The Case for Obama, Part V

This is the last of these installments that will reference Clinton, unless she becomes the VP, which I am not in favor, but not selecting her will probably be one of the toughest sells Obama has ever made. We will call this one.

What would you say then?

As an Obama Supporter I am often asked would you be pushing for Obama to drop out of the race if the shoe was on the other foot? I laugh because I have never said that, I am being asked this purely because they see me wearing an Obama button or the one on my bag.

My response, I don't have to ponder that question because he is W-I-N-N-I-N-G!!

Since I realize that we are overall part of the same team, I add I think Hillary is entitled to continue her pursuit of the nomination. She has been a more than formidable opponent. I am still shocked that she is losing, as she was the front runner not just for the Democratic nomination but as President just a few months ago. Everybody else seems to get the blame, but to lose that much support you had to play a big part in your own demise. I believe the Democratic Primary is the Heavyweight battle, either of these candidates should be able to beat McCain. I believe that is why she is fighting so hard, if she could somehow get this nomination in hand she would almost assuredly be President.

The interesting answer to your question is.... that Clinoton is the only candidate that would be able to do what she has done. For most candidates once they got behind and started seeing significant decline in campaign donations they would have been forced to drop out of the race. Except for maybe Ross Perot there is no one else arrogant enough or that has enough discretionary cash to drop $11M into their campaign that is already $23M in debt, while their opponent has raised almost twice as much cash.

In other words, no other candidate would need to be asked to drop out!!!

I am getting reports that Obama and Clinton will speak tonight. Setting the path forward for the campaigns, so I may do one more installment that references Clinton. Barack Obama the ClintonSlayer....... Read more!

A "Delegate" Situation

I think the Wall Street Journal coined it best with the headline, "Count Every half vote."

In any realm outside of politics this would be preposterous. The Democratic Party set the rules for its primaries, barring delegates from Florida and Michigan for advancing their primary dates. The candidates agreed to abide by those rules. Clinton's chief political enforcer, Harold Ickes, helped write the original primary rules.

Yet when the contest began to look closer than Clinton ever thought possible, her campaign decided that those rules were no longer valid. Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot, while Obama and the other candidates took theirs off. Then after both candidates barely campaigned in Florida, she demanded that its results be counted. Changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I take strong exception to the Obama camp conceding to this settlement of the delegates, but I realize he did so as the presumptive nominee seeing it having little impact on the nomination. Although I disagree as the mere fact that they made any concession leads to support the case that the rules being non-binding would make them moot if it was to be interpreted as law.

The overall opinion of the Rules Committee and the Obama campaign is to reconcile with disenfranchised voters in these states and begin to unify the party again.

Let's examine each of these arguments disenfranchisement and unification of the party.

Disenfranchised?

1) To start only those that voted for Clinton feel disenfranchised. Every one else is satisfied with the outcome. By counting the delegates having you just disenfranchised all of the electorate that did not vote because they were told their vote would not matter?

2) The point they were disenfranchised is when the party agreed to to strip the states of their delegates rendering their primaries meaningless. Seating the delegates does not change this feeling, most voters don't even understand any of this delegate talk anyway...

3) Clinton agreed to these rules in arrogance when she thought she would win by a landslide. It also calls into question. Is her allegiance to the party platform or more to her own interests? Yes, this is a rhetorical question.

4) In Florida at least all of the candidates names were on the ballot, but in January with all of the candidates essentially faceless except for Clinton she knew this could work to her advantage and that she would obviously win. Clinton thought she would use it as a trump card if she needed it to clinch the nomination, but she just happens to be too far behind. If Obama had campaigned in Florida it would have been closer, but I will concede that she would win the "primary" in Florida if the election were today. Plus the 1.7M voter turnout is respectable based on the trend of voter turnout. All of the other states with closed primaries were at about 59% of the voter turnout for John Kerry in the general election in 2004. In the Florida 2008 Primary it was 48%.

5) In Michigan, we have a whole different ball game. To start she was the only one on the ballot so I am not sure how you even begin to develop an allocation of delegates. The fact that 45% voted uncommitted rather than voting for Clinton says a lot to me. In addition, the voter turnout was 600K. This is Michigan not South Dakota. This represents only 24% of voter turnout compared to the 2004 general election votes for John Kerry. When all of the other states with open primaries were at about 79% of the voter turnout for the general election. Which means two-thirds of the voters in Michigan essentially felt that the primary didn't matter and wasn't worth their time.

Party Unification?

