Super Delegates Vs. Pledged Delegates

Today I was researching the rules for Pledged delegates switching during the floor fight. It is my understanding that a pledged delegate has to vote for the person that she or he is pledged for during the initial vote, but in a floor fight, as the rounds of voting move forward, delegates can switch to help secure a nominee.

The argument here is that delegates are elected for their commitment to a candidate and would never switch.

But apparently it is just a pledge, not even an oath, and nothing is sacred. Doing a Yahoo search earlier today it appears that this time last month Senator Clinton's campaign basically announced that depending how things go during Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, they plan to try to pull people off of Obama's pledged delegates, even before the first round of voting. Obama's campaign has denied a similar plan, but many people expect that Clinton campaign attacks, the Obama campaign may retaliate.

This would make regular delegates all equal to super delegates, who vote their conscience. There are some interesting articles out there, one, from what appears to be a conservative magazine, Investors Business Daily. The article by Roger Simon Even Delegates Now 'Pledged' Are Fair Game. The author has a good insight to what I think could happen. I am not sure what it will mean for the party, party loyalty, the 08 election, and for our country.

I understand that Florida Young Democrats President, Alan Brock, who was elected as a Congressional District Delegate for John Edwards. He has been contacted by the Clinton Campaign in an effort to start persuading him on where his next vote should go.

Florida/Michigan: How would a recount affect the race?

Almost 294,000 voters (Source) are up for grabs in Florida and around 263,000 in Michigan if there is a re-vote.

That is not counting a surely increased voter turnout with actual candidate campaigning in the states and the increased interest in the race.

Florida:
Senator Bill Nelson wants a recount and have the DNC pay for it , but the DNC can't afford to help pay for the cost of the process. Right now, the cost is estimated at around 22 million dollars. Personally, the DNC and the FDP are trying to work out a solution and Nelson should keep his 'train wrecks' to himself.

Florida is trying to figure out how to hold a new primary and how to keep the cost down. More importantly, how to engage the largest number of Floridians. I say Nelson should put his millions where his mouth is to ensure broad-based democracy in a re-vote.

Hilary won 55% and Barack received 30% of the primary vote in January. Now, theoretically, if Obama could win all of the now unpledged voters, he would narrowly beat Clinton. This is not counting the heavy campaigning efforts, increased voter turnout or swing voters.

Florida will not be easy to predict if there is another primary. On the other hand if, for some reason, the FDP decides to go with a caucus I think Hilary would win.

Let's hope that we include the wider populace and not just party activists.

Michigan:
Well, Michigan has apparently had a plan all along (according to some)--to hold a caucus. But, there is still a lot of wrangling still to come.

I will not even try to predict what will happen here. Obama was not on the ballot originally. They seem to be Clinton leaning. But, with Obama's new lead and strong campaign....anything is possible.

To top it all off Clinton wants the delegates to be seated for both states. Obama seems to be opposed stating, " “I think that we have played by whatever rules the DNC has put forward . . . and we will continue to play by those rules,” he said. “And whatever the rules are, we think we’ll do well.”

Finally, a REAL fight between the two!

More Links:
Let's Do Nothing
The Zimbabwe Guardian - interesting at least.
Irish Inependent

Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela

Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela
by Robert Naiman

The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM. There is little need to speculate. We have a lot of evidence about how they will respond.

On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support. Colombia’s President Uribe — a close Bush ally — lied to Ecuador’s President Correa about the attack, claiming it was in “hot pursuit.” Ecuador’s soldiers, when they reached the scene and recovered the bodies of FARC members who had been killed, reported to Correa that they had been asleep when attacked. They were in their underwear. Correa called it a “massacre.” Both Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia, warned Colombia about violating their sovereignty, and cut diplomatic relations with Colombia.

Colombia’s attack was a flagrant violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty. “Hot pursuit” was Colombia’s only possible defense. There is no right in international law to engage in military attacks into another country with which you are not at war if it is not an immediate continuation of an engagement that began within your borders (unless your action is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.) If you say that international law doesn’t matter, you’re essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it’s a U.S. ally. That may sell well inside the Beltway, but it’s going to sell very poorly, in general, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.

While no one should dispute that the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering — as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government — it’s important to consider the likely motivations of the Colombian government for carrying out this operation. Raul Reyes, the top leader in the FARC who was killed, led negotiations that resulted in the FARC releasing six political hostages to Venezuela, including four a week ago. This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government — to meet the “threat” of successful diplomacy with military escalation. The Colombian government, with vigorous U.S. support, is taking actions whose probable consequence is to reduce the likelihood that FARC hostages will be released — including three American captives.

