The long road to the Democratic nominee will likely be settled as early as Wednesday morning. Neither candidate will reach the magic number of delegates by the end of voting tonight to secure the party's nomination. CNN is reporting that a score of super delegates will begin endorsing Senator Obama as soon polls close tonight.
The debate of an Obama/Clinton dream ticket is beginning to pick up steam. Pundits and advisors from both campaigns have publicly entertained the idea but no firm commitment from either camp has been given. Looking at the numbers and exit polls from the primaries held from the beginning of March to now, all the numbers point towards the practically of a joint ticket. As the NY Times reported this past weekend, Senator Clinton has won more states (7 out of 13) and more votes (6.7 million compared to 6.1 million) than Senator Obama. By the end of the day, Clinton will have around 17 million votes. She has built a movement of her own and it is a fact that cannot be ignored.
Obama has galvanized and attracted first time voters, but to go against John McCain and the Republican force, he cannot just rely on his own voting bloc. He is going to need the Latino, blue collar, women, and senior votes. These groups have consistently voted for Clinton in this primary season and with her credentials she is the best candidate to secure these votes for an Obama presidency.
Unity has been a word the Democratic party has been tossing around the last few weeks in an attempt to appease worries of a divided party. The best form of unity is to bring together two opposing forces with over 34 million votes between them. Both candidates repeatedly say that this election is bigger than themselves and it is an important moment in U.S. history. If either candidate is genuine in their comments then all talks about Obama's camp's dislike of the Clintons is not productive. Unity means bringing together opposing forces and working together for a common goal. That goal should be working to restore the U.S.'s image domestically and internationally. If anything has been learned from this primary season, it is that the U.S. is ready for change, and what a refreshing change an Obama/Clinton ticket will be.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
What Now?
So what happens next?
In an ideal world, Hillary Clinton continues her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way through the national convention in August. I can hear the throngs of Democrats now: this is horrible, why would we want a fight in the convention?; to beat John McCain in the fall we need a united Democratic party; why can't Hillary just give up? All of these questions/concerns are legitimate but I want to propose (remember, in an ideal world) a good reason for Clinton to take her fight to the halls of the convention. It is not that I want to see her as the Democratic nominee. I want something bigger. I want something that our friends in Great Britain, France, and to name a few, Canada have:
I want proper representation in local and state governments, U.S. Congress, and in the White House!
In the U.S., two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, represent a population of over 300 million people. There are a few independent politicians, but definitely not enough to be collectively measured as serious political players. In an ideal world, Obama's camp (representing the so-called liberal Democrats) split from the Hillary camp (representing the so-called centrist Democrats), and we would, as a start, have three political parties representing the U.S.
Look at Great Britain, France and Canada:
The Brits have:
It would be nice to see every election (local, state, and general) have this much excitement. It seems that we wait for "generational" candidates to emerge before we become passionate about politics. The problem with waiting for generational leaders is that they come every forty years, and when they do, they (to use a sports analogy) play ball in the same court as their predecessors. The problem with voter apathy is not the candidates; instead it is the lack of alternative political parties. The two-party system cannot, and I stress cannot, represent 300 million people. The U.S. is not a static country. She is a country comprised of farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. The U.S. is a diverse country, yet, politicians represent as if the U.S. is uniform. The apathy of voters stems from a lack of voice in government, and too many times, voters vote out of necessity and desperation to see certain candidates not elected (the lesser of two evils argument).
As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, this is an ideal situation. Do I think this will happen? Of course not! It would, however, be great to see a debate on the floors of Congress and State Halls between representatives of many different political parties advocating for the farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. Until that day comes, notes will continue to post from the underground.
In an ideal world, Hillary Clinton continues her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way through the national convention in August. I can hear the throngs of Democrats now: this is horrible, why would we want a fight in the convention?; to beat John McCain in the fall we need a united Democratic party; why can't Hillary just give up? All of these questions/concerns are legitimate but I want to propose (remember, in an ideal world) a good reason for Clinton to take her fight to the halls of the convention. It is not that I want to see her as the Democratic nominee. I want something bigger. I want something that our friends in Great Britain, France, and to name a few, Canada have:
I want proper representation in local and state governments, U.S. Congress, and in the White House!
In the U.S., two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, represent a population of over 300 million people. There are a few independent politicians, but definitely not enough to be collectively measured as serious political players. In an ideal world, Obama's camp (representing the so-called liberal Democrats) split from the Hillary camp (representing the so-called centrist Democrats), and we would, as a start, have three political parties representing the U.S.
Look at Great Britain, France and Canada:
The Brits have:
- Radical Party
- Conservative Party
- Liberal Party
- Labour Party
- Social Democratic Party
- Socialist Party
- Union for a Popular Movement
- Rally for the Republic
- The Greens
- Bloc Quebecois
- Conservative Party of Canada
- Liberal Party of Canada
- New Democratic Party
It would be nice to see every election (local, state, and general) have this much excitement. It seems that we wait for "generational" candidates to emerge before we become passionate about politics. The problem with waiting for generational leaders is that they come every forty years, and when they do, they (to use a sports analogy) play ball in the same court as their predecessors. The problem with voter apathy is not the candidates; instead it is the lack of alternative political parties. The two-party system cannot, and I stress cannot, represent 300 million people. The U.S. is not a static country. She is a country comprised of farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. The U.S. is a diverse country, yet, politicians represent as if the U.S. is uniform. The apathy of voters stems from a lack of voice in government, and too many times, voters vote out of necessity and desperation to see certain candidates not elected (the lesser of two evils argument).
