One by one the nails are sealing on a successful presidential run for Hillary Clinton in 2008 (and dare I say McCain). Reuters point out:
Obama gathered momentum in his battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with endorsements from seven more senior party figures and a labor union, as well as strong praise from former Democratic rival John Edwards.
“Let’s assume Barack is the nominee, because it’s certainly headed in that direction,” Edwards told NBC’s “Today” show. He said Obama could unify the party and had a better chance than Clinton of winning November’s election against McCain.
UPDATES: First, Time Magazine, Saturday Night Live, and even George McGovern has advised her to get out of the race.
Second, after watching the Meet the Press & This Week with George Steponopolis, John Edwards may send nods to candidates he likes (aka Obama above)…however will steer clear of formal endorsements until a victor is a little more clear. Party unity, candidate success, and his ability to be an active part of the next administration are all.
Third, Obama should inevitably be that person according to the Rasmussen poll so its just a matter of time.
Fourth, does she even have a mathematical chance? Terry McC, her campaign manager claims she will be able to take HALF of the delegates from Michigan and Florida according to national and DNC rules.
Fifth, is there any chance party unity amidst the racism vs. sexism identity politics, or will that simmer down as the election season heats up going into the convention?
Sixth, and does Hillary staying in the race make a better or worse case for her as Obama’s VP or another position in the administration?
Update: New York Times of May 14, 2008 confirms that Edwards endorsed Obama.
I just find this a bit funny…if not slightly hypocritical. Check out the first 20 seconds of this video…(h/t to Jesse Thomas and Baratunde) [warning: cursing on both posts]
James Kotecki of the Politico has provides salient polling data predicting Obama wins in the Mid-Atlantic region.
According to MSNBC nationally Obama leads Hillary 47% to 44%. This is the turning point. Perhaps a decisive one. DC Mayor Fenty reports, “Barack Obama is the right person at the right time as politics becomes more inclusive.” Talk about a positive surge. Thoughts?
After the results tonight from the GOP Primary in Florida, I’m curious who will be on the respective Democratic and GOP tickets:
Chris Matthews suggested the possibility of a McCain and Huckabee ticket to secure the Southern vote. I tend to agree. GOP strategists will conclude that Romney would give up too much of the Southern vote and be too polarizing and will encounter resistance from swing voters and independents.
On the Democratic side, the evidence suggest the ticket will likely be Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton, or Obama/Edwards. I wonder who will get the nod and how the vote (and consequent national conversation) will shape out for evangelicals.
Will McCain win? Who will win for the Dems? So who will win the Presidential and VP nominations? How will it effect the national discourse? Will this election season go down to the wire, particularly on the Democratic camp?
Jim Wallis, author of “God’s Politics” and editor of Sojourners magazine points out a handful of interesting comparisons between Obama and Huckabee:
Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are staking their political future on the U.S.’s hunger for change. Obama has turned the spiritual power of hope into a political vision that is inspiring a new generation. Huckabee also loves the religious language of hope and thinks of himself as a modern day David who has taken on the Goliaths who rule the people instead of serving them.Each has a compelling personal story of humble beginnings leading to great success. Barack Obama’s personal and racial history – having a white mother and African father and growing up in both Indonesia and multi-cultural Hawaii - makes him a very compelling agent of change. By winning over the majority of white voters (even in a place like Iowa) Obama has made new U.S. history and many consider him to have a serious chance to become the first African American president of the U.S.Mike Huckabee also touts his poor beginnings and easily blends his social conservatism with a biblically sounding economic populism that takes on Wall Street Republican elites and appeals directly to the working class. After playing bass with Jay Leno’s band, he told the late night television audience, “People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off.”Both say they care about the poor. And both attack the special interests of wealth and power which stack the political deck against poor people and working class families.
Wallis continues:
Both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee talk about moving beyond the political categories of left and right, liberal and conservative.
On foreign policy issues Wallis points out:
Both have criticized what Huckabee recently called the “arrogant bunker mentality” of U.S. foreign policy. And both believe the best way to change that is not through merely demonstrating the U.S.’s power, but rather by really talking to other nations - even our enemies - and by leading with more with generosity and compassion than with just military might.
Thoughts about the win? About the comparisons? Are they viable candidates?
