Nothing Sacred

Chelsea Clinton has been taking heat lately following her appearance at Dickenson College in Pennsylvania. A male in the audience asked if her mother's credibility was damaged following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Chelsea responded, "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business." The answer was met with applause from the crowd; however, news analysis shows have since dissected the event and have criticized Chelsea for her refusal to answer the question. Many in the media have claimed that the question from the audience was legitimate, not only in content, but also because Chelsea is now 28 and has positioned herself as a spokesperson for her mother. Others in the media have defended Chelsea, saying there is a distinction between public life and private life that is no longer respected in the media, and Chelsea was right to toss the question aside.

Barack Obama's right to privacy was in question recently when on vacation with his family in Greensboro, North Carolina. At first, his campaign refused to expose the location of the vacation, but when pressured by CNN's "Where in the World is Barack Obama" game, the mystery location was forced out. Followed relentlessly by a lone CNN camera, Obama was filmed saying he was just "Trying to be on vacation." CNN did not agree. The decision to try to avoid the media was not up to Obama, obviously proved by CNN, and further confirmed by comments from NBC's Chuck Todd who wrote, “we did a thorough debate internally and did our due diligence on this and felt it wasn't necessary this time; that doesn't mean we won't do this in the future; this was a decision made on this particular vacation.” Similarly, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times said, “The decision was made to not cover Senator Obama’s vacation because he is not the nominee or presumptive nominee.” In both comments and in CNN's coverage, the decision to have a private vacation was clearly out of Obama's hands. Had the New York Times and NBC decided to cover Obama, they certainly would have found justification for their intrusion into his vacation.


So what is fair coverage of a candidate? And when do personal questions become too personal? Go ahead, Wax Politic!

Bush Is In Denial Again

President George W. Bush was in our home state of Ohio, giving a speech today in Dayton. Bush offered what you might call an answer to critics of his Iraq policy, saying that it is simply not true that waging the war on terror does not involve focusing U.S. military attention in other places besides Iraq. At the National Museum of the United States Air Force, the President chastized Congress for applying pressure to remove troops from Iraq in order to focus our attention in places like Afghanistan, a known hot bed for Al Qaeda. Bush simply said, "This argument makes no sense."

Bush is expected to endorse the recommendations of General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who has argued that it would be ill-advised to begin a troop withdraw at this time, citing the fact that it could reverse any progress made by the "surge" effort of the last year.

Bush asked Congress and Americans to consider what the task at hand is in Iraq: "They're trying to build a modern democracy on the rubble of three decades of tyranny, in a region of the world that has been hostile to freedom. And they're doing it while under assault from one of history's most brutal terrorist networks. "When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress' two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage."

This was a shot at Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) who told CNN last weekend that there is "foot-dragging on key governance questions in Iraq."

It remains to be seen how the occupation will play out, but one this is sure, President Bush will not stand for a change in course despite pressure at home and abroad.

Boiling Point

The simmering racial tensions clouding the democratic primary race have recently reached a boiling point in the wake of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermon to the Trinity United Church of Christ in which he espoused racially divisive remarks referred to as "inflammatory rhetoric" by the Obama camp. Despite Obama's condemnation Tuesday of Wright's incendiary sermon recently seized upon by the media, the ensuing controversy has illuminated the potential division that an Obama presidency could unleash between white and black voters in America. In his response Tuesday, Obama admitted that Wright's sermon had forced the campaign to take a "particularly divisive turn," but insisted that he was the most able candidate to unite the Nation despite racial division.

According to the GallupPoll.com, "Race is the single issue that divides the Democratic electorate more than any other." And that evidence serves only as a microcosm of an attitude that is pervasive in America today. As of March 16, Gallup reported a stunning 8 out of 10 black democrats support Obama over Clinton, and the recent controversy over the Rev. Wright's sermon has only served to further polarize democrats along racial lines. BlackAmericaWeb.com reports an unsettling response of support by black ministers in the wake of Wright's sermon who seem to downplay the severity of his divisive words. Rev. Raphael Warnock of Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church seems to embody this response to Wright's sermon, saying it was consistent with the "bold truth-telling tradition...of black preachers...expected to preach with clarity, power and passion. They speak to the struggle of blacks in America with a painful history that is midwifed by slavery and segregation." This assertion suggests that racial sensitivities still exist and foreshadows the possibility that an Obama presidency may heighten racial tension rather than diffuse it. Furthermore, Warnock's opinion can be extrapolated to represent the black response to Wright's sermon while the opposite is true in the white community. The response to Obama's affiliation with Wright has contributed to an approximate 30 percent negativity increase among white voters toward Obama according to a CBS opinion poll.

While Obama confirmed his condemnation of Wright's sermon Tuesday, proclaiming his fervent desire to abolish racial division in our Nation, it is yet to be determined if America is ready to put skin color in the past and forge ahead as a unified people. Only time will tell.

Why Isn't Rush in Jail?

Given that...

