and Clinton pulled their name off the Michigan ballot…In Florida pulling your name off the ballot is not possible…Obama when he pulled his name…just followed the rules.”

To start, Clinton and Kucinich were joined on the ballot by Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and “Uncommitted.” Biden, Richardson, Edwards and Obama took their names off. By the way, there was a very vigorous campaign to have people vote Uncommitted, and it was promoted in 2 ways: 1. as a vote against Hillary Clinton, and 2. a vote for someone whose name wasn’t on the ballot (e.g. Obama or Edwards). Finally, “Uncommitted” is a Constitutionally recognized voting status, as pointed out by DNC member Harold Ickes.

Your other point here is perhaps the biggest (largely Obama supporter) myth. Obama could’ve pulled his name off the Florida ballot the same day he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot (Oct 9, 2007). In fact, he could’ve pulled his name off the ballot for 3 weeks after he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot. The argument that people make, falsely, is that if a candidate pulls his/her name off the ballot, they can’t be on the ballot during the general election should they win their Party’s nomination. NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE. The candidates are only penalized for pulling their name off the ballot once the ballot has been certified by the State of Florida. The date that the ballot was due to the Secretary of State was October 31st, with the certification on November 6th. Obama had ample time to pull his name off the ballot. This reality begs the question, why did he pull his name off of Michigan’s ballot and not Florida’s? For me, there’s a simple answer, he was playing politics.

You can find this is Florida’s Federal Election Qualifying Handbook for 2008, as well as in chapter 103, section 101 of Title IX in the 2007 Florida Statutes.

See 2007 Florida Statutes:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0103/SEC101.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0103-%3ESection%20101#0103.101

For a more in depth summary, see:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/112416/694

You rightly stated, however, that the impossibility of pulling names off the Florida ballot is “what the media reported at the time.” A reality that lends credence to the notion that the media was favorable to Obama.

“If Obama would be on the ballot…he might have done pretty well (in Michigan)…significant African American Community, neighboring state of IL…”

Fair point, but the opposite, if you go based off your premises, could be said of Clinton in Florida; one of the largest (if not the largest) number of elderly people in the country, a large Jewish population, and a so-called “Big State.” Those are all demographics that Obama has trouble with and Clinton does well with. This is why I think that once we arrived at the month of May, there was no fair way of doing things.

That said, I know quite a lot about Michigan, being from there, and I don’t think it would have been as easy as you suggest. Here’s why: Both a very popular former Democrat Governor, Jim Blanchard, and the current Governor Jennifer Granholm are staunch Clinton supporters, and carry great weight with State Democrats. Although Obama, based on how he did in other similar large cities, would have likely carried many of the counties in the Detroit area, the only other Metropolitan area of note, Grand Rapids, is vastly Republican. Furthermore, other highly visible Democrats had endorsed Clinton, including Senator Debbie Stabenow, Rep John Dingell and DNC member Joel Ferguson (The only major Obama backers were Rep John Conyers and DNC member Virgie Rollins). Based on these realities, I think Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot with the knowledge that it would be tough to beat her there, coupled with the reality that the votes would not (at that time) count. Again, I think Obama was doing what people seem to think he is incapable of, and that is he played “politics” with Michigan and Florida. But that’s my opinion, and we’ll never know.

“Disenfranchised voters…many people stayed home knowing that their votes were not counted…”

You are absolutely right. I know that my best friend is one of the people that did just that. I also know that there were people who voted “Uncommitted” not because they were for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, but because they were protesting the fact names weren’t on the ballot, felt a duty to vote but were upset that the vote wouldn’t count, as well as some people who were just unclear/confused about the ballot. For instance, I have a family member who voted Uncommitted in Michigan even though they did not want to vote for Obama/Edwards/Biden/Richardson, they wanted to vote for Kucinich, who was on the ballot. So, it is unfair to assume that the entire Uncommitted vote was for the 4 candidates who pulled their names from the ballot; I know for a fact this was not the case. And the notion that the 40% Uncommitted vote was a vote for Obama is incredibly off base. The primary was held on January 15th, when Clinton, Obama and Edwards were all very strong, and Richardson still relevant. Finally, if you want to take the side that everyone was clear that the vote wouldn’t count in Michigan (which Jim Blanchard pointed out at the DNC meeting May 31st was not the case), I think it’s striking that so many people still turned out to vote for Clinton, despite the vigorous “vote Uncommitted” campaign.