Incredibly moving and hopeful. In a similar tone, Miles Molgelscu at the Huffington Post points out the importance of an Obama win for hope, change, and politics in general:
The biggest story out of Iowa is that nearly twice as many people turned out for the Democratic caucuses as turned out for the Republican caucuses (approximately 227,000 to 114,000). In effect, in winning the Democratic caucuses with 37%, Barack Obama received more than twice as many votes as Mike Huckabee received in winning the Republican caucuses. In fact, each of the three top Democrats–Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton–received substantially more votes than Mike Huckabee. That in an historically swing state which went for Al Gore by 4,000 votes in 2000 and for George W. Bush by 10,000 votes in 2004. This augers well for Democrats expanding their base, picking up the majority of independents, winning the Presidency, and increasing their margins in Congress in the fall.
On both the Democratic and Republican side, the candidates representing the status quo in Washington lost badly and the candidates challenging that status quo won.
Wow. Thats just astounding. What do you think about the Iowa results? What do you think about Teresa’s touching story?
If you’re a bit of a politics junkie and want to know what the election means for campaigns as a whole, check out Chris Bowers post which argues compellingly that politics and elections are about identity. (here is Chris Bower’s post original 1996 post from My DD)
Whether your favorite candidate is Obama or Hillary or Ron Paul or any of the other candidates (Gravel anyone?), mobile will rock your world.
Initially, mobile and micro is about to rock journalismMindy McAdams reports:
I keep telling people that mobile is the next media explosion that will rock the world of journalism — but mostly what I get in response is raised eyebrows and skeptical little grunts.
I’m not saying I want to be texting tidbits all day long to all my many BFFs. No. I do not. My reasons for thinking “This is our future” lie in my environment: I am surrounded by 20-something young Americans in my everyday working life. On top of that, I have teenage godchildren who live in northern Virginia. Their lives and daily social practices are what lead me to believe that Owyang is correct.
The ideal platform for all these bits and bursts has got to be the device in your pocket or purse, or clipped to your belt — the one that buzzes or vibrates so warmly whenever someone has sent you a little something.
Well how in the world will this effect elections? (well it already is but…) Enter Jott the Vote to up the ante on mobile politics in Campaign 2008:
Jott the Vote is a service which allows anyone with a cell phone to call a 1-800 number and leave a message for any of the major presidential candidates. Users say the message they want sent, and the campaign receives a transcribed email along with the “live” recording of that message.
The messages will also be displayed publicly on www.jottthevote.com, which will serve as a social network for political engagement through the 2008 election.
For instance Andrew sent this to Barack Obama:
Hi Barack, I would just like to tell you that we need a President who needs to fight corrupt politics, and I think that you are the best choice because I believe that you will fight the corrupt people in the Government.
Jott the Vote is increasing the chance of one to one communication with the candidates. Consequently, even the geographically isolated and usually voiceless can get a voice (or text) in political public sphere. What do you want to tell the candidates about the issues you care most about? (Or better yet, send a text, which takes “the other” and our common humanity into account)
So, if you want your voice heard, check it out at Jott the Vote!
Also, for more extensive developer specific coverage you can go to Read/Write Web:
Jott has also released an API for Jott Links that will allow developers to create their own tie-ins with the service.
What do you think about the rise of mobile in politics and otherwise? How can it best be leveraged for human good? What issue(s) or candidate(s) best support humanity, empathy, and compassion?
In Senator Obama, we win that back: our generation — and the generations that follow — get back the audacity to hope again, and to fight for justice. I remember hope. It’s alive, and it’s in us. Senator Obama is a unifying voice for a new America — one that embraces our faith, gives wings to our dreams, and propels us forward to a new destiny.
Sensing weakness, Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have formed an unspoken alliance to try to torpedo Mitt Romney just as many voters are tuning in to the Republican presidential race.
The two are friends and Giuliani said that if he weren’t running, he’d support the senator from Arizona.
This could signal a world of change in the GOP race and how election 2008 shapes up. Thoughts?
