Blogging Blue

What can I say, I enjoy taking the plunge rather quickly when I get new digs.

When news broke out, I made sure my readers knew about the jaw-dropping decision of a Democratic delegate voting Republican. It’s just, well, unbecoming of being a loyal party member. Then I had dinner with the old man and he mentioned something I can’t get out my head. I’ll pass it along to all of you, since I enjoy sharing my deep political thoughts.

I dropped my fork when my dad suggested that something else might be up with this recent decision. He put some pieces together and came up with a possibility that Ms. Bartoshevich might have been a Republican for far longer than she’d like to admit. While this definitely crosses over into the conspiracy column, it should be thought about. What if Debra was, in fact, deliberately doing this for Republicans? That could mean that some Republicans could have helped her coordinate this politically.

Look folks, the first (and hopefully only) national Democratic delegate who swapped sides happens to be in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is pivotal because, in my opinion, if Obama and the Democrats lose Wisconsin it could be a sign of an election loss. Wisconsin should be solidly blue this November, since Chicagoland’s northern border is in Wisconsin and Chicagoan influence is heavy in the state. Remember, Chicago is within a few hours drive of many key cities, such as Madison and Milwaukee (which is only an hour or so away).

Wisconsin needs to hold blue in order to maintain Obama’s credibility to the rest of the nation. Since we’re in this interesting spot, it doesn’t take too long to acknowledge that some Republicans would go to any length to see the state’s Democratic Party look incredibily foolish. This put a temporary stain on the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, and raises eyebrows in those Wisconsinites that might have been leaning towards Obama but just didn’t quite know yet.

My gut tells me that other Democratic delegates from other swing states will be flipping the coin in the future. It was rather convenient that the first one to swap was a delegate from Wisconsin.

1 Comment »

According to the Milwaukee JournalSentinel, disaffected Hillary Clinton supporter Debra Bartoshevich - a delegate to the DNC National Convention - is planning on voting for Senator John McCain in November:

She said she planned to vote for Clinton at the convention, but in an Obama-McCain match-up in November, “I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain.

Said Bartoshevich: “I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters.”

Never mind the fact that Hllary Clinton’s foreign policy experience seems largely embellished, while Senator McCain’s idea of foreign policy consists of “more of the same” of what we’ve had under President Bush.

She said a series of controversial Obama “associations,” including but not limited to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago developer Tony Rezko, reflected poorly on his judgment. And she echoed the complaints of many of Clinton’s most ardent supporters that Clinton was treated unfairly in the nominating process and by the party.

Hmmmm….I suppose Debra’s got a point, but what about Hillary Clinton’s own “interesting” associates? For example, Clinton took donations from three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 as he was leaving office, and let’s not forget Senator McCain’s association with noted anti-Catholic John Hagee and firebrand Rod Parsley.

But what I found most galling about Debra Bartoshevich’s decision to support John McCain is the following quote, attributed to her in the MJS’s article:

“No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her - that’s by Susan B. Anthony,” said Bartoshevich, referring to the famous suffragist.

Bartoshevich uses that quote to justify her unwillingness to support the Democratic Party and its nominee, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the candidate and party she plans on supporting in November has historically ignored women, especially when it comes to reproductive rights. Perhaps if Debra Bartoshevich is going to use a quote, she should at least be consistent when it comes to following the principles it espouses, lest she look like a hypocrite.

But at any rate, enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, Debra Bartoshevich…enjoy it.

6 Comments »

Who will it be?

Speculation has already begun in earnest, and while I don’t proclaim to be an expert on the inner workings of Obama’s VP search, here’s my thoughts on some possibilities.

General Wesley Clark - Maybe I’m crazy, but I see Wesley Clark as more of a Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration than as the Vice President. Clark has a lot of great military/defense experience, but I don’t see him bringing much to the table as a campaigner.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson - Let me preface this by saying Bill Richardson was my initial pick out of the entire Democratic field. However, as much as I love Bill Richardson as the Vice President on Barack Obama’s ticket, he did make some pretty critical mistakes on the campaign trail, and he never really came across as being as funny and charismatic as I’ve heard he can be. I think Richardson would be an interesting choice for Secretary of State.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer - Brian Schweitzer’s star is on the rise. He’s a hugely popular Democratic governor of a red state, he speaks fluent Arabic, and he has some expertise when it comes to energy issues. I think he’s a dark horse, but he’s someone who bears serious consideration.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius - Sebelius has a good record of bipartisanship in Kansas, and her presence on Obama’s ticket might help Obama shore up his numbers with women.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb - Senator Webb would bring some defense credentials to the table and could possibly help swing Virginia, which is already trending blue, into the Democratic column in November. Webb’s main drawback is his propensity for saying what’s on his mind without first thinking about what he’s saying. He’d be a good “attack dog,” but at the same time, you don’t want your campaign’s attack dog going off the reservation.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton - Yeah, I went there. Now I’ve not been a fan of the kind of campaign Clinton has run during the primaries, but I still can’t deny the tenacity and proven skills as a campaigner and fundraiser that she’d bring to the table as Obama’s Vice President. Obviously there’s a lot of baggage that would need to be sorted out, namely Bill Clinton’s role if Hillary were offered the VP spot, but she certainly wouldn’t be the worst choice in the world.

