When you consider the recent polls in the Democratic primaries you can see why Clinton is choosing to stay in. The margin between the candidates stands about 135 delegates, however it’s not a big one. Here are three fundamental reasons why she should stay in:
1. Clinton generally outperforms Obama in general debates. She is a hell of a debater, particularly because she has been surrounded by government officials for the past 35 years, making her the ideal candidate, at least by Washington standards, to withstand Republican bashing in a general election, akin to the idea that the devil knows best not because he is evil but because he has been around longer.
2. She keeps winning states. The next primary is Pennsylvania, and polls show that Hillary will take it by a 20% margin, and this state has plenty of delegates count. Next stop is Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, which shows Obama’s lead in the two states, with N.C. being taken by a wider margin. Then comes May 13, and it swings back to Hillary with Nebraska and West Virginia holding primaries. On May 20, in Oregon and Kentucky it’s Clinton country all over again, and many are expecting Sen. Edwards to have come out in her favor, since it was last reported that Elizabeth Edwards was joining the Center for American Progress, which was founded by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, who is expected to be an appointee in a future Clinton Administration.
3. She is more specific about the issues. These include: Ending the Iraq War, promoting Universal Healthcare, passing an outstanding Energy Policy, possessing greater depth on Economic reforms, reforming the Working Class and Labor Organizations, having a clearer and more centered Education and Immigration reforms, committing strongly to attack Global Warming, etc. She is a ruthless warrior on these issues, not merely an academic, for she has been burned not once but twice while rolling up her sleeves.
So why are Democrats so scared of prolonging this race anyway? Somehow Obama’s supporters and many others think that if this race is not settled before the convention, that this will forever damage Obama’s candidacy in November. The clamor to see Hillary drop out of the race stems from a fear that they would have managed to blow what should have been an easy win, because apparently Democrats don’t do well in extended and prolonged races. Well, this is the time to change history then, let Hillary finish her race, she owes nobody anything, including the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with Bill and Hillary having pillow talks? I would much rather see that.
April 18, 2008
April 17, 2008
The Amazing Race
It’s truly amazing to witness the intensity of the Democratic
Party’s primaries and how they have flooded the news
organizations’ agendas and lineups, saturating the news programming
just to cover any aspect worthy and unworthy of this race. This trend
slowly started in 2000, when the euphoric years of the Clinton
Administration came to an abrupt end, and their lackluster achievements
failed to nominate Al Gore.
Both camps in the Democratic party, have been up to their teeth,
highlighting their candidate’s personal issues before policy issues,
while the media gladly overplays the rants and the overtones, and adds
their own cacophonic undertones. Both candidates have had it tough, and
both have played into the innuendos they are handed from the media.
They are both fighting to the death in order to obtain this nomination.
It seems to me that, even with the Pennsylvania primary lurking, this
nomination will be decided by the superdelegates.
Even with this said, Obama is leading by about 120 electoral votes, not
a great margin, but nonetheless, a very difficult one to overcome
mathematically; Clinton refuses to be pinned down, maybe because resurrection has been her underlying strategy as of the end of February and one that has yielded limited success. Whether she can keep this up, she should
not concede to Obama yet. The democratic process clearly states that the will
of the people cannot be ignored, therefore democratic leaders calling for her withdrawal should think hard about the goods of democracy, which cannot be packaged in a bulk, distributed to the masses and then withheld in the name of ensuring a candidate’s intact audacity to hope come November.
Party’s primaries and how they have flooded the news
organizations’ agendas and lineups, saturating the news programming
just to cover any aspect worthy and unworthy of this race. This trend
slowly started in 2000, when the euphoric years of the Clinton
Administration came to an abrupt end, and their lackluster achievements
failed to nominate Al Gore.
Both camps in the Democratic party, have been up to their teeth,
highlighting their candidate’s personal issues before policy issues,
while the media gladly overplays the rants and the overtones, and adds
their own cacophonic undertones. Both candidates have had it tough, and
both have played into the innuendos they are handed from the media.
They are both fighting to the death in order to obtain this nomination.
It seems to me that, even with the Pennsylvania primary lurking, this
nomination will be decided by the superdelegates.