“[Ohio] law states that a voter who is challenged by poll workers to defend the sincerity of their last minute switch of party affiliation must sign an affidavit confirming their allegiance to that party’s principles.”

...and that Rush Limbaugh, B.F.I. orchestrated a large-scale movement of registered Republican voters, who crossed over party affiliation at the last minute, all of them signing the legally binding allegiance confirmation affidavit.

and that many of them not only committed the fraud (it is fair to say that, as a rule,Rush's Dittoheads do not adhere to the principles of the Democratic Party), but then boasted about it in online forums and blogs...

“Lastly, they had me sign the affirmation about switching parties and supporting the principles of the Democrat party. I said that would be easy, because they don't have any. Everybody got a good chuckle as there isn't a Democrat within 5 miles any direction from where I vote. I then proceeded to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Dirty as it felt at the time, I have a feeling I'll be rewarded in the long run.”

It really ought to be a no brainer for a patriotic and ambitious prosecutor to nail the obese blowhard on a number of different felonies, including (but not limited to) conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Why, then, is he not even under arrest?

Really? Sadaam Was Not Behind 9/11?

Well, if the CIA, National Intelligence Estimate, or 9/11 Commission Report didn't convince you, perhaps you'll be sold after looking into, "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents Volume 1 "(Daily Kos has a pdf version of the 70 page document on their server- Dailykos.com).

The document outlines the findings of researchers who poured over 600,000 documents without finding one link between Sadaam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001. So in essence this document is reaffirming what the CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate told us and our president in 2002, what the 9/11 Commission Report (that our president commissioned) told us in July of 2004, and what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II report said in September 2006.

This is nothing new, it's only a reminder of how incompetently our president has chosen to allocate our defense dollars and how illogically he has approached the deployment of U.S. troops to the Middle East. He was warned that the war against terrorism would not to be won in Iraq, rather that the battleground was in Al Qaeda hotbed, Afghanistan. Now the U.S. government spends a cool 3 billion a month in Iraq while our economy takes a downward turn. The economny is not stable, Mr. President. We'll hope that the new president will bring some element of reason and rationality back to executive level decision making.

So You Want To Be A Superdelegate

Not including Florida and Michigan, there are 795 total Democratic superdelegates by whom the nominees are trying to be endorsed . This consists of 719 regular superdelegates and 76 unpledged add-ons. You should note that Democrats Abroad that are superdelegates get 1/2 vote each, so there are actually 799 superdelegates casting 795 votes).

Check out the Selection Rules straight from the Democratic Party:

UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES

1. The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows:
   Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;
   
   1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
   
   
   2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
   
   
   3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
   
   
   4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
   
   
   5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee

We'll be keeping a close eye on the activities of the fabled Superdelegates in the coming weeks and months to monitor changes in allegiances and potential shake-up's in the Party. Check out a great site for information concerning all things Superdelegate at www.demconwatch.blogspot.com.

Power To The People?

August 28th of 2008 marks the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. It is on this day that the democratic party will name its next nominee for President of The United States of America. Traditionally, the identity of the nominee is not in question by this late date and the convention amounts to little more than a party rally used to generate excitement and funds for the general election. This year things could be very different.

With what seems like an interminable primary race between candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, we have reached a point where it is a near impossibility that either candidate will win the required number of pledged delegates to guarantee their nomination. This reality means that the specter of a brokered convention looms ominously over all of us. If neither candidate has won the required number of pledged delegates prior to the convention then the delegate votes at the convention, typically more ceremonial than anything else, will take on a great deal of importance.

There are two types of delegates; pledged delegates which are determined by the votes of the general electorate (the people) in the nationwide state primaries and caucuses, and superdelegates which number over 700 and are given to elected officials and other party insiders and may be pledged to either candidate at the discretion of the superdelegate.

As of now, Barack Obama has what should be an insurmountable lead. With only 12 states left to vote, Obama has won nearly twice as many states. He has won the majority of the popular vote. And he has a triple-digit lead in pledged delegates. Even his, once large, deficit of superdelegates has been shrinking over the last month or two. And the inclusion of potential Florida and Michigan revotes probably wouldn't change anything dramatically. With these statistics one could safely assume that if Obama maintains his leads in states won, popular vote, and pledged delegates through the end of the primary season, then the remaining unpledged superdelgates would fall into line in support of the candidate that the people have chosen, right?

Well, not so fast. As any of you out there who even passively follow the news should know these unpledged superdelegates could still swing the nomination to Clinton's favor. Because they are bound by no rules stating that their vote must be influenced by any factor beyond their personal opinion of whom the candidate should be, the allotment of these delegates continues to be in question. Thus, there is still the chance that the voices of the American people will be subjugated by the handful of party insiders that are still yet to endorse.

Let's assume though, for just a moment, that the remaining superdelegates decide to go with the American people and endorse the candidate who has earned the lead by the end of the primary season. In that case there is no chance that our votes might be rendered meaningless, right? Well, that is the general consensus. Or at least that is what most of America thought until Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Newsweek the other day.