Indeed, Ecuador says it was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, that the talks were in an advanced stage, and that the process was thwarted by the Colombian raid.

Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:

Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008

“The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.”

Obama is absolutely right, of course, that nothing should used as a “pretense” to ratchet up tensions or threaten the stability of the region. But this glosses over the apparent fact that Colombia flagrantly, deliberately, and with premeditation violated Ecuador’s sovereignty. Ecuador is a U.S. ally. The U.S., as a member of the Organization of American States, has an obligation to defend Ecuador’s sovereignty. If you say that doesn’t matter, then what you’re saying is that a country like Ecuador can’t rely on the U.S. to behave in accordance with international law, and has to turn to countries like Venezuela to help defend its sovereignty (as it has.) In this assertion, you’d have a lot of agreement in Ecuador, including from its U.S.-educated president.

Obama says, “The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.” That’s absolutely correct. He might also note that the U.S. — which is a protagonist through its role in Colombia — shares this obligation.

Now let’s consider Hillary’s statement:

Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008

“Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.”

This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the “event” is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) . According to Hillary, Colombia has “every right” to “defend itself” by violating Ecuador’s sovereignty — that’s the event — but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border — its own national territory — that’s “unwarranted and dangerous.” Hillary says that “after reviewing the situation,” she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in “closer cooperation with Colombia” — the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty — than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It’s the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course — to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.

Judging from Hillary’s statement, we should expect no meaningful change in U.S. policy towards Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela (which she falsely claims is a dictatorship) if she is elected president — unless it is a change to make it worse.

Robert Naiman is National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy to reflect the values and serve the interests of the majority of Americans. Naiman edits the daily Just Foreign Policy news summary.

I know how Joe Liberman must feel

RJC Launches "I Used to be a Democrat" Ad Campaign

The RJC is up to trouble. Actively working to divide America. Insulting Sen. Obama for his efforts to bring peace to the middle east, and attacking Sen. Clinton for race baiting.

This seems especially harsh today. Yesterday Rep. Tom Lantos passed away. Rep. Lantos was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in congress, and he served proudly as a Democrat. The RJC doesn't acknowledge his passing, instead it blast hate & division across the nation.

This is one more reason why we need Democratic Leadership in our country. Someone who can united us, and help us get pass our partisan divides and help us work together for a better America.

WW[MLK]D?

from the The Black Commentator

On or around the January 21st celebration of the life and work of Dr. King, Senator Obama was asked the question of who did he think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported for President. Senator Obama offered a very profound answer: He said, to the effect, that Dr. King would probably have not supported anyone but would have been pressuring everyone on behalf of social justice.

In the wake of Obama’s outstanding victory in South Carolina, two things are clear:

* One, that this race is not over and that everything is clearly up in the air, meaning of course, that each state’s primary is critical.
* Two, that the candidates (especially Senators Clinton and Obama) must not be allowed to engage in a tit-for-tat squabble, but must be pushed on the actual content of their visions and platforms.

In this sense, Senator Obama’s words may be more insightful than even he realized when he uttered them.

In suggesting that Dr. King would be pressuring all of the candidates, Senator Obama was, perhaps, inadvertently offering a critique of this presidential season. At a point when the two top Democratic contenders, along with most of the media, are focusing on symbolism and celebrity, little attention has been given to the actual programmatic differences and similarities between Senators Clinton and Obama. Instead, we have been “entertained” to the political equivalent of reality TV with he said / she said / they said, instead of a focus on what the candidates, should they be elected, would commence to do the day after Inauguration.

It is easy to get swept up in the whirlwind. A serious African American candidate and a serious female candidate running in the same election is historic. A friend of mine (and fellow activist), commenting on the race said that while he agreed with former Senator John Edwards on the issues, he felt that the world did not want another white man in the office of the President of the United States. I remained silent for a minute in hearing this and then, after agreeing on the significant symbolic value of a woman or black man as President, asked my friend “…but what about the issues? What about what they would ACTUALLY do?” Sadly, my friend had no answer other than to repeat his point about the symbol of a different face in a high place.

My guess is that Dr. King would have been far less swayed by symbolism than are many of us. Among other things, Dr. King believed in the necessity for social movements to change conditions. While it is absolutely true that Dr. King, like many other great social movement leaders, needed political allies in office - as was the case with his relationship with President Lyndon Johnson at a certain moment - it was also the case that Dr. King gave priority to the movement over the person. In other words, while King agreed with Johnson on his civil rights reforms, he was willing to take the immense risk of turning against Johnson on the question of the Vietnam War. King stood on principle, and particularly, his central concern was for the welfare of those in mainstream society stepped upon each day, whether by throwing them into an immoral war; casting them aside in the name of a more efficient economy, or allowing them to languish in the poverty of the ghetto or the hills of Appalachia.