Even with this said, Obama is leading by about 120 electoral votes, not
a great margin, but nonetheless, a very difficult one to overcome
mathematically; Clinton refuses to be pinned down, maybe because resurrection has been her underlying strategy as of the end of February and one that has yielded limited success. Whether she can keep this up, she should
not concede to Obama yet. The democratic process clearly states that the will
of the people cannot be ignored, therefore democratic leaders calling for her withdrawal should think hard about the goods of democracy, which cannot be packaged in a bulk, distributed to the masses and then withheld in the name of ensuring a candidate’s intact audacity to hope come November.
March 07, 2008
Why This Election Matters?
I have to confess, this election has been the most intense and exciting in my adult life considering I am only 30 years old. But wait; before you dismiss that, I may be onto something here. Look, nobody is saying that previously held elections lacked excitement and intensity, but we have to acknowledge the insane volume of money and public involvement these elections have drawn. Also the country is in a different state; we are at war, our economy is not looking good, trust in government is at its lowest and our international reputation is in shambles. So, considering all of the above, a lot is at stake this November.
I feel that for the first time, regular Americans are really listening, some may be experiencing primaries exhaustion, but in general, Americans are tuned in more than ever for two important reasons: The candidates’ profiles and the issues at stake. For the first time, a black man and a woman are real candidates for the Presidency, and this, you have to admit, it’s pretty damn exciting for this place we call home.
For many Americans, the real baby in these elections, are the issues, because they don’t generally go away, do they? Liberals hope to capitalize on the public’s anxiety with health care, and the Democratic candidates are pretty consistent and specific about this, in the hopes of finally achieving universal coverage after six decades of trying. What do Republicans have? Well so far the conservative issues are not yet on the agenda, in part because McCain has not have to grease up the conservative machine just yet, that role does not flare up until Democrats have a legitimate candidate. In fact, Republicans will have to face a different electorate this November and the issues they are banking on, like terrorism, security, tax-cuts, are taking a back seat. In effect are other primary issues that have voters anxious and concerned, like the economy, global warming, universal health care, high education costs, trade agreements and the war in Iraq, and these issues are at home with Democrats.
That is why these elections matter, for the first time in many years, they are personal and they are solidifying the American electorate.
I feel that for the first time, regular Americans are really listening, some may be experiencing primaries exhaustion, but in general, Americans are tuned in more than ever for two important reasons: The candidates’ profiles and the issues at stake. For the first time, a black man and a woman are real candidates for the Presidency, and this, you have to admit, it’s pretty damn exciting for this place we call home.
For many Americans, the real baby in these elections, are the issues, because they don’t generally go away, do they? Liberals hope to capitalize on the public’s anxiety with health care, and the Democratic candidates are pretty consistent and specific about this, in the hopes of finally achieving universal coverage after six decades of trying. What do Republicans have? Well so far the conservative issues are not yet on the agenda, in part because McCain has not have to grease up the conservative machine just yet, that role does not flare up until Democrats have a legitimate candidate. In fact, Republicans will have to face a different electorate this November and the issues they are banking on, like terrorism, security, tax-cuts, are taking a back seat. In effect are other primary issues that have voters anxious and concerned, like the economy, global warming, universal health care, high education costs, trade agreements and the war in Iraq, and these issues are at home with Democrats.
That is why these elections matter, for the first time in many years, they are personal and they are solidifying the American electorate.
October 30, 2007
The grade on Global Warming: When hypocrisy is larger than skepticism
I have been a skeptic all my life. In fact, I am in a state of remission. You name it: the Bible, the Christmas story, Santa Claus, politics, the UN, the Bermuda Triangle, the war in Iraq, even the Paleolithic age seemed iffy at one point -not too bad considering almost all evangelicals, the most rapidly growing Christian church in the world, believe God created the universe less than 6,000 years ago. Nevertheless, we evolve and our horizons broaden depending on the juxtaposition of life experiences, which shape our instincts and decisions as well as those around us.
Writing about global warming is like having sex, the sinful kind, the very experience can be daunting not say risqué. But this is the Right's perspective on it, the rest of world of course, sees it as a responsibility that is both liberating and compromising, knowing that there are still some hearts to be won.