As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, this is an ideal situation. Do I think this will happen? Of course not! It would, however, be great to see a debate on the floors of Congress and State Halls between representatives of many different political parties advocating for the farmers, factory workers, data analysis, engineers, doctors, teachers, students, businessmen & women, black, white, brown, old, young, rich, poor. Until that day comes, notes will continue to post from the underground.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Questions I would ask...
If I had the opportunity to interview the three presidential candidates I would ask the following questions:
John McCain:
If I only had the opportunity to ask these questions...
John McCain:
- How do you explain to voters your continued support of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers?
- How can you boast the success of the "surge" in Iraq when an entire country, to borrow the words from your colleague Senator Clinton, has been "obliterated"?
- Many analyst suggest the U.S. economy is in, or is on its way, to a recession. You've been quoted as saying the economy is not your strong point. How can voters take your candidacy seriously if the number one pressing issue facing Americans is the economy?
- After your victory in New Hampshire you claimed that you "found your voice". Yet, your campaign message has morphed a few times since then. It seems that in the last several weeks your populist message has been consistent and indeed you have a voice you are comfortable with. What do you say to voters who question whether your message is genuine or political, cold calculations?
- What is the difference between Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and your call for Iran's obliteration if they launch a nuclear attack on Israel?
- If you really feel passionate about counting the votes of Florida and Michigan, why are you now voicing your opposition to the DNC's decision not to seat their delegates? Why not when the rules were first proposed and implemented?
- What will you say to your followers if the changes you have promised to bring about in Washington are not achieved in time for the 2012 elections?
- Your campaign claims to want to bring about change in Washington. Yet, just like Senator Clinton, your response to a hypothetical question regarding an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, you sound a lot like Bush. How does your "forceful response" equate to change?
- Both Senator McCain's and Clinton's position is clear regarding the plight of Palestinian statehood. What is your stance on the Palestinian question?
If I only had the opportunity to ask these questions...
One (Wo)man, One Vote
Covering the democratic and republican primaries has given me the opportunity to travel across the United States and visit many towns, cities, counties, and states that I would not have on my own. The people I meet in these places have really changed my outlook on the entire election/nomination process. Following the numerous presidential races as an adolescent, I was accustomed to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary selecting the nominees for both parties. It did not even cross my mind that each state has a primary. I live in the Commonwealth of Virginia and I do not remember any discussion about its primary. As we all know, this has changed.
Every single state will cast a vote and unlike all the previous election cycles in my life-time (a little over two decades), the democratic candidates will campaign vigorously in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Watching this phenomenon up close I am witnessing the excitement of people for the elections. The pundits on TV lament on the "long" election season yet they fail to mention that this is exactly how the election process is suppose to be. Everyone should be afforded the right to vote. We live in a media dominated world and thus have been accustomed to short sound bites, flashy graphics, and pundits with their superficial "analysis". The media had declared this race over before a single vote was casted; they had declared this race over after the caucuses in Iowa; they declared the race over after Super Tuesday; and so forth. If the races is over, why are Senator Obama and Senator Clinton still splitting primary states?
Everybody I have met these past five months-from the early primaries to the latter one- want to vote! They want their voices to be heard. Let them vote. For a country that prides herself with the cliche slogan of "one (wo)man one vote", why can't we actually let the process ride itself out? For all the naysayers who claim this long process is hurting the democrats are simply wrong. In Indiana, the chairman of the democratic party was hoping for 800,000 ballots to be casted. Over 1.3 million votes were tallied in their primary. The excitement of the people can only benefit the democratic party and not hurt it.
Every single state will cast a vote and unlike all the previous election cycles in my life-time (a little over two decades), the democratic candidates will campaign vigorously in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Watching this phenomenon up close I am witnessing the excitement of people for the elections. The pundits on TV lament on the "long" election season yet they fail to mention that this is exactly how the election process is suppose to be. Everyone should be afforded the right to vote. We live in a media dominated world and thus have been accustomed to short sound bites, flashy graphics, and pundits with their superficial "analysis". The media had declared this race over before a single vote was casted; they had declared this race over after the caucuses in Iowa; they declared the race over after Super Tuesday; and so forth. If the races is over, why are Senator Obama and Senator Clinton still splitting primary states?
Everybody I have met these past five months-from the early primaries to the latter one- want to vote! They want their voices to be heard. Let them vote. For a country that prides herself with the cliche slogan of "one (wo)man one vote", why can't we actually let the process ride itself out? For all the naysayers who claim this long process is hurting the democrats are simply wrong. In Indiana, the chairman of the democratic party was hoping for 800,000 ballots to be casted. Over 1.3 million votes were tallied in their primary. The excitement of the people can only benefit the democratic party and not hurt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
