NEWS FLASH: Clinton's chances have been terrible for a while

I know American's are math averse but this is ridiculous. Why can't more news organizations publish things like this.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic
presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of
winning...Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote —
which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that
achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.
An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he
won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger
is a game of make-believe.

So then, Bill Clinton, would it be fair to say that Hillary's chances are a big 'fairy tale?' The article goes on to say that the media plays this as a close race because it makes better news than a race that's dragging on for no reason. Although I will say that I firmly believe that many news commentators may not understand that it is over and basically has been for some time.

The fact that Hillary is holding out knowing full well that she's hoping Obama will slip and/or the super delegates will overturn the will of the people. Mmmm, bush-tastic. I hate our media coverage.

The new scabs

While reading Senator Dorgan's book "Take This Job and Ship It" one thing that has become abundantly clear is that foreign labor has now become the equivalent of scabs and union busters and may be even more difficult to overcome.

I can appreciate that people in other nations need jobs but I fail to see how the American worker can compete against workers who make 30 cents an hour and work 60, 70, and 80 hour weeks or more. This will merely lead to jobs leaving America at a breakneck pace waiting for every other country that America could possibly outsource jobs to to raise their labor standards to the point where American laborers can compete. This is unreasonable.

I do think that at the current time it is unsustainable and unreasonable to refuse to trade with any country that doesn't meet our labor standards. It would essentially mean the end of most of our international trade for years. I think that, as Dorgan suggests, we should close tax break loopholes and make it at least profit neutral to export jobs so that American workers can compete. This will also serve to make sure that American corporations are paying their FAIR share of taxes that they have gotten on the back of the American consumer.

On a closing note, the one thing that I think we may eventually be able to legitimately learn from free trade with places like Canada is that universal health care is a great idea. A country that provides universal healthcare can afford to pay lower wages to its workers because those workers do not have to worry about buying healthcare. Because of this I'm not sure that America will ever be able to keep up in free trade with Canada until we have a single payer (or at least universal) health care system.

Sorry to beat a dead horse

I've meant to post on this article by Pat Buchanan since it came out Friday. I know I've talked a lot about the whole Ferraro incident but I feel like this article is the epitome of the misunderstanding of this entire issue.

What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it...John
F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been
Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in
New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have
swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal.

I agree with the last bit, but this does not imply that what she said was true. In fact, it helps illustrate that it is false. Buchanan is exactly right that Romney ran away with Utah because he was Mormon and 'flamed out in Dixie' because he was a Mormon. Would Buchanan maintain that being a Mormon was beneficial to Romney? The fact is it wasn't. If you're running for governor of Utah I bet it helps but on a national scale there are many more people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon president than there are Mormons who would unfailingly vote for a Mormon. That is one of the reasons there aren't many nationally successful Mormon politicians.

All of the cases he mentioned were/are running against the odds. Why was it such a big deal when JFK got elected if being catholic was such an advantage? Why haven't we had a black or female president if they are such advantages? It's because they help in certain demographics but hurt overall. All of these traits may make a politician unique and stand out but it does not help them win elections and history bears that out quite completely.

You know what is an advantage in American politics? Being white, male, and protestant.

Come on now, Pat Buchanan. You have been on the political scene not to believe this Ferraro nonsense. It makes absolutley no sense and I'm surprised anyone didn't laugh when they heard it.

Am I missing something?

So, as I've mentioned before Geraldine Ferraro's statements about Barack Obama were not racist but they were intensely misguided, misinformed, ignorant, offensive, and insensitive. The problem is that Ferraro is claiming that she's being called a racist and anyone who says something about Obama is being called a racist. Now I'm not naive. I know that many people are calling her racist. These are people commenting on blogs and sending her hate mail. I think that is drastically different than Barack Obama or any of his campaign or surrogates calling her racist. Ferraro, and all of us, must make this distinction (even while Ferraro herself is accusing the media of sexism). Here is Obama adviser David Axelrod's criticism of Ferraro's statement:

Leadership in campaigns comes from the very top, and the signals that have been
sent from the Clinton campaign have been very unfortunate. Not just in
this instance, where they offered a light statement of disagreement in response
to what was an offensive statement coming from Congresswoman Ferraro. But
this has been a pattern that we've seen throughout the campaign, whether it was
the Bill Shaheen incident, the Bob Johnson incident, Sen. Clinton's own
inexplicable unwillingness to make a direct statement on '60 Minutes' about Sen.
Obama's Christianity, even though they've shared prayer groups together in
Congress. All of it is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be
addressed.

Note that the statement (and previous ones) were referred to as "offensive." And rightly so. Her statements were offensive. The closest it comes to racism is having racist underpinnings that may draw (intentionally or unintentionally) the racist dixiecrats and those who perceive that they have been personally cheated by affirmative action.

