The Disappearing Prince

I realize that this topic is well outside the scope of this blog, but I just can't help commenting on it:

Three cheers to the British government for absolutely playing the media. If you haven't heard, the "breaking news" at all of the prominent news agencies last night and today is that Prince Harry, the son of the late Princess Diana and third in line for the British throne, has been serving on the front lines in Afghanistan -- and has been since December. Stop the presses!

Now, putting aside the fact that I don't care whether or not Prince Harry serves in the military or not -- or who he's dating, or what he's wearing, or where he's clubbing -- I am extremely impressed by the British government being able to keep this a secret from the world for so long. I don't know whether they were able to keep the world media in check, or if they were simply able to not let the information leak for two months, but well done. Also, I am impressed at the fact that the world media was unable to find the Prince of England for two months...but it's not the kind of impression that they should be shooting for.

And finally, I would like to point out that when faced with the option of keeping their mouths shut or announcing to the world Prince Harry's presence (which put British troops in additional danger), they chose to dominate the news with boarderline gossip. And now he has to be pulled out of Afghanistan so as to lessen the danger to his fellow soldiers.

Hillary Clinton Tries Anger

Hillary Clinton went before cameras on Saturday and got angry. Looking stern, talking tough, and waving Obama campaign mailers in the air, she accused the senator from Illinois of Karl Rove-style attacks against her, and that he should be ashamed of himself. You can view the clip here.

I can understand her frustration -- with the mailings, as well as the campaign -- but this is nothing more than a political tactic. Crying doesn't seem to be helping her enough anymore, so now she is trying anger. How do I know this? Because the mailers that she is so upset about are weeks old. Fellow PoughkeepsieJournal.com blogger Jeremy Blaber wrote a post about the mailers (complete with pictures of them) three weeks ago! And in this age of constant media attention, the Internet, and instant 24-hour news, it is, to me, preposterous to think that Sen. Clinton's campaign was not aware of these mailers until now.

The Texas Debate

Thursday's Democratic debate at the University of Texas at Austin was a big one for Hillary Clinton. She has been on a political down-slide since Super Tuesday, and she needed to score big with voters in order to stop Barack Obama's momentum and winning streak. Unfortunately for her campaign, however, I don't think that she was able to cover enough ground.

Clinton's best moments, I thought, came during their debate about universal healthcare, and during her closing remarks. I personally enjoy it when candidates debate real issues, and not who is more of a hypocrite -- I don't need to hear that kind of bickering. Clinton and Obama's views and plans for healthcare contain substantive differences, and debating them is good; it's obviously something that Clinton is passionate about. But her best moment came at the end, where she showed a very human side of her personality -- the side that her supporters wish she would show more often, and wonder why she doesn't.

Her worst moment came when she reprimanded Barack Obama for including a couple of lines borrowed from his campaign co-chair, Gov. Deval Patrick, in his stump speeches. "That's not change you can believe in, that's change you can Xerox." Clever, but not well-received by the audience, who showed their disapproval. She then proceeded to do roughly the same thing -- twice -- in her closing remarks. And this is why I don't care about these petty charges that politicians level at each other. None of them are perfectly pristine, so let's move on.

Her biggest problem, however, is her similarities with Barack Obama. Throughout the night, Obama continually reminded viewers that he and Clinton share the same positions on most issues. The political strategy behind this is to get voters thinking: if their positions are so similar, then the choice is between their approach. Barack Obama is hoping that voters will reject the "Clinton wars" of the past in favor of the "Obama hope" of the future.

I just don't think Hillary Clinton did enough to stop Barack Obama's "big mo'." We'll see what happens.

Save It

The big story on the political radar today is the article in the New York Times regarding Senator John McCain's past relationship with a female lobbyist, and potential conflicts of interest that this may have caused. If you are interested, you can read the full article here. This post, however, is not to respond to or specifically discuss the issues in this article -- though I did find it enlightening as per Mr. McCain's past. But I would like to touch on the topic of dirty campaigning.

