Our Tom Speaks on John McCain

And he is Our Tom.

I live in Texas Congressional District 22, the congressional seat held by Tom “I Am The Government” DeLay for over twenty years. He IS Our Tom. We made him. We kept sending him back. And really, “Our Tom” is one of the reasons that I started writing this blog a year and a half ago.

Now Our Tom is gone, replaced by Nick “Mostly A Democrat” Lampson. But Our Tom simply won’t go away, will he? We thought we were well rid of him what with his fishing license being one bought and paid for in the Commonwealth of Virginia. But like a bad penny, he keeps turning up. Now we know that he never left as can be witnessed by his voter registration card, here.

He keeps turning up and he keeps working that mouth of his. But this time, for the first time in my semi-long life, I find that Tom and I are in 100% agreement on something:

Neither of us wants John McCain to be the Republican nominee for president.

Here are Tom’s reasons (fellow Democrats if you don’t want to listen to him, don’t click on the You Tube video; I will translate: “Blah blah blaaaaah, bl-blah blah blaaaaah. Buh-buh-buh blaaaah buh blah blah blah.”):

“McCain has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of.”

Man I do hope that DeLay’s litany takes hold in their party, but it would be well for him to have someone else voice these words. Does it surprise you that the only people listening to him are the media pundits who are often looking for some comic relief?

And why do I hope this? Because of all the candidates, McCain is the one Republican candidate who can still get support from the independent voters. The very reasons DeLay hates McCain, his bipartisanship, his willingness to work with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to find common ground, it is that bipartisanship that worries me.

In my own humble opinion, a match-up between McCain and Clinton will result in a toss-up election, just the thing we Democrats don’t want to have right now when the White House is ours for the taking. An Obama vs. McCain race in November is less problematic for Democrats as there are more clear choices between the candidates, but the issue of bipartisanship will not go away, and there will be no clear choice between the two, I think, among the independent voters. An Edwards/McCain match would be a far more interesting race based on true differences between candidates, but I am afraid that while the fat lady hasn’t sung on the Edwards race, she is beginning to clear her throat. No, I think the special interests have again seen to it that Americans will not have an anti-corporation candidate to opt for.

So Tom DeLay doesn’t want McCain to be the candidate because he does not agree with him ideologically. While I don’t either, I don’t want him to be the candidate because I believe that of the entire Republican field, McCain would give us Democrats the biggest headaches in trying to win over the independent voters.

Who DO I want the Democratic nominee to run against? Follow the mantra:

Let-it-be . . . Huckabee! Let-it-be . . . Huckabee! Let-it-be . . . Huckabee! Let-it-be . . . Huckabee! Let-it-be . . . Huckabee! Let-it-be . . . Huckabee!

Newsweek Poll Has Hillary Clinton in Squeakers

Surprisingly when voters are asked who among the Democratic candidates they prefer, 43% say they want Hillary Clinton, yet when asked which they would vote for in the General election, Hillary’s numbers are 49% no matter who she is put against, whether it is Rudy, Mitt, or Fred.

Hillary polls at just 49% against all three Republican candidates. She beats them all but isn’t it odd that her opponents’ numbers are also identical at 45%. Maybe it isn’t so odd. Maybe it just tells you what has been in the news for awhile: 50% of Americans will vote for Anyone But Hillary.

It’s Hillary Clinton 49% vs. Anyone But Hillary 45%

Compare that to Barack Obama vs. Rudy, Mitt and Fred. Against Rudy, Barack gets 48% of the vote to Rudy’s 45% (nearly the same as Hillary), but scores higher than Hillary against Mitt (53% to 37%) and Fred (52% to 39%).

Compare that to John Edwards vs. Rudy, Mitt and Fred. Against Rudy, Edwards gets 48% of the vote to Rudy’s 45% (the same as Barack), but scores higher than Hillary against Mitt (53% to 37% - same as Barack) and Fred (53% to 39% - the best margin of the three candidates).

The margin of error on the Newsweek poll is + 4% so that makes Hillary’s contests virtual toss ups. The same is true for either Edwards or Obama vs. Giuliani, but in races where Obama or Edwards are pitted against Romney or Thompson, Either Obama or Edwards is the clear winner.