It would be worth thinking a bit more deeply. How are the candidates approaching the immense challenges of today? What are they saying about Iraq? About the recession we are entering? About healthcare? What difference will they make in the lives of the person who just lost their home to foreclosure?

We, who are concerned with justice, must be asking those questions and in that sense, emulating precisely what Senator Obama suggested Dr. King would be doing today. The pressure that Senator Obama believed Dr. King would be exerting would be far more than that of a phone call, email or fax and it would be far more than an individual act. It would be organizing and mobilizing a movement, that is, hundreds of thousands of those who have decided that they are ready to take their futures into their own hands, rather than await a savior.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black Commentator. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2008 by Salon.com

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton
Women voters rallied en masse for her — but she has run as a stereotypical male and represents the same old cowardly Clintonian politics.

by Frances Kissling

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign’s resurgence, I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.

At the same time, watching Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire was a roller-coaster ride — there were moments when I just wanted to throw in the towel and support her, those flashes of humanity and passion, the confidence she expresses in her record, the reality that she probably is the good person her husband says she is. I imagine her frustration with people like me who sell her short and will not settle for the conventional wisdom of what a woman has to do to get elected and trust her. And then she would frustrate me with her almost absolute inability to understand that being a leader is much more than an exercise in competency; it is the ability to capture people’s imaginations and make them believe that there is indeed hope. The low point was her dismissal of Obama’s and Edwards’ visionary platforms as false hopes. Jung’s bad mother wagging her finger at the boys who dared to promise the American people more than they could deliver was too much.

I contrast the closing speeches from New Hampshire: Obama’s three words — “yes, we can” — and Clinton’s heartfelt claim of having found her voice, an unspoken acknowledgment that she had to learn and she learned it. One goes to bed with the feeling that the next six weeks will include a national opportunity for all but the far right to take apart questions of race, gender, class and political integrity. In a way, it is the first 21st century election. Will Obama force Clinton into the new millennium? Can she meet my expectations?

Then her record enters my consciousness: her votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

I wonder if I am, as antifeminists are constantly taunting, one of those women who is jealous of other women? Am I harder on women than on men? After all, the first qualified woman who becomes president is not likely to be everything a feminist would like her to be. Am I just not practical enough to hold my nose and go with a qualified woman? Clinton is to be respected for her intelligence, knowledge of the issues and consistent work for social justice. There is no one best person to be president, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if elected, on most issues she will make good decisions, do the best that can be done in difficult circumstances and, as would Edwards and Obama, work to change some elements of the debacle of the Bush years.

But her approach to Iraq leads me to think she would more quickly and inappropriately use military power than other Democrats, and that is impossible to ignore.

The decision about whom to support is also based on more subtle issues of character, a sense of where the candidates will lead us and how much of a socially transformative vision for America they have. Being a feminist means not only supporting policies that improve women’s lives, but that lead to a new understanding of women’s and men’s nature, identity and role in the world. It means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. But there must be some small space in the political world in which women are important. It is also not to say that Clinton doesn’t care about women — of course she does, and she has supported and will support many policies that improve women’s health, employment and education. Perhaps one hears so little of that commitment on the campaign trail because it is assumed that the woman candidate does not have to talk about those issues. But whatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

For example, she might begin by following the European example and create a Cabinet post on women. In addition to outlining her foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, she might write about women from a thoroughly modern perspective. As important as they are there is nothing new about talking about issues such as violence against women or research on women’s health issues or funding family planning at home and abroad. We need a candidate who advocates for the economic benefits that women all over Europe — and increasingly women in developing countries — have: better support for the retirement of women who do not work outside the home, paid family and medical leave, expansion of Social Security benefits to spouses (mostly women). And we need a feminist candidate for president who is not afraid of issues such as gay marriage, adoption and America’s changing attitudes toward women’s sexuality and all sexuality.