We all remember the 2004 presidential election, and the word that has since become a mainstay in political campaigns: "Swiftboating." As the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry faced a lot of criticism from a group known as "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth." In short, the group publicly stated that John Kerry was not the American war hero that everyone claimed him to be, and that his acts of heroism were largely fabricated. This is otherwise known as dirty campaigning, even though it wasn't sanctioned by official political powers.

Many political pundits -- both last night and this morning -- have been discussing whether the New York Times' role in today's McCain story was purely journalistic, or if there was a more sinister intent of trying to derail Senator McCain's presidential campaign. I can't say one way or the other, but it has got me thinking of what I want to see throughout the rest of this campaign season.

Whether you like it or not, none of these candidates -- presidential or otherwise -- are "clean," and to believe otherwise is just plain naive. For whatever reasons, they have all been involved in situations that have left blemishes on their pasts, and could qualify as "scandals." So, can we all just stipulate that fact? These are our choices, for better or for worse, and while I do agree that looking at where a person has been can be beneficial, I think that there is no point in candidates bickering over who has been involved in a greater number of more serious scandals. "Vote for me, because my opponent has been implicated -- by anonymous sources -- in 3 more scandals than me!" Save it. I want to hear what you want to do for the country, not why your opponent is a scandalous figure, because you are just as scandalous. I honestly think that this is one of the reasons why members of my generation are getting involved in this campaign at record-breaking levels: we're tired of politicians working to destroy others in order to gain their own political advancement, instead of working for the betterment of the nation.

Michigan & Florida

As many are well aware, there is a serious controversy brewing in the Democratic Party regarding the primary delegates of Michigan and Florida. When these two states scheduled their primaries (for January 15 and February 5, respectively), they were informed by the national party that they were breaking party rules by holding their primaries too early, and would thus be stripped of their delegates if they went through with their contests on the chosen dates. The Democratic presidential candidates pledged to not campaign in these states, and all of the major candidates except Hillary Clinton took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Despite the threats from the national party, however, Michigan and Florida decided to go ahead and hold their primaries on the chosen dates anyway.

Hillary Clinton won both primaries. So, now what? As of right now, Clinton's delegate win from these states is zero, and they have brought her no closer to securing the nomination. But the real question is: should the Michigan and Florida delegates count? Arguments are being made for both sides of the issue. One side claims that rules are rules -- Michigan and Florida were told what would happen if they broke the party rules, and yet chose to do so anyway. Others argue that the Democratic Party cannot simply cast aside the votes of over 2.2 million voters. Still others argue that the states should hold an entirely new contest that would allow their delegates to be won.

As I sometimes like to say, nothing good can come from this. However, in order to try to make the best decision between terrible options, I will say that I think the best choice is for the states to hold another contest. I realize that to some my position may seem contradictory when compared to my previous post, but I will try to explain it as best I can.

It would be terrible for the Democratic Party to dismiss the votes of over 2.2 million voters, and there is no arguing with that. But at the same time, it would be equally as terrible for the party to disregard the votes of those who knew that their state had no delegates, and therefore decided to not vote at all. I have no doubt that if the voters knew that their states would count, turnout would have been even higher than it was, and there is no telling who those additional voters would have supported. And furthermore, the results themselves aren't legitimate because the candidates didn't wage a full campaign in these states. It's no surprise that Clinton won Michigan, because she was the only major contender on the ballot. But it's also no surprise that she won Florida, because she's a more nationally well-known person overall. It would be the equivalent of saying: the New York Yankees are supposed to play the Kansas City Royals in an exhibition game; however both teams decide to not take part in the contest. Then, four months later, it is decided that the game will count, and since the Yankees are more well-known, the win should go to them. That's just plain bogus.