I doubt, at this point, that any of these numbers will help to sway a Hillary supporter to maybe opt for the candidate who is currently stronger in the polls against a Republican than she is, it just doesn’t work that way.

I just wish it would.

New Gallup/USA Today Poll: It’ll Be Clinton vs. Giuliani

According to a poll released today, if voters went to the polls today to vote for President of the United States, they would be presented with a choice between Senator from New York Hillary R. Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The poll was based on telephone interviews of 1,012 adults between August 3rd and 5th.

The top 3 Democratic contenders polled pretty much as they did even six months ago with Clinton at 48% (48% in February), Obama at 26% (23% in February) and Edwards at 12% (14% in February). And the voters were asked, given a choice between Clinton and Obama, who would you vote for in a primary? Voters opted for Clinton by 59% to Obama’s 36%. Voters thought Clinton would do a better job than Obama across the board in security issues.

Republicans opt for Rudy Giuliani by a smaller margin. Guiliani polled at 33% as opposed to 42% in February. That huge drop is probably the result of the unannounced announced candidacy of Fred Thompson whose initial numbers in March stood at 13%, where Giuliani’s numbers dropped to 34% but today polls at 21%. In third place is the floundering candidate John McCain, whose numbers fell from 25% in February to 16% today. If given a choice between two of the top three candidates, Giuliani fares better against McCain (62% to 33%) than he does against Thompson (55% to 38%).

It’s still early though and anything can happen including a Howard Dean-esque meltdown. What I am starting to believe is that there are a significant number of people in this country who will have no choice because neither of the candidates appeals to them. If nothing changes and these two are the contenders next November, I am predicting a huge Republican undervote in the presidential race, and lower Republican turnout figures across the country. After all, the Bushites will be asked to choose between a progressive Democratic woman and a centrist Republican man who likes to dress as a woman from time to time.

CNN/YouTube: Making History in a Presidential Debate Format

So what did you think of the CNN/YouTube Presidential Debate? I thought it was a refreshingly different way for us to see these candidates, one of whom will be our next president. The debate was not framed by the same stale questions from the same old journalists. We as a people have among us some who can come up with some really interesting questions, and frame them like no journalist can imagine.

The moderator, Anderson Cooper, put twists on some of the questions and sprang those twists on other candidates. I didn’t appreciate that as much and I think it only served to confuse.

And unlike the past debates where I was well satisfied with any of the candidates, I can now differentiate between some of these people. Maybe it’s hearing them again and again, or maybe it’s hearing them talk in this first in history format.

Stick a fork in Mike Gravel, he’s done. He’s been a great one for comic relief and sticking it to the front runners, but he’s now beginning to be more of a pain than anything else. That he came out for a federal sales tax is just as regressive as you can get. He’s probably mentioned it before, but it really hit home with me last night. It’s a Republican/Libertarian idea whose time should never come. Percentage wise, as in percent of personal income, it’s the poor who would pay more of their income into this, and the rich who would pay the least.

I’m also a little concerned about Barack Obama. All energy sources should certainly NOT be on the table. Nuclear energy is not an option. We still don’t have a way to deal with nuclear waste and the laws of physics say that there won’t be any with our current state of technology. And really, this comes on the heels of an earthquake in Japan that resulted in damage to thir largest nuclear power plant and the release of radioactive water. Barack still speaks well and looks good, but now I am wondering about substance and his depth of understanding with regard to science.

And the last question pointed out something that has been obvious to me for quite some time. Each was asked to say something nice about the candidate to their left, and something not so nice. When it got to Dennis Kucinnich, who stood on the far right of the stage, he joked that there was no one further left than he, and that is quite true. Of all the candidates, Kucinnich is by far the one furthest to the left on the political spectrum. While I think America is ready for a progressive president, I don’t think they are ready for Dennis Kucinnich and he would be the one who would probably give most advantage to the Republican opponent. Don’t get me wrong, I still like him, I just have a problem with his chances of winning the election.