3 Comments »

So the Democratic primary race is over (at least so it seems), resulting in history being made. For the first time in our nation’s history, an African-American stands as a nominee for president for one of the two major political parties. What happened yesterday was historic, and I hope it’s just the first of many “firsts” for Barack Obama.

Last night, Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain had their chance to speak on Obama winning the Democratic nomination, and here are my thoughts on the speeches by each of the candidates last night:

Senator Hillary Clinton:

I thought her speech was all about maximizing her leverage, in hopes she can force Barack Obama’s hand to ensure she ends up as the Vice Presidential nominee. Clinton’s constant emphasis on how much of the popular vote she won, as well as her call for her supporters to go to her website and tell her how they want her to proceed, smacks of someone who doesn’t really want to give up, but who realizes her campaign’s over, whether she likes it or not. Overall, I thought she did a good job of speaking to her crowd, but there was an obvious lack of energy, with the exception of a few key moments in her remarks. In all, the speech seemed to be more about Hillary Clinton than it was about the Democratic Party or Barack Obama, and it smacked of the kind of narcissism that has become a hallmark of the Clintons. Hillary seems to think she was owed this nomination, and even now, when faced with the reality that she’s not the nominee, she seems to be unwilling to concede with grace, class, and humility.

Senator John McCain:

Now sure, it’s no secret John McCain isn’t the most gifted orator around, but his delivery was flat and seemed uninspired and perhaps a bit forced. I’ve had a chance to read the text of the speech, and while it’s not a terrible speech, it most definitely suffered from McCain’s poor delivery. I also found his attempts at humor to be somewhat sophomoric and maybe just a bit creepy. As noted by my good friend Sam over at Brazen Maverick, McCain’s laugh sounds a lot like Peter Griffin’s from the Family Guy. I was wholly unimpressed with McCain’s speech, and he’s certainly not going to win this election if he continues to give uninspired, unimpressive performances like the one he gave last night.

Senator Barack Obama:

I think Obama did a tremendous job of being both conciliatory towards Hillary Clinton while on the flip side going on the offensive against John McCain. Obama’s a gifted orator, and that fact was amplified when his performance was compared with John McCain’s. What I liked most about Obama’s speech were the subtle - and not so subtle - jabs at John McCain. I’m glad Obama’s showing some fire and “returning fire” when he’s come under attack, because that’s one concern that a lot of folks - including myself - had regarding Obama.

And my line of the night belongs to Senator Obama, who referenced John McCain’s attacks on Obama’s relative lack of experience:

“I honor, we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.”

No Comments »

In the latest in a series of missteps by Senator Hillary Clinton, the good Senator from New York has come under fire for recent comments in which she invoked the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to justify her decision to prolong her long-shot White House campaign. Here’s her exact comments, which were told to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Argus Leader:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said.

I understand Clinton’s logic here - I think most folks do - but bringing RFK’s assassination into the equation reeks of exactly the kind of desperation that’s becoming more and more commonplace in the Clinton campaign. And while it’s no secret that I’ve never been a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I do feel it’s unfortunate to see the damage both the Clintons have done to their reputations and legacies. Renee over at Crawford’s Take summed it up best:

I just wanna cry for Hillary right now… I know she really wants to be president. In addition, if not that, some really cool other job. VP, SCOTUS, AG… She really could have had anything she wants at this point and I think every American would be excited about it.

But some misplaced sense of desperation has driven her to the brink. The comments about RFK today came from pure desperation. They came from some psyche that will not let her give up no matter what it takes and they came from some sense of entitlement that’s been rejected by the Democrats of America without regard for a lifetime of work to achieve that sense of entitlement.

Renee also adds:

In other words, I’m tired of every few days seeing her say or do something that squanders her good will built over decades any further. The only way to stop that is for her to just flat out take a break and stop campaigning for a while.

While I’d disagree that every American would be excited about the possibility of Hillary as VP, SCOTUS, AG, etc. - simply because there are a lot of folks on both sides of the political spectrum who want to see her fail - I do feel bad for the damage she’s done to her legacy. While Hillary’s vowed to fight the good fight and stay in the race, I have to think it won’t be long before she finally admits that this is a race she just can’t win without doing irreparable damage to her reputation and to the Democratic Party.

3 Comments »