So, if a new contest is to be held, should it be a primary or a caucus? I don't know. Primaries are more costly and require a lot more planning than a caucus. However, caucuses, as some are arguing the states should have, garner a much smaller turnout than a primary. But, I don't have the financial figures to compare the cost of each, so it is tough for me to make an informed decision on what should be done.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton's campaign wants the delegates seated at the national convention, and Barack Obama's does not. Obama is actually in a no-win situation, because if he calls for the delegates to be seated, and they are, they will favor Clinton. However, if he publicly calls for the delegates to not be seated, then he risks alienating 2.2 million Democratic voters. From a PR standpoint, Obama should keep his mouth shut and simply defer to whatever the national party decides.

There is no way this ends well. But whatever the outcome, the citizens of both Michigan and Florida should be extremely displeased with their state party officials. It was, after all, they who decided to go against the rules of the national party and created this fix that may very well cost these voters their voices.

Vox populi, vox Dei

For those who don't know, during this primary season, the presidential candidates are running to win delegates. Much like the Electoral College, each state carries a certain number of delegates, and a presidential candidate wins their party's nomination when they acquire the necessary number of delegates (Democrats - 2,025; Republicans - 1,191). Specific to the Democratic Party are what are known as "superdelegates." A superdelegate is a party insider; someone who has considerable power and influence, many of them being current and former public office holders. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are superdelegates. Former presidential candidate Walter Mondale is a superdelegate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a superdelegate. You get the idea. The Democratic Party has just fewer than 800 superdelegates.

If the Democratic presidential campaign gets to the national convention and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have won the necessary 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination, then the superdelegates will decide who receives the nomination. Some superdelegates have already pledged to support a certain candidate, while others have not. This creates a possible serious controversy, however, and it is this: what happens if the superdelegates decide to support the candidate who did not have the popular support of the voters? For example, if, at the end of the primaries, 12 million people have voted for Senator Obama, and 11 million for Senator Clinton, but neither has reached the magic delegate number of 2,025, then enough superdelegates could line-up behind Senator Clinton to give her the nomination, effectively reversing the will of the people.

First of all, I think that the Electoral College has outlasted it's usefulness and should be abolished; elections for President of the United States are the only elections left that don't use a straight popular vote. I understand that the constitutional framers didn't trust the American people, but with all the advances that we have had in education, technology, and information availability, it is time to give the voters the full power. I also understand and respect the current arguments for keeping the Electoral College in place, but here's the truth: if that happened in our 2000 presidential election happened in any other country, it would be considered by the United States Government to be a coup d'etat.

So, building off of my above point-of-view, I don't think that 800 special members of the Democratic Party should be able to have the collective power to reverse the decisions of the voters. One person, one vote is how it should be. But more importantly, I also don't think that the party would be stupid enough to let these people go against the majority. The Republican Party is in a very fragile state right now: they are finishing up 8 years of what many conservatives feel is betrayal by President Bush, and their presumptive nominee is John McCain, whom many conservatives have a strong dislike for. I think that the GOP is currently going through an unofficial restructuring. However, if the Democratic Party allowed the superdelegates to reverse the primary popular vote, I don't think there would be a restructuring -- I think there would be destruction. I think that there would be a (proverbial) civil war in the party, which would definitely not recover in time for the general election, and maybe not at all.

Vox populi, vox Dei.

Truth In Advertising

As we have witnessed this unprecedented presidential primary season, FactCheck.org has become one of my best friends. Non-partisan and opinion-free, it is a website that focuses on facts -- specifically facts that politicians mis-state or mis-represent. The amount of information that these people get wrong is sometimes staggering, and I encourage everyone to visit the site regularly for some reality.

Yesterday, I read the February 7, 2008, "Ask FactCheck" entry, "Can People Be Sued For False Political Advertising?" -- please read the entry.

In short, is states that political advertisements can claim anything without the basis of fact or fear of legal repercussion. Of course, anyone can sue anyone for a slanderous claim, but the outcome of this lawsuit will arrive long after the election has been decided. This is why nasty political advertising can sink an otherwise strong campaign, especially as the election get closer.