1) The 2 parties have major differences on key issues, so it is somewhat a misnomer to presume there is going to be an overwhelming backlash from Clinton voters who in most cases are life long Democrats.

2) There is no true reconciliation for those that feel scorn, as you witnessed at the DNC Rules committee meeting. Democrats vehemently heckling their own party. These people cannot be consoled by so called "softening the blow." They are either going to take the lick and bounce back or they are gone. Better to do it now than to prolong it as they will only become more scorn the more energy they put into it.

3) You have to ask what exactly are they scorn about?

a)Clinton is being asked to play by the rules she agreed to. The person that Clinton has arguing on her behalf during the committee is the one that created the rule to strip states of delegates if they moved up their primary elections.

b) She is losing. If you would have had a meaningful election in Florida and Michigan and allocated all of the delegates in full and based it on the most Clinton-biased trend you can find she would have a net gain of 10-14 more delegates than she did in the compromise that was reached on Saturday. So she would still be losing by more than 100 delegates. So what it really equates to is a sore loser outcry.

4) Both Clinton and Obama have deeply divided this party. Obama divided the base that although not overwhelmingly excited about Clinton would have generally given their support. Problem is this is the same base that lost in 2 previous general elections. Clinton has deeply divided the party almost to disrepair with her "White people vote for me" argument.

5) I think there is a misnomer that putting Clinton on the Obama ticket brings back these voters or the base they are trying to reach out to.

a) The only satisfactory outcome for them is for Clinton to steal (I mean win) the nomination.

b) You have to wonder by the time you add up the folks you gained, if it's negligible. You must consider those that will not come back, those "independent" voters that will defect because they won't vote for a ticket with Clinton on the ballot, and the awakening of the Republican "Right." With Clinton on the ballot that may show up in record numbers to make sure she does not get anywhere close to the White House.

c) I think the demographic we are discussing will have a fundamental issue with him being over a White Woman (or a White Man if they hope having him as VP rallies support among Whites). If they do not suffer from this fundamental issue then they should have no problem voting for Obama when you consider the major differences on key issues between the parties, and the almost neglible policy positions between Obama and Clinton. Right?

So I will close with a few closing thoughts on all of this:

1)Of all the states to disenfranchise 2 swing states like Florida and Michigan. These 2 states represent 44 electoral votes. We have to win at least one of these states to win the general election. Why would you take any chance at putting the outcome in theses states at risk?? In Florida especially as the State officials are primarily Republican and have little concern to the impact this would have to the Democratic primary. Howard Dean played right into their hands.

2) The Super Delegates need to announce who they will be supporting and put this discussion to rest. By stating their allegiance they can end all of the speculation and we can reach the more than obvious conclusion. If some choose to vote for Clinton they should do so and we'll just see who wins (or who has already won) in the end...

3) As soon as Clinton concedes which I hope will be sooner rather than later to allow time for Howard Dean to be removed as the DNC Chairman. Under his leadership, by failing to control this situation he has squandered what was set to be a landslide victory by either candidate in November. In addition, while not settling this foolishness he has failed to put together any substantial campaign material against McCain. The McCain is Bush ads took 2 weeks to come up with, what the heck have they been doing since then? He has allowed this to become a laughing stock. He is responsible for this predicament, and now with this penchant for making rules they don't intend to keep. How they decide to escape this mess in the coming weeks will tell voters a lot about how they'll govern. Read more!

Rude or Not?

I am back in Destin for the 2nd time. Enjoying myself in the condo we rented for the week overlooking the beach. On my many trips to Florida, one thing that can't be ignored is how rude the people in Florida can be.

You realize as many of them have transplanted to Florida from Northern states, or rather snowbirds down for a week or several weeks that it isn't so much as they are rude as it is just the way they are.

It is to the point now that I just laugh about it. The latest is at this Car Wash we went to. This shows how the way of thinking breeds bad service and rudeness.

As we pull in there is a special called Wash & Go for $6.99. As we get to the attendant I tell him we want the special, he says OK, but we charge $2 extra for bug remover. I look at him and say that is kinda the purpose of getting the car washed is to get it clean. So paying $7 washes the car but doesn't get it clean? Then he says to get it hand-dried will cost $2 more. OK, so now drying is not part of the washing process. If you want us to wash it, you have to pay extra for us to wipe it off so it doesn't get spots on it and looks like it was never washed.