So I vote Yea for this format. I’d love to see how the Republican candidates will handle themselves on this set up. The last time I checked the RNC has not said whether it would sanction their debate, scheduled for September 17th. I dare them not to sanction it.

I double dog dare them.

On Open Microphones and Plans Exposed: Clinton and Edwards Caught on Tape

McBlogger has a short post up that discusses an exchange between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, underlining Hillary’s statement “our guys should talk”. He saw it on ABC, I saw it on a YouTube video of the Fox News coverage of the same thing.

And you know Fox, ever wanting to dig up the dirt on scheming Democrats for their Fair and Balanced news shows. They even went to the extent of capturing the exchange with subtitles so you could follow along with parts that were nearly unintelligible with the organ playing so loud.

The entire exchange was about what should be done about the campaigns of “lower tier” candidates, who Edwards says, are “not serious”. There was obviously a sense of frustration on the part of Hillary who got a huge dig from Mike Gravel over her husband’s promotion of NAFTA. Due to the rules of the forum, Hillary was not allowed to respond to Gravel's remark.

I’m beginning to wonder myself when the “lower tier” campaigns are going to start to fade. It’s usually not until after the primaries begin but it seems that there is no precedence any more vis-à-vis presidential elections.

But with this exchange being caught on microphones that were still on, unbeknownst to the candidates, I’ll bet it won’t be anytime soon.

And what was it about Obama's use of or taking of notes? How does that jive with being "less experienced?" Taking notes is a marvelous sign of having experience, as any reporter should know.

So it's kind of funny in a way. In regard to Clinton and Edwards' conversation, Fox made a legitimate observation and analysis that I think holds water. Then they went and spoiled it all with the Barack Obama non sequitur.

Barack Attack: “It’s Not About Me”

I quickly slapped together a posting yesterday about how I was going to go see Barack Obama last night in his first trip to Houston, Texas. Forever the wordy one, I rambled on and on about my antique digital camera. I was able to get one good shot of him after his speech which I have here. The stage was fairly dark and my antique camera’s strobe doesn’t have the legs to get enough photons to collide with Barack’s body. It all has to do with the inverse square law, but never mind about that.

I got there early, but Obama was late getting there. The crowd steadily grew and row after row of chairs were set out as more and more attendees arrived. By 9 o’clock, the announced time of Obama’s arrival, the crowd was at an estimated 350. Put a couple of zeroes next to that and you have the minimum haul of this fundraiser. Finally he arrived on stage at 10 PM.

Barack Obama is a very dynamic speaker. His message, in the main, was that he was in the race for his country. His now often quoted aphorism “It’s not about me, it’s about you” was repeated several times. His speech was interrupted several times with applause, and all around me I could hear people saying quietly to themselves “that’s right”.

He attacked the Bush administration at all the weak points: Iraq was prominent not only in our losses but in the now half a trillion dollars wasted there. His impassioned arguments for universal health care found no one disagreeing. Several times he addressed the administration's misplaced priorities in the Katrina catastrophe and subsequent events making the remark, specific to Houston, that Houston was still playing host to thousands of Katrina victims who even now, still cannot return home.

He made only passing mention of his fellow Democrats running for the same office. There is more said if you “Google” Hillary Clinton or John Edwards and take a look at the sponsored links on the right of the search results screen.

I was sitting there with my friend Mark who used to blog in View From 22. Mark, ever the astute political observer, made the remark that Hillary’s campaign made a strategic error in making it look like she and Obama were the titans in the race for the nomination, locked in a head to head struggle. Mark speculated that the two campaigns will grind each other down, allowing John Edwards to stroll in past the burning embers and twisted steel beams that once were their respective campaigns. All this and Mark tells me that he is an Obama supporter (Don’t tell his mama).

I told my friend Don on the way there that I really didn’t care who was the candidate as long as they were mean. No more nice-guy-take-it-on-the-chin-take-the-high-road candidates. This election will be part two of bringing some heart and soul back to America. If you have to be a mean so-and-so to do it, let’s get mean.

