Could this be an answer to the violence that has erupted in Kenya (i.e. Senator Obama's first foreign policy success)? The beer is reported to be really strong and very cheap. I think it portends favorably for Barack Obama and the upcoming races - I'll have another Obama, please - hic =)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Let Them Eat Crab Cakes
With the polls in Virginia closed and the polls in DC and Maryland open until 9:30pm (those polling places are staying open for an extra 90 minutes due to icy weather and a tremendous turn-out), yet another victory is Senator Obama's - yeah =) Hard as it may be to be a gracious loser, it can be equally difficult sometimes to be a victor who is not perceived to be a braggart, a bully or worse. And as thrilled as today's results may make me feel, a few phrases keep ringing in my head - one is a statement made by Susan Estrich on the Stephanie Miller Show and that is "Lots of people have gone broke betting against the Clintons," and the old adage that "It ain't over 'til the fat lady (or the super delegate) sings." In other words, we got a whole lotta primaries left to go, including several big states voting on March 4th - among them Texas and Ohio, with Pennsylvania looming out there in April (22nd). Both Clinton and Obama have their strong suits - their key demographics. It is no secret that Obama's voters tend to be younger, more affluent and better educated, while Clinton does well with older white women and the working class.
But the primaries were not the only political news to come out of the Potomac area today. Today there was an important vote that took place in the Senate - a vote so important that only three senators did not show up to express an opinion on this burning issue. The issue was whether to grant immunity to the telecom corporations who ostensibly broke no laws (then why do they need immunity, I'm just asking?) when they gave the Bush administration the wherewithal to spy on all Americans WITHOUT a warrant. The three senators who declined to cast their vote on this highly significant piece of legislation were Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although Senator Obama did cast a vote on the initial call of the bill, and Senator Clinton sent in a note explaining that she would have voted for the amendment to cancel the immunity has she been there to cast her vote (which she was not).
Personally, I have never expected much from Senator Graham, that right-wing Bushite from South Carolina who was no doubt busy chasing down John McCain to see about the veep position, but Hillary Clinton, well Hillary Clinton, I did expect that she would at least show up given that today's primaries were right there in the neighborhood - she barely had to swing out of her campaign orbit to show up in the Senate long enough to cast her vote. Barack Obama made it to cast a vote early on in the day (although as I have already acknowledged Obama did not participate in the final vote). Which leads me to ask a simple question - who is really watching out for you inside the beltway these days? The amendment that would have stripped this noxious piece of legislation of the vile immunity clause went down to defeat (68 nays - 29 yeas), and I grant you that Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's votes would not have made a difference, but it would have made a difference to me - a liberal middle-aged white woman living in the heart of red America. It would have made a difference to me had Hillary and Barack taken a few minutes out of their busy campaign schedules to cast a vote not just against immunity for the law-breaking telecom industry, but a vote for innocent Americans who are looking to Congress as the last firewall against the complete erosion of our still precious freedoms. I am more than disappointed tonight, I am angry beyond words...
Senate Rejects Bid to Strip Phone Companies' Immunity (Bloomberg, February 12, 2008)
But the primaries were not the only political news to come out of the Potomac area today. Today there was an important vote that took place in the Senate - a vote so important that only three senators did not show up to express an opinion on this burning issue. The issue was whether to grant immunity to the telecom corporations who ostensibly broke no laws (then why do they need immunity, I'm just asking?) when they gave the Bush administration the wherewithal to spy on all Americans WITHOUT a warrant. The three senators who declined to cast their vote on this highly significant piece of legislation were Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although Senator Obama did cast a vote on the initial call of the bill, and Senator Clinton sent in a note explaining that she would have voted for the amendment to cancel the immunity has she been there to cast her vote (which she was not).