“Why am I for Obama…”

I have no problem with the reasons you’ve stated for your support of Obama. However, perhaps I’m a little too semantic, but none of your reasons get deep on the issues. I say this because, on the surface, Obama and Clinton have a virtually identical set of goals and ideologies. However, having listened to hundreds of hours of press coverage, read dozens of print articles, read both Candidates websites, considered their public statements as well as voting records since Obama joined the Senate, spoken to members of both Candidates campaigns, and personally attended rallies by both Clinton and Obama, it is clear to me that once you get below the surface, Clinton has the most forward reaching, progressive, feasible (especially monetarily) and implementable ideas. And for me, that’s important for a Candidate to be clear about; have they really taken a look at this country, the state we’re in, and based their plans on how they think they can get us out of the problems we have. But I am certain many people voted for Obama, and hold angry views of Clinton without even considering what she and her platform are all about (or what Obama’s platform is all about for that matter either).

This is not to say that Obama doesn’t have forward looking plans, but if he has, we wouldn’t know it because he certainly hasn’t gotten too deep in articulating his position on the issues, except perhaps race. I say this having asked several people, including those working on the Obama campaign, what his views are on the Economy, the Iraq War, Health Care, Social Security, Michigan/Florida, etc., and it always turns out that I know more than they do (and in my opinion what he’s presented is leaps and bounds less comprehensive than what Clinton presented).

Finally, Hillary staying in the race absolutely did not disenfranchise voters. At no point during the last 3 months was Obama convincingly ahead of Clinton in popular vote or delegates. Even since the DNC meeting, if you look at the numbers, they are still incredibly close. And in years past, people have taken their case to the Democratic National Convention with only a tenth of the delegates of the leading candidate. She has perhaps the most compelling case of anyone in history.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, the race should go to the Convention because neither candidate got the number of Pledged Delegates needed to wrap up the nomination. The media did a good job of conflating Pledged and Super Delegates, but the fact of the matter is, Super Delegates have the right to switch their vote at any time until the Convention. Therefore, if you want to go by the rules, Clinton had it within her rights to take her case to the Convention. I think she has done the prudent thing in suspending her campaign, but I’m bothered by many in the Media (along with the chorus of Obama supporters) who make it seem like she’s committed some crime, or violated the rules by continuing on. Many made it seem like she had no chance to beat him as far back as early March; a casual outside observer would’ve thought that she was behind by 1,000 delegates if they listened to many of the Media pundits. However, it became apparent to me that she had a slight, but very legitimate, chance to pull off the victory well into May. And what about Democracy? I think it was only Democratic for all the Primary races to run their course, especially in a year with 2 Candidates that were so close in delegate counts.

And I must point out that once you get to the facts, you’ll find that Obama has made as many misstatements, missteps, mischaracterizations and mistakes as Clinton during this campaign (AND I MEAN THAT…I was prepared to post a laundry list of comparisons of things Clinton has been grilled about that Obama also committed, but was given a pass on—including 2 statements Obama made that are as false as Hillary’s Bosnia statement that I’m sure most people reading this have NEVER heard about (thanks to the Obama friendly Media)...but since the nomination season is over, I’ll let it go).

I do give Obama credit for 2 things over Clinton: He is a more unifying figure than she is. I don’t think this is really her fault; I think it dates back to Republican characterizations of Clinton in the 90’s when she was fighting for Universal Health Care. I think it was those attacks on her that made people today HATE Hillary for no particular reason (I have contended for years that people hate her and can’t even give a reason why…I know because I’ve asked people why they hate her for years). The other thing Obama has done is run a much smoother campaign that even got young people to not just be excited, but to actually go out and vote. The Unity issue in Obama’s favor is what I think rivals Clinton’s forward thinking plans and platform, and what ultimately pushed this blogger to indecision on these 2 candidates until the last day before my State’s primary.

So to conclude, my basic point in my “Tell the Truth” post was simply that people should be fair, honest, truthful, learn to call a spade a spade and make their decisions from there. What’s right for one candidate is right for the other, what’s wrong for one candidate is wrong for the other. And ultimately, I think Obama supporters have done him a great disservice by not “vetting” him much harder. I don’t think people have been too hard on Clinton (especially considering that this is for the Presidency of the USA), but I certainly think there hasn’t been enough critiquing of Obama as a whole. By not holding him to the same standards they held her to, it only makes it that much easier for people (like Clinton supporters) to say “see, I told you so…you should’ve voted for Hillary” if Obama makes the slightest misstep in the future.

-Maelstrom

Political Comments Response (part 1)

Yes, Yes, Yes! I’m really glad to have an open discussion concerning the comments I received on my last two posts. I will address the comments on “Racism vs. Sexism” first, followed by the comments from “Tell the Truth.” I will go through each of your points and offer my point of view on them based on the facts I’ve gathered. I will address each of your comments with care and respect. Thank you for reading “The Vortex!”

“Discrimination due to race and sexism is not the same, obviously…discrimination against race stays in a society for generations, discrimination against sex CAN be gone within a generation.”