During the interview Clinton was asked "How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?" Her response:

"It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

So, if you can follow that, she is basically saying that even the pledged delegates, the ones that are allotted because of the way that the citizens of their respective states have voted, have the option to switch their support over to the other candidate. If you find this cynical assertion more than just a bit unsettling, you are not alone.

Whether the losing candidate at the end of primary season, most likely Clinton, was pushed over the top as a result of a majority of the superdelegates siding with them or as a result of the pledged delegates switching allegiance in defiance of the voters of their state, this would spell enormous problems for the democratic party, the American people in general, and the future of elections in the United States of America.

First of all, this result would cause an enormous fracture in the democratic party. Many potential democratic voters, myself amongst them, would cast their vote for John McCain or a third-party candidate such as Ralph Nader. Worse yet, many of those who would have voted will just stay at home. This segment includes many of the young voters and African-Americans who have been brought into the process as a result of their enthusiasm for the new brand of politics touted by Barack Obama. Many of these people have not chosen to vote in the past and would simply continue along that path if Clinton were to take the nomination against the will of the general electorate.

In regard to how this may affect the future of elections in the United States, after an incident like this how would elected officials be able to encourage people to come out and vote in the future? So many Americans already say "Why should I vote? It's not like my vote really counts anyway?" How could one, in good conscience, answer this question in a way that encouraged people to come back out and vote again? For all intents and purposes a nominee who is decided by superdelegates, or worse, pledged delegates who chose to switch sides would be an affirmation of people's claims that their votes did not count. This would be the most egregious case of voter disenfranchisement on the books. Is that really what the democratic party wants as their legacy; the party that proved that the voices of the people really don't matter? I don't think so. But, it doesn't seem that Hillary Clinton has ruled out this possibility.

Lastly, and of greatest possible importance, is the potential fallout that could come as a result of the scenario mentioned above. If the DNC decides to steal the nomination away from the candidate whom the majority of the people have thrown their support behind, a very real possibility is that there will be widespread demonstrations, protests, and marches across the country on August 28. These gatherings will be filled with citizens that feel frustrated, disenfranchised, marginalized, and even helpless as a result of their realization that their voices are not, in fact, being heard by party insiders and elected officials. To me, this could be a very dangerous recipe and one more thing that I don't think that Hillary Clinton or the democratic party would want to have on their consciences. Let's hope that if Obama maintains his leads, which is almost a mathematic certainty, Clinton and the democratic powers that be exercise the necessary amount of care, grace, and humility to let the voices of the American people be heard.

-Chris C. Davis
3/11/08

Battle For Democratic Nomination Will Go On..And On...And On

The four primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island on Tuesday confirmed one thing, and one thing only for the Dems: the nominating process will not be over soon, despite the potentially fractious ramifications to the party base and even the two candidates vying for the top spot. The staggering momentum of the Obama Express may have slowed significantly three days prior to Tuesday as polls reflected large numbers of voters swinging their support to the Clinton camp at the eleventh hour. It will be interesting to watch how things play out from day to day until the Pennsylvania primary, especially how each candidate and their respective staffers and strategists conduct themselves and frame their discussions and criticisms.

Obama is likely to stay on the high ground publicly but one must think that the Obama camp is reconciling itself to the reality that the negativity and allegations made against their man must be counteracted. This is likely to happen on the staff level. Senator Obama has essentially placed himself in the position of self-contradiction, were he to go the traditional 'attack politics' route. We may hear, but not from Senator Obama's mouth, word of Whitewater, undisclosed financial statements, and so on in the ensuing weeks. The Clinton campaign is likely to stay on the offensive; it is, afterall, working.

The likely course of events winds this mess in the hands of America's superdelegates. Stay tuned here at Wax Politic this week for a new article everyday spotlighting the role of the superdelegates, who they are, what they mean to the party, and how important their voices and votes will in fact be to the outcome of this race.

The hotly contested bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination is just now warming up. The always resilient senator from New York is proving to be the second "Comeback Kid" of the Clinton family. First was her surprise win in New Hampshire. Second, she was counted out but victorious in California. Now, she rallies to take home wins in Texas and Ohio. Pennsylvania looms large for Obama and Clinton in the weeks to come.

Price Tag of War in Iraq: 3 Trillion Dollars

Three Trillion Dollars!! And that's just how much the war in Iraq has cost thus far. That figure does not at all factor in the next hundred years of funding the occupation. That is how long the United States is going to be there, correct?

In a new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes conservatively estimate that the decision to invade Iraq after the attacks of 9/11 have placed immense strain on the U.S. economy, one that is not likely to lessen anytime soon.

Stiglitz, a former World Band chief economist and his co-author have indicted the Bush administration of deliberately "low-balling" cost estimates and keeping a second, secret set of documents from the American public. Read more at democracynow.org and leave a comment for discussion right here at Wax Politic.