Don't Tell Mama I’m For Barak Obama

Well, not absolutely, not yet anyway. Neither is my friend Mark, who sent me an email with the subject nearly the same as the title to this posting, this link so I would see the video where he announced formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

Mark tells me that “Don’t tell mama, I’m for Obama” is rapidly getting around as a slogan among Democratic insiders. Mama refers to Hillary. I favor putting his first name in the slogan as well because it gives the slogan a rhythm. You can also sing the line to the Tim Lehrer tune “So long Mom, I’m off to drop The Bomb”.

I like Obama for the fact that he would really help us out in Texas. We have lots of Black Democratic voters here who will fall all over each other getting to the polls to vote for him. This could be just the ticket to retake the state House. I also like Obama because everywhere I look I see that people think he is a coalition builder and can work with both parties.

Frankly, the only negative thing anyone has to say about Obama is his level of experience. He has only held political office since 1996. My friend Don likes to point out that by the presidential election year, 2008, he will have had just about the same political experience as Jack Kennedy. This intrigued me so I checked their CVs and he’s very nearly right.

Prior to becoming President in 1960, Jack Kennedy was Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts for 8 years. Prior to that he was Congressman John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts’ 11th congressional district. He served in that office for 6 years. Total: 14 years, all in federal legislative bodies.

Barak Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and served there until he won his US Senate seat in 2004. It was that year that he was vaulted to national attention when he gave one of the best keynote addresses I have ever heard. So by 2008, Obama will have served for 12 years in political office.

That’s only two years shy of Kennedy’s service but there are two things to point out: 1) Obama’s experience is at both the state and federal level – he has broader experience than Jack Kennedy had – and 2) Kennedy’s years in the Senate were punctuated by time that he had to take out for four spinal surgeries and recovery from them. I know, the second one is rather lame, but there’s that.

And consider this, in 2008, Barak Obama will be 47 years old. That’s four years older than Jack Kennedy was when he was elected in 1960.

Quite frankly the only thing that Obama lacks that Jack Kennedy had is a war record: Obama never skippered PT boats, never got stranded on a remote island in the Solomons, and never was played by Cliff Robertson in the movie that was made about it.

Finally, consider his “Star Power”. People talk about it all the time. Back in the Kennedy years, we used to call that "Charisma".

John Edwards to Announce on Thursday

Well it's official. This Thursday John Edwards will announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. The backdrop? The Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans.

That's appropriate. What better place to announce than the site of failed Republican policies? It's either there or Baghdad and I'll bet they even considered Baghdad for about a picosecond. I think he'll do well here in Texas. We have a bunch of new residents here. Victims of both Katrina and Rita who have had to permanently relocate because of Bush's failures. So highlighting their former residence is a plus.

I wonder how many responses to his email message he got? I sent my response. It was entitled Run, John, Run.

But you have to wonder about his timing. It's a little risky, isn't it, to announce your candidacy while the entire country is doing everything except reading newspapers and watching TV news? I'm even taking a risk going to some effort to post this so it can be read by two actual readers, the four people who are googling the words "giving head" and the eighteen individuals looking for images of a black horse or Krishna.

I agree with the reporter's speculation that the benefit to this early announcement would be to get the drop on Obama and Clinton who aren't expected to announce anything until early January.

But why not do it differently? The way this race is shaping up, it promises to be very exceptional.

1. For the first time in decades there is no incumbent and no candidate stepping up from the Vice President's office. Wait, is that right? Decades? Absolutely. Not since 1952 when former General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Senator Adlai E. Stevenson.


2. For the first time ever America is considering electing a woman to the highest office in the land.


3. Not for the first time, but for the first time seriously, a man with DNA that comes from Africa is being seriously considered. America has come a long way from the Jesse Jackson days when he wasn't considered electable because he's black, to the Barak Obama days when he isn't considered electable because he's too inexperienced.


4. And finally, for the first time I can recall, the dark horses are begging off before announcing. Evan Bayh said bye-bye last week.

And it looks like the neocons are going to have to sit this one out unless they can come up with someone who has a lot of distance between them and Bush. That they have to choose between McCain and Giuliani (so far) is just making my day.