But let's face it; it can also be emotional and unraveling, and that is the difference between good publicity on global warming vs. bad publicity. Preferably sticking to the facts and avoiding the melodramatic overtones that the Right frowns upon, a good article on global warming requires enough special effects to rivet the most skeptical mind and avoid an overboard splash, or it can cause indifference and detachment, just like unilateral sex.
In some of these conservative arenas, the issue of global warming, if not the word itself, has become somewhat synonymous with the word sex, it has been plastered everywhere by the media, just like the symptomatic effect of a highly addictive drug; global warming is something which should not be discussed if you want to be taken seriously by these skeptical groups, and like sex, its corruptive 'power' destabilizes uh.. well, what exactly, the status quo?
In a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans believe the effects of global warming are already manifesting or will happen within five years. By a nearly 2:1 margin, Americans believe human activities rather than natural causes explain the rise in the Earth's temperature. But the truth is, attitudes on the environment remain highly partisan: A plurality of Republicans (47%) are positive about environmental conditions, contrasted with only 9% of Democrats, according to the Gallup website. In fact, most Democrats (and independents) are negative about environmental conditions. The same Gallup analysis suggests Democrats are also more likely to be sympathetic to or active in the environmental movement (76% of Democrats vs. 49% of Republicans), and to give priority status to the environment over the economy or energy production.
Sarcasm aside, these numbers are very suggestive. As an environmental convert, they are alarming, because it's my skeptical nature to ponder that the other 52% of Republicans in this poll are either hypocrites or playing possum. Even, when the issue of the environment has always been a Left-leaning issue, the fact is, it was born from the very skirts of capitalism, with traceable roots in the Conservation Movement particularly preached by Theodore Roosevelt, and then eventually sprouted up dramatically in Earth Day in 1970. Sort of like the French Revolution meets Sierra Club. In other words, conservative Republicans influenced its birth, supervised its upbringing and then completely abandoned it, only to be rescued from the dirt by Left-leaning activists in an act of deliverance during the 1960's civil rights movement.
Even today, according to the NY Times, 86 evangelical Christian leaders are now backing a major initiative to fight global warming, yet hard-core Republicans are still skeptical. This could be the single most unifying issue in American politics, not to mention U.S. foreign policy, something the war on terrorism has not been able to accomplish. And I ask myself if not this, then what? And my skeptical nature wanders again, it occurs to me that the Right's stance is a stainless steel shell which can only be transmutable by a collapse on the global economy, which by then, of course, it will be too late to prioritize national dialogue.
Writing about global warming is like having sex, the sinful kind, the very experience can be daunting not say risqué. But this is the Right's perspective on it, the rest of world of course, sees it as a responsibility that is both liberating and compromising, knowing that there are still some hearts to be won.
But let's face it; it can also be emotional and unraveling, and that is the difference between good publicity on global warming vs. bad publicity. Preferably sticking to the facts and avoiding the melodramatic overtones that the Right frowns upon, a good article on global warming requires enough special effects to rivet the most skeptical mind and avoid an overboard splash, or it can cause indifference and detachment, just like unilateral sex.
In some of these conservative arenas, the issue of global warming, if not the word itself, has become somewhat synonymous with the word sex, it has been plastered everywhere by the media, just like the symptomatic effect of a highly addictive drug; global warming is something which should not be discussed if you want to be taken seriously by these skeptical groups, and like sex, its corruptive 'power' destabilizes uh.. well, what exactly, the status quo?
In a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans believe the effects of global warming are already manifesting or will happen within five years. By a nearly 2:1 margin, Americans believe human activities rather than natural causes explain the rise in the Earth's temperature. But the truth is, attitudes on the environment remain highly partisan: A plurality of Republicans (47%) are positive about environmental conditions, contrasted with only 9% of Democrats, according to the Gallup website. In fact, most Democrats (and independents) are negative about environmental conditions. The same Gallup analysis suggests Democrats are also more likely to be sympathetic to or active in the environmental movement (76% of Democrats vs. 49% of Republicans), and to give priority status to the environment over the economy or energy production.