At first glance, one might think that there should be a truth in advertising law when it comes to political ads. It sounds very appealing -- holding politicians (and political groups?) legally accountable for sanctioned advertisements that contain misinformation. I know that it would cause a great deal of problems for many organizations, including the Democratic and Republican parties, who routinely produce false advertising in order to show their opponents in a bad light. It's really disgusting.

But to be honest, as the article points out, this would be very difficult. A couple of states have tried sustaining such a law to no avail. Do you know how hard it is to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- what someone knew to be true or knew to be false? Me either, but it sounds pretty hard.

And aside from the problems enforcing such a law, it seem like it isn't even constitutional. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Now the argument could be made that the framers could not possibly have conceived of today's political advertisements and such. But couldn't the argument be made that each amendment in the Bill of Rights is antiquated, depending on your point-of-view? The threat of terrorism could make the Fourth Amendment antiquated. The gun problem in this country could make the Second Amendment antiquated. Your enjoyment of alcohol could make the Eighteenth Amendment antiqu....wait...what? Repealed in 1933? Alright, strike that last one.

Super Tuesday 2008: Fallout

The biggest fallout from Super Tuesday 2008 happened yesterday: Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race, to the utter shock and dismay of the Conservative Political Action Conference. If you watch the video of his announcement, the crowd lets its displeasure be known. His decision was such a surprise, that Mitt Romney buttons were still be handed out prior to his speech. Personally, I was shocked. I flipped to CNN.com, saw the headline, and was floored -- it was the last thing that I expected to see.

This leaves the Republican Party with John McCain as their presumptive presidential nominee. He appearantly has a lot of work to do in courting the far right -- many conservatives are suggesting that Mitt Romney would make a very good VP candidate on the Republican ticket, and would help McCain make peace with conservatives who don't like him. But in the end, I think that the majority of the party will rally behind their candidate.

So it will be McCain vs. Clinton or Obama. This is going to be quite the campaign, and quite the election. But if there was a candidate that the Democrats want to run against the least, it is McCain. He is a Republican, but a moderate, and he draws a lot of support from Independents, as well as some Democrats. They sure are running the right guy.

Super Tuesday 2008: Part III

I am not going to take the space here to list all of the states won by the respective candidates; if you want the complete lists, please click here. But what a night. I tried to stay up for as much as I could, but having to be up at 6:20AM, I finally gave up around midnight.

The Republicans:

McCain: 9

Romney: 7

Huckabee: 5

As the pundits and news agencies are all reporting, John McCain solidified his lead as the GOP front-runner, to the great dismay of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh; his projected 615 delegates is roughly twice that of Mitt Romney. I think it's time for Romney to bow out of the race, save his money, drop out of politics, and not be heard from again. I really and truly dislike this man, and I'm glad that his star is fading. A number of times while I was watching election coverage over this past week I saw a clip of Mitt Romney speaking to supporters, putting down John McCain's positions. In the clip he asks (roughly), "Do you want the GOP nominee to be someone who opposes drilling in ANWR?" I yell at the TV every time, "YES!"

But the real surprise last night was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He swept all of the southern states, and came amazingly close to winning Missouri, as well. This sets him up with some major leverage, and a good shot at being the VP nominee on the GOP ticket, especially since John McCain lacks a lot of support from southern Republicans (and he can't stand Romney). It's also further evidence that Mitt "The Glove" is done.

For the GOP to have its best chance at keeping the White House, John McCain is the man that they need to nominate. (I would refer everyone to my December 28, 2007, post, "John McCain Looks Tired," where I originally pointed out this fact.) McCain, as the GOP presidential nominee, will draw broad support from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and would be the toughest competitor for the Democrats. His Achilles Heal, however, is his continued support for the war in Iraq.

The Democrats:

Obama: 13

Clinton: 8

(New Mexico is still too close to call, but Barack Obama is leading)

Talk about Barack Obama. Wow. Just a few months ago, Super Tuesday was the day when the Democratic race would be over, and Hillary Clinton would be the obvious nominee. Not so. She won New York, Massachusetts, and California, but Obama won the majority of state, and did noticeably better than expected. Delegate-wise, Clinton and Obama split almost directly down the middle. And Barack Obama is slowly chipping away at Hillary Clinton's base of support. Time is on his side, and the more time he spends campaigning, the more voters he is winning over.