No one to my knowledge has mentioned that skipping a debate before racial minorities at the NAACP has been a pattern this election cycle. Jeffery Feldman, author and blogger, pointed to this picture of the July NAACP debate. If the excuse that they were busy hardly rings true. Also, the fact that they had the opportunity to speak to 30%+ of the population as well as the PBS viewing audience proves that
either don’t care or don’t think minorities are worth their time
or couldn’t provide honest and effective answers to the types of concerns minorities would pose
when you have conflicts, you generally try to purpose an alternative.
alternativly showing up for the NAACP should be vigorously pursued as an opportunity. Instead they literally wrote it off with the excuse “i’m too busy” with other people I care more about.
Clearly, the GOP has dramatically fallen from its role as the party of Lincoln. In a world in which diversity is no going away and continues to increase, we need political actors who can speak to and deal with issues of a multi-cultural world at home and abroad. Neglect is fundamentally not an option. Isn’t this pattern of ignoring minority concerns what led to the disaster that rocked New Orleans and the nation in Katrina. Has the lesson of Katrina been forgotten even as we deal with the racially tense repercussions of the Jena 6 conflict. Minority concerns deserve something more than second class status if we are to live up to the Constitutional promise of the 14th Amendment and a just democracy.UPDATE: To me this is a bit like skipping out on the midterm exam for a class by claiming “to be busy” and still walking on graduation day. I think journalists should force them to answer these questions in other forums. Hold them accountable for their negligence.
This native Tennessean says Thompson was stumped on Leno during his candidacy (re)announcement last week. His answer entirely avoids the question and sheds light on the Ghostbusters look-alike comparisons:
Leno asked Thompson what he would do about America being disliked around the world much more than in the past. “Part of that comes with America being the most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We’re more unpopular than we need to be, that’s for sure. But you know, our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples than all the other countries put together. I don’t feel any need to apologize for the United States of America.
Surely. We send our women and men into battle, certainly you other nations should just get on board. Seems like a carte blanche for willy nilly military adventurism and no apologizes to boot. Would NATO just not care? What about Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Is Thompson more of right wing Cheney-ite than Bush? Sounds pretty light on “Law and Order” and heavy on international ganster-style interventionism. I think Tennessee has a better candidate in the boys from Red State Update.
Thompson just officially announced his entry to the 2008 presidential race on wednesday night on Jay Leno. However, as an American and a Tennessean I have reason to doubt the true principle in the Thompson campaign.
First, Thompson is someone who is running on his faith if only because he’s more socially conservative than Guliani. But, is he faking the faith? We have the Pepsi Challenge. The question remains: is Fred up for it? Is the Hollywood star-turned-politician a true believer?
Thompson’s chances at capturing the GOP primary may rest on the answer, thanks to the growing electoral clout of Christian conservatives.Professor Mark Elrod of Harding University said he doubts Thompson is “filling out an attendance card at a Church of Christ on Sundays.”The political scientist says he hasn’t been able to find any information regarding the former senator’s actual membership in a local congregation in his home state of Tennessee.”In our tradition,” Elrod said, “that’s called ‘being out of fellowship’ or a ‘lapsed member.’”On his blog, the professor challenged the Church of Christ faithful to produce evidence they’ve seen Thompson “at an assembly of a Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell) in the last 20 years.” So far nobody has met the challenge.
It seems a reasonable expectation of someone who professes to be a Christian as opposed to a label of covience. (see also Ron Paul calling himself a “Republican.” Kidding)The second coming of Charlton Heston in the oval office?
Ever since Ronald Reagan lowered the bar of American politics to enable mediocre thespians to run for high office we have suffered our share of Republican cardboard. Sonny Bono became a Congressional representative. Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California. And even the talentless drip who played “Gopher” on The Loveboat held a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Iowa.
Now Fred Thompson wants to get into the act. His “qualifications” amount to little more than being able to emote on demand and read a mean teleprompter. He’s not an “empty suit,” but a desiccated, mummified version of 1950s Man. John Wayne meets Charlton Heston.
His ideas about blockading Iran while continuing to occupy Iraq make him the scariest Republican presidential aspirant to come out of the woodwork since the day Rudy Giuliani announced his candidacy.Where is William Shatner when you need him?
Now it’s clear that something about Thompson’s acting and political careers have merged in the minds of casting directors. And of course, he’d like that to happen in the minds of voters, as well. Thompson’s only ever cast in roles like this one: He’s the motivator, the great bringer-together-er, the thinker of big thoughts, and the defender of, well, everything. “We can’t let these bastards start World War III,” he tells his staff. “Now get started — now.