Sarcasm aside, these numbers are very suggestive. As an environmental convert, they are alarming, because it's my skeptical nature to ponder that the other 52% of Republicans in this poll are either hypocrites or playing possum. Even, when the issue of the environment has always been a Left-leaning issue, the fact is, it was born from the very skirts of capitalism, with traceable roots in the Conservation Movement particularly preached by Theodore Roosevelt, and then eventually sprouted up dramatically in Earth Day in 1970. Sort of like the French Revolution meets Sierra Club. In other words, conservative Republicans influenced its birth, supervised its upbringing and then completely abandoned it, only to be rescued from the dirt by Left-leaning activists in an act of deliverance during the 1960's civil rights movement.
Even today, according to the NY Times, 86 evangelical Christian leaders are now backing a major initiative to fight global warming, yet hard-core Republicans are still skeptical. This could be the single most unifying issue in American politics, not to mention U.S. foreign policy, something the war on terrorism has not been able to accomplish. And I ask myself if not this, then what? And my skeptical nature wanders again, it occurs to me that the Right's stance is a stainless steel shell which can only be transmutable by a collapse on the global economy, which by then, of course, it will be too late to prioritize national dialogue.
September 06, 2007
It's the economy, stupid
Call me an idiot if I deeply believe the American economy is not turning a corner any time soon. And call me an ignorant if I also believe that the small-scale depression choking us up is not all driven by the mortgage loan fallout. This is just a microscopic example of a greater problem.
The problem is multifaceted. The US is pumping $3 billion a week into Iraq with less than perfect oversight. The overall US debt is about $9 trillion excluding state-level debt and social programs like Medicare and Social Security which amounts to about $29 trillion. America is an import culture. Look at the computer you type on, the pen you write with, the cell phone you carry. These little things add up; in 2006 they amounted to the $765 billion American trade deficit, writes Economy in Crisis, a conservative blog.
China is our personal banker, and as such has allowed us to withdraw as much credit as we can incur. According to a Forbes article, several countries including Japan and China hold about 44% of the US debt, a powerful leverage against US interests. Just recently, China’s massive recall on several products containing toxic chemicals has put US interests at odds. While we recoil in disgust at the massive outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs to places in Asia, and cry in despair for the Chinese recalls which have killed our pets and sickened our children, we ironically continue our high demands for subsidy-level prices of Chinese imports by continuing to shop at places like Walmart. See the link. But who is at fault? The US government or the US consumer? I say, both.
But enough said, the truth is, the housing market bubble was due to crash eventually, like it has in the past, the problem lies in our overall domestic economic policy: consecutive tax cut laws which have been now renewed for the 3rd time during the Bush Administration, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the failed enforcing of trade agreements, the never-ending US agricultural subsidies, the continuous funding of an open-ended war, the increased military spending and on top of everything a housing market crash. How could we have missed the warning signs of an economic crisis? Simple. If Iraq is our guiding principle, we can’t expect much economic shrewdness from this administration.
The problem is multifaceted. The US is pumping $3 billion a week into Iraq with less than perfect oversight. The overall US debt is about $9 trillion excluding state-level debt and social programs like Medicare and Social Security which amounts to about $29 trillion. America is an import culture. Look at the computer you type on, the pen you write with, the cell phone you carry. These little things add up; in 2006 they amounted to the $765 billion American trade deficit, writes Economy in Crisis, a conservative blog.
China is our personal banker, and as such has allowed us to withdraw as much credit as we can incur. According to a Forbes article, several countries including Japan and China hold about 44% of the US debt, a powerful leverage against US interests. Just recently, China’s massive recall on several products containing toxic chemicals has put US interests at odds. While we recoil in disgust at the massive outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs to places in Asia, and cry in despair for the Chinese recalls which have killed our pets and sickened our children, we ironically continue our high demands for subsidy-level prices of Chinese imports by continuing to shop at places like Walmart. See the link. But who is at fault? The US government or the US consumer? I say, both.
But enough said, the truth is, the housing market bubble was due to crash eventually, like it has in the past, the problem lies in our overall domestic economic policy: consecutive tax cut laws which have been now renewed for the 3rd time during the Bush Administration, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the failed enforcing of trade agreements, the never-ending US agricultural subsidies, the continuous funding of an open-ended war, the increased military spending and on top of everything a housing market crash. How could we have missed the warning signs of an economic crisis? Simple. If Iraq is our guiding principle, we can’t expect much economic shrewdness from this administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