Personally, I have never expected much from Senator Graham, that right-wing Bushite from South Carolina who was no doubt busy chasing down John McCain to see about the veep position, but Hillary Clinton, well Hillary Clinton, I did expect that she would at least show up given that today's primaries were right there in the neighborhood - she barely had to swing out of her campaign orbit to show up in the Senate long enough to cast her vote. Barack Obama made it to cast a vote early on in the day (although as I have already acknowledged Obama did not participate in the final vote). Which leads me to ask a simple question - who is really watching out for you inside the beltway these days? The amendment that would have stripped this noxious piece of legislation of the vile immunity clause went down to defeat (68 nays - 29 yeas), and I grant you that Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's votes would not have made a difference, but it would have made a difference to me - a liberal middle-aged white woman living in the heart of red America. It would have made a difference to me had Hillary and Barack taken a few minutes out of their busy campaign schedules to cast a vote not just against immunity for the law-breaking telecom industry, but a vote for innocent Americans who are looking to Congress as the last firewall against the complete erosion of our still precious freedoms. I am more than disappointed tonight, I am angry beyond words...
Senate Rejects Bid to Strip Phone Companies' Immunity (Bloomberg, February 12, 2008)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Can Obama Charm the Superdelegates?
Superdelegate - what the hell is a superdelegate?
Well, if you are a political novice (and there's nothing wrong with that =) here's the definition from Wikipedia. However, if you already know that "superdelegate" is just another word for nothin' left to lose (no wait, that's a song ;), rather superdelegates are nothing more than unelected delegates that go to the Democratic Convention (in August in Denver, CO) foot-loose and fancy-free and can cast their vote for whomever strikes them as the most appealing candidate at the moment. Check out the following site 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for a complete list of those superdelegates who have already pledged to vote for one candidate or the other. But beware, the superdupers can be a fickle lot and may switch their allegiances or a whim or a dime (and those are the ones that worry me...). What, you may be wondering, is the cost of a superduperdelegate's vote? Well, this is pure speculation from a political outsider (I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma for god's sake), but my guess is that since all of these supers are already political big wigs it takes a promise of some cushy position in the candidate's nascent administration or a rather large campaign contribution - but my guess is that by August all of the politicos will have long since maxed out to their fave, so it won't be about the moolah as much as it will be about the political clout that the super may get in return for their vote.
So watch this group of ultra-politicos, and don't let them subvert the will of the electorate. I say whoever goes into the Convention with the most earned delegates gets the nod. I'm not predicting a 1968 kinda riot if the super delegates chose let's say a political insider over a more popular, fresher face, but should the will of all of those young voters who got into the game because they were inspired by that fresh face be thwarted at the convention by a bunch of party big wigs - well, let's just say I wouldn't blame them if they decided that the game is rigged and it just ain't worth trying to play. And that would be a tragedy, not just for the Democratic Party, but for America and its future...
Democratic National Convention 2008 Blog
Check out the always-on-the-mark David Sirota's Local Pressure Builds on Superdelegates.
Well, if you are a political novice (and there's nothing wrong with that =) here's the definition from Wikipedia. However, if you already know that "superdelegate" is just another word for nothin' left to lose (no wait, that's a song ;), rather superdelegates are nothing more than unelected delegates that go to the Democratic Convention (in August in Denver, CO) foot-loose and fancy-free and can cast their vote for whomever strikes them as the most appealing candidate at the moment. Check out the following site 2008 Democratic Convention Watch for a complete list of those superdelegates who have already pledged to vote for one candidate or the other. But beware, the superdupers can be a fickle lot and may switch their allegiances or a whim or a dime (and those are the ones that worry me...). What, you may be wondering, is the cost of a superduperdelegate's vote? Well, this is pure speculation from a political outsider (I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma for god's sake), but my guess is that since all of these supers are already political big wigs it takes a promise of some cushy position in the candidate's nascent administration or a rather large campaign contribution - but my guess is that by August all of the politicos will have long since maxed out to their fave, so it won't be about the moolah as much as it will be about the political clout that the super may get in return for their vote.
So watch this group of ultra-politicos, and don't let them subvert the will of the electorate. I say whoever goes into the Convention with the most earned delegates gets the nod. I'm not predicting a 1968 kinda riot if the super delegates chose let's say a political insider over a more popular, fresher face, but should the will of all of those young voters who got into the game because they were inspired by that fresh face be thwarted at the convention by a bunch of party big wigs - well, let's just say I wouldn't blame them if they decided that the game is rigged and it just ain't worth trying to play. And that would be a tragedy, not just for the Democratic Party, but for America and its future...
Democratic National Convention 2008 Blog
Check out the always-on-the-mark David Sirota's Local Pressure Builds on Superdelegates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)