There are some who were writing off Barack Obama prior to yesterday's contests. They said that his campaign was sliding downhill, that his moves were out of desperation, and that Clinton's campaign was destroying him. These people are living in a fantasy world. What an insurgence.

The next contests are on Saturday.

Super Tuesday 2008: Part II

It is unfortunate, but I am not eligible to vote in today's New York primary. I originally registered to vote in my Economics class when I was a senior in high school, and at the time, for whatever reason, I registered as an Independent. Up until now, I had no reason to change my party registration. That has changed. The current presidential campaign has made me decide that I want more say in who my leaders are; I want to participate in the primary elections. But New York State will not let me.

According to New York State law, changes in party affiliation are not processed until after the next general election. That means that even though I submitted my registration form in early January, it will not be processed until November. I want to voice my opinion. I want to have my say. New York doesn't think I should be able to.

In this age when political participation is so incredibly dismal, doesn't it make the most sense to allow every possible opportunity for the people to get involved and voice their opinions? If someone wants to change their party affiliation, New York State law should allow it to take effect immediately, without a 10-12 month waiting period. The world moves much faster than that.

So, I hope that everyone who can vote does. Do not take it for granted. No matter who you vote for, just make sure you vote.

Super Tuesday 2008

Now that the New York Giants have won Super Bowl XLII, we can all get prepared for the real contest: Super Tuesday 2008. I can't wait. 24 states will be having primary contests, and thousands of delegates are up for grabs. Grab the popcorn.

And as we're now on the eve of what some people are calling Super Duper Tuesday, here are some thoughts:

• John McCain has a lot of momentum going into Super Tuesday, thanks to his Florida win, and the endorsements of Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I think this will allow him to win the New York Republican primary.

• Mitt Romney will struggle to gain delegates, but Mike Huckabee and Romney will split the evangelical vote, allowing John McCain to win most of tomorrow's contests.

• Ron Paul will not have a showing that reflects his campaign donations.

• The Democratic primaries are totally up for grabs -- including New York. Barack Obama's supporters are extremely motivated, and it's important to note that a lot of his support comes from "unlikely voters," who are not normally included in major media polls.

• I could be wrong about all of this. There are a lot of people who will tell you that one candidate or the other will be the nominee for their party, and they do it with absolute certainty. These people are deluded, and should not, under any circumstances, be believed. (And just so we're clear, I'm not talking about campaign workers trying to rally the troops -- I'm talking about the people who think you're stupid for not knowing, like they do, who is going to win.)

Tune into Mix 97.7 this morning at 7:30AM to listen to "Observations from the Center" blogger Tom Kraft and I discuss Super Tuesday on the Morning Mix with Bob Miller.

Hell Freezes Over

The Republican debate on Wednesday and the Democratic debate last night seem to have had an effect on at least one person: conservative Ann Coulter. She has come out and stated that if John McCain wins the Republican nomination, and is running against Hillary Clinton, she would not only be willing to vote for Clinton, but to campaign for her, as well. Wow. She states her reasoning behind this decision is that she thinks Clinton is not only more conservative than McCain, but that she would also be better at handling the "war on terror."

You will have to forgive me for not taking Coulter at her word -- I have, in the past, listened to her, so I have little respect or belief for what comes out of her mouth. Therefore, I see her objective as being one of two things:

1) She truly does not want McCain to get the nomination, and is going along with a growing number of frustrated Republicans who claim that he is not conservative enough.

OR

2) She sees Barack Obama as a more easily surmountable candidate, and hopes that her endorsement of Clinton will turn some of her more liberal supporters towards Obama, allowing him to win the Democratic nomination, only to then lose the general election.

You may think that my two-faced interpretation of Coulter is too cynical. I think it's due caution.

Not that anyone involved in politics has ever had an ulterior motive.