One of my favorite movies is the classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Its a favorite for millions because its stands for both professional decency and purity of the democratic process. Its about people standing up for right in a world thats so often content with apathetic complacency. What does this have to do with Hillary and even the future of the democratic process? Well, one of Hillary’s first commercials to air for her 2008 campaign for the presidency is premised on “invisibility.” Unfortunately, the commercial’s theme rings hollow because Hillary’s campaign leaves a gapping hole of invisibility insofar as it sups on the gravy train of big business interests. So inevitably, if those dollars mean anything for the Hillary once she gets into office, that afforementioned “invisibility” is the American people and their democratically determined vote.
Hillary is the only democratic frontrunner who won’t take a fundamental policy stand against the ongoing corporate corruption of the system. While other candidates are working tirelessly to secure small dollar donations from regular folks, Hillary is taking significant portions of her campaign contributions from corporate big-wigs. As someone whose spent the last two years in Washington DC, I find this corruption of the system troubling. Its to sell dramatically short the accountability, ethicality, credibility, and democratic core of our system.
No force so wields power and so crushes democracy as the infectious poisons of toxic corporate monies. Corporate corruption of our republican democracy makes the 2000 election stealing look like child’s play. If invisibility is the criteria, what about American votes made entirely invisible by those with links to corporate lobbyists? In fact to the extent that democracy and freedom hang in the balance, why isn’t this the baseline for being a democrat in the first place.
If invisibility is the criteria, what about American votes made entirely invisible by those with links to corporate lobbyists? Who is invisible now? Why isn’t America more fed up about this democratic injustice? In fact to the extent that democracy and freedom hang in the balance, why isn’t this the baseline for being a democrat in the first place.
No longer should the Halliburtons and Enrons, and Exxons of the world be able to drive our politics. When the interests of the working and middle class worker run up against the interest of corporations, are you willing to play Russian roulette with your rights and with the rights of millions? What is the invasion of Iraq but the interest of lobbyist run amok.
On issues of poverty, minority, health care, the war, and education, are you willing to let CEOs instead of voters determine the shape of our nation? This is the challenge for the present and the future–it effects all the issues on the frontlines of public policy. I guess after all, thats what “public” policy really means in a democratic America.
All candidates should decisive take a stand to say no to corporate money destroying our one person-one vote system of freedom and democracy. And take stand to say no to a Guilded age run by corporate lobbyists and interests at the expense of real American people.
Hopefully we will listen to the words of Jefferson Smith before its too late:
Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties
So, no other question will determine the future trajectory of our country more than the question of the fundamentally accountability of the people we elect to office. If this administration has taught us anything it is that power must be checked and held up for open accountability. As my favorite political commentator Jon Stewart is fond of saying, our voting someone into office shouldn’t be the only moment of accountability. In order for that accountability to be ongoing, we have to support candidates that hold the line on the influence corporate dominance and be on the frontlines of establishing checks in the lobbying game. Otherwise, the the money will win over democracy and we will be the ones who are gamed and will find ourselves tragically unable to ameliorate our collective downward spiral.
You can see the rest of the Yearly Kos Forum here. I wonder if Hillary will return to the invisibility theme…Thanks for listening to my rant.
Fred went on to some serious matters anway and how “the chickens were soon coming home to roost” on a number of issues that must—sooner rather than later—- be addressed by the American people in a series of “honest conversations.”“The War on Terror and in Iraq is number one on our agenda, with securing the borders a close second. ““We, as a nation, have got to be strong, unified and tough-minded as never before, even as the people’s cynicism towards their government is at an all time high, and the approval rating of Congress is at historical lows,” Fred continued.
BTW: no party is a REAL political party until policy wonks the likes of Big and Rich show up… Can we say media glamour shots to make Fred look “hip and with it”?What do you think about a Fred Thompson bid? Has he waited too long? What effect will his Law and Order background have on the election?
(thanks to the Thompson campaign for their CC flickr shots)
Townhall (surprise, surprise) has the dish. I think this is interesting from the perspective of moderating his stance and strategic politics. I wonder what he claims is the inspirational choice of what seems like a mid-season switch on the issue considered so important to the uber-right.