When John Edwards stepped up to the podium to concede victory to Barack Obama, he said, “The one thing that is clear here in Iowa is that the status quo lost and change won.” I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

Frances Kissling is the president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Playing the Class Card

	Published on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 by TruthDig.com Playing the Class Card by Robert Scheer As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women’s card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher’s ascent in England. Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire’s primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more “radical” as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem’s preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity. What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can’t be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton’s “unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House” without referencing the Clinton White House’s giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton’s key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation. I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to “data-mine,” thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton’s next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously. Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course. John Edwards deserves credit for putting this issue of the growing division of American society front and center, and certainly Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has related his politics to growing up in abysmal poverty. As Kucinich has pointed out, a permanent war economy in which more than half of federal discretionary funds go to the military leaves no room for needed social programs. Question the honesty of any candidate who continues to vote for war funding while talking up all the wonderful domestic programs he or she claims to favor. At least Ron Paul is consistent in saying he would cut both. Obviously, coming from an impoverished background does not ensure a social conscience, and there is no better example that the contrary can be true than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the scion of a wealthy family, who, as president, was a god in my Bronx home for expanding federal poverty programs that put food on our table when both my parents were out of work. Yes, it is important for the health of our democracy to break barriers that have held back a majority of our citizens, and for that reason it would certainly be an advance to have a black or female president. But that alone is not enough to justify a vote. What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate. Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle. © 2008 TruthDig.com

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy
Another Bhutto for Pakistan doesn’t bode well for democracy; would another Clinton for the U.S.?
by Rosa Brooks

As the U.S. election season shifts creakily into higher gear, our leaders are enthusiastically lionizing slain Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. The former prime minister “returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy,” noted Hillary Clinton. “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event … for democracy,” mourned Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, President Bush urged Pakistanis “to honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.”

Hold on! Bhutto was a courageous and compelling figure, but hardly a martyr to democracy. The daughter of a prime minister, Bhutto took over the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party from her mother, who herself inherited party leadership from Bhutto’s father. Bhutto’s own two terms as Pakistan’s prime minister were marred by corruption scandals and allegations of involvement in still darker activities, including the 1996 murder of her own brother, a party rival.

Her policies didn’t always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban’s military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India.

After disgrace and exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the fall of 2007 on a self-styled mission to rescue Pakistan from chaos, and she loudly demanded the restoration of democracy. Pakistan could use some genuine democracy — but Bhutto, an eternally polarizing figure, was hardly the woman to usher in a new era of democratic stability, regardless of the Bush administration’s hopes.

Bhutto’s tragic death itself underlines the limits of her commitment to democracy. In her will, she named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as chair of the Pakistan People’s Party, appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chair and quasi-regent until Bilawal comes of age. To Bhutto, political power was something one could inherit, something to be passed along from spouse to spouse and from parent to child, like grandmother’s pearls or grandfather’s favorite chair — or like the infamous Swiss bank accounts that led to corruption charges against her in several countries.

And who knows? Maybe Bilawal’s not such a bad choice for the Pakistan People’s Party. A history student at Oxford, he already has a constituency — at least on Facebook, where someone has established a new fan group called “Let’s not assassinate Bilawal Bhutto because he’s hot, OK?” Bilawal’s own Facebook profile is fairly modest: “I am not a politician or a great thinker. I’m merely a student. I do the things that students do like make mistakes, eat junk food … but most importantly of all … learn.” Still, “My time to lead will come.”

What’s weirdest about all this is that not very many people here in the U.S. seem to have noticed that this is all pretty weird. A champion of democracy passes along political leadership in her will, leaving it to her husband and son? That’s dynastic politics, not democratic politics.

Kings and queens pass along their political positions to their children. Paragons of democracy do not. But you won’t find even a hint of this in the reactions of the leading presidential contenders from either party, or from the White House, or from most leading U.S. media commentators.

There is, of course, an obvious and depressing explanation for why so few people in the U.S. seem to have registered this as jarring: We’re perilously close to becoming a dynastic state ourselves. Our current president, George W. Bush, is the son of our former president, George H.W. Bush. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is struggling today to hold on to her position as Democratic Party front-runner, is married to former President Clinton.

You can’t blame the heirs of political dynasties for their fortunes. Nineteen-year-old Bilawal is a pawn in a deadly game; so far, he hasn’t had much control over his life. Benazir Bhutto didn’t have much either: In September, she wrote, rather poignantly, “I didn’t choose this life. It chose me.” Similarly, George W. Bush didn’t choose his father, and it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that the young law professor she married later became president.

All the same, there’s something awfully creepy about the dynastic trend in American politics. If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008, by 2012 the U.S. presidency will have been controlled for 24 years by only two families. More families have divvied up the political spoils in Pakistan in the last 24 years.

The U.S. isn’t Pakistan, thank goodness. But as voters in Iowa’s caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential season, we’d do well to think about what makes the U.S. and Pakistan different — and about what values we Americans need to nurture if we’re going to remain a true democracy and not sink into our own brand of corrupt dynastic politics.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

Early Primary Combined With Campaigning Ban Good For Senator Clinton

Stealing stories from other blogs... But I had heard this from Obama's campaign and Edwards campaign too. The staff that I have spoken with believe that the state is going to the person with the most name recognition and most money. Clinton had the strongest infrastructure before campaigning and there isn't a way to change that.