The best response I have heard to this (and to any news story this year possibly) was Keith Olbermann's first ever special comment directed at a democrat on Wednesday night. It had made me sick to my stomach to hear so many democrats and republicans claim Ferraro spoke the truth but I have never felt as good as when I watched Keith Olbermann's special comment and breathed a sigh of relief that somebody else gets it.

A nuanced understanding of a Reagan comparison

Remember when Obama got grilled for saying the Republican party was the "party of ideas" for the last 10 or 15 years and said that Reagan changed the trajectory of our nation in a way Nixon and Clinton didn't. I must say that I enjoyed the statement and do believe that democrats should embrace Reagan comparisons and understand them in a nuanced way. Here is the way in which Obama is/should be like Reagan:

1. Reagan was running as a republican at a time when the democrat in the white house was extremely unpopular and even democrats were ready for change and unhappy with their party. Obama is running as a democrat where the republican in the white house is extremely unpopular and even republicans are ready for change and unhappy with their party.

2. Reagan was very charismatic and ran on change, almost as an outside. Obama is possibly even more charismatic and is running on change, and framing himself as an outsider.

3. Reagan had vast national appeal and changed the political map despite not being the centrist candidate in his party. Due to his likeability and inspiring of optimism in america he was able to get elected and get bipartisan support for very partisan ideas. If this holds true, Obama (even though generally on the left of Hilary) may be able to change the political map and take back states thought not in play (Hilary is already conceding many of these states in the general). He is very likeable and inspires optimism so he may be able to push through very liberal/partisan idea with bipartisan support. that is what obama means by forming a bipartisan coalition for change; not pandering and running to the center (ala Bill Clinton) but being so persuasive that even those of the other party go along with your agenda.

That is what I think Obama needs to/can do and what makes him different that Bill Clinton. Clinton had to offer change and hope by having such centrist policies that everyone could find something they liked. Obama, like Reagan, is using his charisma to make his political opponents to support him.

I think it's a good and apt comparison to make and I hope democrats understand the nuance behind it and embrace because comparing obama to reagan could also convince old Reagan supporters to come back to the democratic party

Geraldine Ferraro's remarks

Ok, so I'm sure most people have heard about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks recently but I will quote the relevant ones in order to comment on them.

She said:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued.
"And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He
happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the
concept."

Yeah, it's been a real boon to candidates to be African Americans in politics hasn't it. 29 women (8 currently) have been acting governors in our country compared to 3 African Americans (1 currently). There have been 216 women in the US House and 35 women in the Senate. There have been 116 African Americans in the US House and 5 African Americans in the Senate.

So where does the part about being lucky to be African American come in? When did America decide to wake up and say "wouldn't it be cool to have an African American president?" I agree that it has helped him with the AA vote but doesn't anyone else think that it intensely hurts him among many voters who won't vote for a black man? Don't you think this is why we haven't had more AA successful politicians? Or are we supposed to believe that AA politicians have been squandering their national advantage and that they are just naturally worse politicians?

Also let me note that Democrats typically win 90% of the AA vote in national elections and isn't possible that one candidate can be immensely popular among them compared to other democrats (like Hilary with Asian Americans or Latinos, or Bill Clinton was with African Americans).

If it is such an advantage to be black why haven't Al Sharpton, Allan Keyes, and Jesse Jackson been successful in their bids for the white house? It's because Barack Obama is a better candidate running at a time better suited to his particular message.

Barack Obama is as charismatic as Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and John Kennedy and is a better speaker than all of them with the possible exception of Kennedy.

His positions may not be vastly superior to Hilary's but it is incomprehensible to me that they cannot see the value and the appeal of being charismatic and a truly inspirational speaker.

Ferraro then went on to defend herself:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and
says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're
accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in
two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.
How's that?"

So I do not think that Ferraro is a racist in the least degree but I do believe she seems almost like a dixiecrat or someone who would deny that racial discrimination still exists. Even though it is not her intent, her comments seem to play to lower class white voters who are veiled (or not so veiled) racists or at least those that somehow believe that affirmative action is an unfair advantage that helps black people to be better off in society than white people as opposed to something that is trying to meagerly level the playing field.

Ferraro's comments are not racist but they show a deep misunderstanding of how society works and the ingrained truths of institutionalized racism.

Can I just say that I also find it amusing that in the first article Ferraro claims that the press has been sexist in their coverage yet is hurt that anytime someone says anything bad about obama they're called racist. Hypocrisy much, Geraldine?

Can I just ask Hilary and her supporters to consider the fact that maybe your candidate doesn't play well in the media because she just has a bad image, comes off as cranky and petty, doesn't speak well, and seems very insincere and hawkish? Not everyone has to like you. Regardless of whether your policies are better (debateable), the fact is that you are not as marketable, media friendly, or appealing in most ways.