I’m not sure if I’m fully grasping the distinction you’re making here. I read this as saying “because of the racist conditions of society, racism lingers for generations. But a female baby doesn’t have pre-determined conditions of discrimination awaiting her upon birth.” I would have to disagree based on everything I’ve witnessed, read and studied. If a set of boy and girl twins, born to the same parents, garnering the same level of education, and holding the same career post/title/position were to run life’s course, the research shows that the girl will end up being paid less and perhaps overlooked for further positions of advancement in comparison with the boy. So I would contend that women historically (from generation to generation) certainly are discriminated against. Within a generation, any exoneration of discrimination “CAN” appear to have disappeared for an individual, but not for the group as a whole.

As you (and I) both noted, racism and sexism aren’t the same, but I was keen to point out that there is incredible overlap between the two, and the opinions I expressed in that post were concerning that overlap. But once again, to demonstrate that women are “generationally” discriminated against, all you have to do is look at where women are today and consider they’re place in society historically. As I pointed out, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech could be considered prescient with respect to society today. Susan B. Anthony’s struggles are still present today. Finally, the notion of female inferiority is as old as Biblical times. 1 Peter 3:7-9 makes reference to women as the “weaker vessel.” If that doesn’t demonstrate discrimination against women from generation to generation, I don’t know what does.

“Sexism and racism works both ways…”

Totally agree, and that is a point that I made in my “Tell the Truth” post. In many primaries, Clinton garnered roughly 60-70% of the female vote, while Obama has accrued roughly 90% of the vote of African American in the last 4 months of primaries. Now I don’t know if your reasoning as to why more women vote than men, or even if that’s true, but that wouldn’t shock me, especially since there are statistically more women in this country than men. But both realities trouble me greatly. I hardly doubt that 70% of the female population has truly looked at the platforms of all the candidates and come to conclusion that Clinton is their candidate. And Black people, seriously, are a monolithic voting block in my opinion (despite decrying this notion for years). It is inconceivable that a single demographic could look at all the candidates equally and come out with the same opinion unless the other candidate had done something insidiously wrong to them. The Clinton’s have been advocates for Black people in many ways for dozens of years, so much so that it has been a running joke within the Black community for over 10 years that Bill Clinton was the first Black President. So 90% for Obama whom many still don’t know much about? Really?

“No host in any show would make a racist or sexist remark…the best policewomen on the sexist side are the wives…men might be leading the nation (publicly), at home women are”

Absolutely, positively disagree. I can roll out a laundry list of commentators who have made both racist and/or sexist remarks in print, on TV and on the radio over the years (and could easily start with Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus). But in this campaign alone, there have been countless overt sexist statements aimed at Clinton, as well as many that could easily be construed as such even if they weren’t intended to be sexist. Many of the statements seem to come from one of the news outlet I watch the most—from many of the commentators I’ve admired over the last several years—MSNBC. I reported on one such statement at this site a couple months back in my post “David Shuster and MSNBC” (please note that my angle was not only about the sexist remark, but was asking if there was perhaps validity to the assertion made by Shuster). Here are a few other examples:

Every time Hillary comes on t/v “I instinctively cross my legs”

–Tucker Carlson, MSNBC

Hillary is “a patriarch with a vagina”

–Jane Fonda, Actress

“How do we beat the Bitch”

–old lady at McCain campaign rally in reference to Hillary Clinton

“She morphed into a scolding mother, talking down to a child”

–Jack Cafferty, CNN

“When she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside of Probate Court.”

–Mike Barnicle, MSNBC contributor on Hardball with Chris Matthews

“Men won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she reminds them of their nagging wives.”

–Neil Cavuto, Fox News, during a segment about Clinton and Nagging Wives

“And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘take out the garbage’.”

–Man during Cavuto’s segment about Nagging Wives on Fox News

Male high profile politicians that were endorsing Hillary Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.”

–Chris Matthews, MSNBC

And if there are indeed a comparable number of “sexism police” and “racism police” out there, why didn’t we hear from any of them about such comments (by the way, can you name 1 such sexism policeman, I still can’t…certainly not 1 with as a high a profile as those on the racism side). On the flipside of the coin, even when race may/could be a lesser factor amongst a field of other more significant factors in any situation, you get someone crying foul on the basis of race (as I pointed out in my post concerning the New Hampshire primary).

Finally, I think the notion that the wives police the husbands who have commentator jobs only points to further sexism and so-called traditional roles for women in relationships/society. I find such a comment inherently sexist.

So on your comments we agree on a couple points, but overall, I tend to disagree. But like I said in the post, you don’t have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence I’ve presented, look toward those who have lived the life (like the Black Female Politician Shirley Chisholm), and call a spade a spade based on that.

-Maelstrom

PS: I should also say that I agree, Hillary coming out now and “pulling the sexism card” does make her look weak, no matter how true. However, I would caution against telling her to quit talking about sexism because there are tens of millions of women who are outraged at how she’s been treated in the media (whether they are correct or not). So it’s not just Hillary talking about sexism now, it’s a lot of women who are leading that charge on her behalf.