And, she is campaigning better. The articles this year about Senator Lawson endorsing her campaign shows that she is the better politician. She was the only person to contact the future Minority leader and the longest serving state Senator in Florida. He started off supporting Obama and switched to her because she called him several times, and Obama never did.

Read more here

Who will John Edwards hurt worse, Hillary or Obama? What happens if he doesn't hurt anybody?

So in my effort to try to rev this blog up again this is the first of what will probably be a periodic posting of verbatim articles that I think are worth reading. I will try to splice in original thought now and again over the next month or two, but no promises from me.

On the other hand, this might reinvigorate our whole collection of bloggers, and this whole blog could pop back in full force... We will see.

The title bar of this, and future articles, links to the original story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New Republic:

Spoiler Warning

Who will John Edwards hurt worse, Hillary or Obama? What happens if he doesn't hurt anybody?

E.J. Dionne, Jr., The New Republic Published: Monday, December 03, 2007


NASHUA, N.H. -- In the back of a crowded room at Daniel Webster College here, Joe Trippi, John Edwards' campaign manager, watches closely as his candidate delivers a series of passionately populist orations, summed up by his declaration that "the few are controlling this democracy for the many."

Next to Trippi, his colleague Glen Pearcy tends a camera recording every word that the tie-less, bluejeans-clad Edwards speaks for possible use in future television commercials. Standing before a large American flag, the former North Carolina senator insists that the country shouldn't "trade a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats."


As the news about the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination focuses on the increasingly bitter confrontation between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Edwards is fighting for survival. He knows his fate hinges on a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses that are now less than a month away. He will be out of the race if he runs third.


If Edwards fades, supporters of all three candidates agree that his backers are more likely to drift to Obama than to Clinton. Yet if Edwards gains ground, he could push either Clinton or Obama into third place -- crippling one of them.


The Iowa polls suggest that this is Obama's time. Over the weekend, The Des Moines Register released a survey showing the Illinois senator with 28 percent to Clinton's 25 percent and Edwards' 23 percent. Obama was up six points from the paper's last poll, conducted in October. Clinton was down four, and Edwards held steady. A Pew/Associated Press poll released Monday still put Clinton on top, but interviewing for the survey began in early November.

The Clinton camp is clearly worried and the candidate herself is now taking Obama on personally. Addressing reporters in Iowa on Sunday, she spoke of "a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for."


Standing in the way of a straight Obama-Clinton struggle is Edwards. He has been campaigning in Iowa since 2003, nearly won the caucuses over John Kerry four years ago, and stubbornly remains within easy striking distance of the front-runners. The Edwards campaign has a theory of how he can beat both of them.

As Trippi sees it, Clinton has relied on support from less affluent voters, particularly women, who are especially engaged on economic questions.


Trippi argued in an interview that some of these soft Clinton voters could eventually move to Edwards because his message of economic populism and his background as a mill worker's son will trump Clinton's arguments based on her experience. Trippi claims to see "lots of potential" among "blue-collar women who are currently leaning her way."


Similarly, he says, some of Obama's less-committed voters actually prefer Edwards' fighting style to Obama's pledges to bring Washington together across party lines. Clinton, with her emphasis this weekend on what she's "willing to fight for," clearly senses the same vulnerability.


David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, agreed in a telephone interview on Monday that Democratic voters want a strong advocate for "Democratic ideals," and see Obama in those terms. But he added: "Even the most hardened Democrats are tired of the partisanship and the game-playing."

Edwards, who was once tougher than Obama in his criticism of Clinton, may now profit as the onlooker in a Clinton-Obama slugfest. During his Nashua appearance last week, Edwards smilingly noted that "Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have been bickering about their health care plans." Edwards said he shares Clinton's view that universal health coverage would be impossible without a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance. Obama's health plan contains no such mandate.


Yet Edwards' mild tone -- in contrast to his fiery attacks on a corporate-dominated Washington -- suggested that he prefers to have Clinton take the lead in the controversy.


The Edwards theory is just that, a theory. The momentum is now with Obama even in a progressive blogosphere that has been favorably disposed toward Edwards. For example, Daily Kos' regular canvas of its readers found a substantial bump upward for Obama between October and November.


The big choice Edwards faces will be whether to move his campaign more to the sunny style that became the trademark of his 2004 effort. Edwards insists that he's as optimistic as he ever was.

Given the flow of the news, he has to be. Edwards needs a January surprise. But if he achieves it and pushes one of his leading foes into third place, he will revolutionize the Democratic campaign.