I am reminded of another pet peave, where they charge you a per tire fee to rotate all 4 tires. Everytime I hear this I can't help but think did you actually rotate my tire if you didn't remove another one so you have somewhere to rotate it to? If that is the case can I just get a 1 tire rotation? Charge me the same price in the end, but don't charge me per tire! Anyhow, this is an aside, back to the story:

I am like wow, so at this point I say well I may as well get the $11 wash since you are charging me for it anyway. He says yeah but we still have to charge you $2 extra for bug remover. I just laugh, whatever! I charge it to my nearly maxed out Floridians are rude account and wait patiently while they wash the bugs, but don't hand dry my car!!

My fault for being from Texas where for $5 they spray down your car to remove the bugs, and hand dry it at the end. Almost to say is there any other way to wash a car??? Read more!

Daily Observations

Starting a new series. Doesn't mean I am going to post these every day, I am more so just mentioning something that I observed that although insignificant I found to be interesting. We will call this one:

"I'm not sure..."

I stopped by CVS Pharmacy a few weeks back to get a shaving brush.

You know how at the pharmacy they have candy at the front counter with all of the cashiers, of which there is usually only one. As I searched for a pack of gum, I hear a man saying, "are you in line?"

Initially I paid it no attention since I wasn't exactly standing in front of the cashier, but then he said something else, which I take was another way of basically asking the same question. So I looked back to see this Asian girl standing behind me. She was short with long hair, real tight jeans, and a clean face.

I just kind of looked for a moment, then I looked around for the guy that had asked, "are you in line?" Thinking maybe he was talking to her, but I saw no one else standing around, so still not really grasping what was going on I answered, "go ahead," and the girl preceeded to the cashier.

So I look on in astonishment as she converses with the cashier, and realize that the voice I heard belonged to this girl. Ar first I was like wow, she talks like a guy, then I was like acutally she is a guy.

So as he leaves, I walk up to the cashier and say wow he caught me off guard, I thought he was a girl. The cashier was like I know he does, he was giggling so, and he was buying cigarettes so I thought maybe he was underage, but he was 25.

I was like he wasn't dressed up as a girl or anything, he just looked like a girl. We agreed and just shrugged at each other, as to say s-t-r-a-n-g-e! Read more!

MFFL

For those of you that don't know what MFFL means it is "Mavs Fan For Life."

I will admit to being rather bandwagon fan of the Mavericks. Considering I am a Sports Nut, the NBA is way down on my list. That being said I probably go to 5-6 games a year, probably watch all or part of 20 games a year on TV, and heck I was even a ball boy for the Mavericks for several years growing up. So I may not bleed Mavericks but I am more than qualified to give a rational opinion.

Rational, which is the subject of this blog in regards to the Mavs and the firing of Avery Johnson.

If you know me you know that I am not defending Avery as the "Black" coach. If you look back to one of my earliest blogs on Ron Washington you will see an illustration of that fact. That was before he even coached a game, I am SO utterly displeased now I can't even write a blog on the Rangers and hold to my commitment to keep the blog PG!


I have 2 issues, the first is very simple:

1) Teams don't usually find success after firing coaches that win 75% of their games. The hopes that you just need the right guy to come in and give you the nudge over the the top is very much an exception. It just creates a bad vibe to fire successful coaches, particularly one that is young and on the rise. Avery's winning percentage was trending towards Red Aurebach...

2) Cuban keeps making bad decisions that are considered as "reasonable" at the time.

a) We refuse to pay Nash and he goes to PHX and becomes a 2-time MVP. As much as everyone thought it made sense to move Nash the Jason Terry-Devin Harris-Jason Kidd experiment at PG have been huge failures and we are still in search of a PG.

b)We refuse to pay Finley and he moves 5 hours away and wins a Championship. As much as everyone thought it made sense to move Finley the Doug Christie-Eddie Jones-Jerry Stackhouse experiment at SG have been huge failures and we are still in search of a SG. I mean really Doug Chrisitie is your plan? That pretty much makes my whole argument by itself!!!

Now we fire Avery.... Just to name a few, and the irony of it all is we are much farther above the salary cap than had we re-signed Nash and Finley.

All of these were considered reasonable at the time.... the problem is he (Mark Cuban) keeps making these decisions without a plan!

The latest seems to follow the same questionable pattern. The plan is to bring in a coach (in Rick Carlisle) that is also defensive minded and has been fired from his previous 2 jobs??

In regards to the state of the franchise Avery is probably fortunate. Things are looking bleak as this team is well over the salary cap, with minimal tradeable assets, and no draft picks for the next couple of years.... We may have seen the end of an era and it is likely that Carlisle will be gone and Cuban will have to remove himself from Basketball Operations before it bounces back!
Read more!