The Democratic Party Dumps Mike Gravel

Today Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel announced that he plans on leaving the Democratic Party for the Libertarian Party. He released the following statement to supporters:

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

I don't blame Mike Gravel for this move. Any Democrat should be furious with the way the Democratic Party is acting. By moving away from core Democratic values the Democratic Party is the one dumping Mike Gravel and not the other way around. Not to mention that during this election he was marginalized and treated like crap by the Democratic Leadership. Mike Gravel should be saluted for this brave action.

If only more Democrats were willing to take fellow Democrats to task we wouldn't be in this situation. The fact remains that most Democratic voters don't have the courage to vote for a third party when it calls them too. When Democrats vote based on party loyalty this enables the Democratic leaders to move further and further away from Democratic values without being held accountable in elections.

Bill Richardson Endorses Obama; Avoids "Kingmaker" Status

Yes!! Finally Bill Richardson up his mind. He has decided to endorse Barack Obama. Since he had ended his campaign Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had many conversations with Bill Richardson in order to try to secure his endorsement. I am one of those people that thinks his endorsement is significant, but since he did it this late in the game I think the value of his endorsement has diminished. It's better late than never though.

I believe the reason why Bill Richardson did it at this time was to avoid being called a "Kingmaker". We all know he served in the Clinton administration and has a very solid relationship with them. What better to make a good friendship go sour than to deal the crushing blow of Hillary Clinton's dreams by sending her back to Chappaqua, NY as a U.S. Senator and not the 2008 Democratic nominee. As great as this endorsement is to Obama I believe this endorsement was very calculated on Bill Richardson's part. He could have very well endorsed Barack Obama the Sunday before the Texas and Ohio primary when he appeared on CBS "Face the Nation", but he chose not to. In his endorsement speech today Bill Richardson referred to "The Speech" by Barack Obama as what put him over the edge. I don't buy it. I believe he was for Obama all along, but didn't want to damage his friendship with the Clintons. Had Richardson endorsed Barack Obama before the Texas and Ohio primary it's very possible that Texas could have been tipped in favor of Obama. I generally don't believe political endorsements mean a great deal, but Richardson is a big deal in the Hispanic community.

Had the Richardson endorsement happened directly followed by a close win in the Texas primary he would have been viewed as a "Kingmaker". Remember Bill Clinton and pundits around the country said Hillary had to win Texas AND Ohio to stay in contention. I think she still would have hung around to see what happened with Michigan and Florida, but the topic of discussion would have changed dramatically. Instead of the discussion being "Hillary Clinton wins 3/4 states and has the momentum now" it could have been "Hillary Clinton is now being pressured to drop out of the race", "Super delegates are now all pledging to support Obama", or even the remote possibility of "Hillary Clinton has conceded".

Bill Richardson accomplished two things by endorsing Barack Obama now. He endorsed Barack Obama while keeping his friendship with the Clintons intact(although they are probably still unhappy), and it shows me that he's leaving open the possibility of being a VP to either of them.

Why Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Concede

...because she still can win. Seriously, why on earth would a candidate who still has a chance to capture the nomination via super delegates concede the Presidential race this late in the game? It's a little weird because there's a movement brewing online to try to convince Hillary Clinton to concede, but I know and everyone else should know that it's in Hillary Clinton's best interest to keep going. I think by now you and I should know that Hillary Clinton wants this nomination real bad, is willing to do anything to get it, and will keep going until she's officially eliminated.

Most Barack Obama supporters will contend that she is already eliminated because there's no way she can catch up to Obama in pledged delegates. But what Obama supporters will conveniently omit is that even he can't win the nomination with pledged delegates so that will leave the nomination in the hands of super delegates. I've read many comments from Obama supporters that it would be a travesty if the super delegates decided to nominate Hillary Clinton over the "will of the people". (Super delegates aren't obligated to vote with the popular vote). What if Hillary Clinton is the "will of the people"? What Obama supporters also conveniently omit is that it's still possible for Clinton to catch Obama in the popular vote. This is why Florida and Michigan are very important to the Clinton campaign, and would explain why the Obama campaign is hesitant to openly speak out about the possibility of new primaries in either of the states.

Either way, Barack Obama has not wrapped up the nomination yet. His failure to give Hillary Clinton the crushing blow in Ohio or Texas only gives Clinton more of a reason to continue and not to throw in the towel.

"The Speech" That Will Sink Obama

Yesterday Barack Obama delivered what most people are calling "The Speech" because it was considered to be the most important speech during his campaign which addressed race relations in the United States. After watching "The Speech" I agreed that not only was this speech the most important speech of his campaign, but it will be the turning point of the campaign.

I do not believe that this speech accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish by addressing the issue of race relations in the United States. Instead I found this speech was more of a "In Defense Rev. Jeremiah Wright" as a person while distancing himself from his actual quotes. Even though Rev. Wright is no longer part of the Obama campaign, at no point did Obama actually disown Rev. Wright (although at one point he did utter the words "former pastor". Anyone else catch that?). It featured a lot of bobbing and weaving to try to sell to voters to accept Rev. Wright as a good member of the black community, and at the same time condemn Rev. Wright's crazy quotes.

The problem with this speech is that it will be remembered by most as Barack Obama defending Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and not a speech on race relations in general. While this speech doesn't even enter the stratosphere of Martin Luther Kings "I Have A Dream" speech, it might possibly enter Barack Obama into the "Al Sharpton Stratosphere" (by some, but not by me) for defending Rev. Wright. The appeal that Barack Obama wasn't a "crazy white blaming African-American" may now have been lost.

I don't expect this speech to affect Barack Obama in the Democratic primary that much, but I'm sure it will still hurt him a little. The major damage will come if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination. What was Barack Obama's greatest strength in attracting Republicans and Independents may have been lost also. That was considered to be a major contributing factor into the appeal over Hillary Clinton. Expect a lot of those supporters to give Barack Obama a second look now because of this speech. On top of that expect the Republicans to use this speech as a catalyst for most of their attacks.

When Democrats wake up on November 5 and realize that they will have 4 more years of Bush-like policies with John McCain they will all look back at this speech as Barack Obama's "John Kerry moment" which will have ultimately caused his candidacy to go belly up.




"The Speech"

SpitzerGate: A Democratic Double Standard

Now that we've heard all the raunchy details from the Eliot Spitzer scandal from every media outlet in America it's time to take a step back and look at the reaction from fellow Democrats. Some things seem to never change among the Democratic party elite. Democrats hate Republicans, and every scandal that involves a Democrat it's always a Republican conspiracy against that Democrat. When this Spitzer scandal first broke I read various Democratic blogs, and most of the comments I read from Democrats seemed to dismiss what Spitzer did as no big deal.

Many of them immediately jumped to the conclusion that what Spitzer did was the product of a Republicans targeting him. In fact, Spitzer was caught because of suspicious bank withdrawals. Democrats defended Spitzer saying the government shouldn't interfere in his personal life, and because it was his business. It's funny that they take this approach because I didn't hear any of this during the Sen. Larry Craig foot tapping scandal, or the Sen. David Vitter mistress scandal. Would you call this a Democratic double standard? I certainly would. I even read Democrats saying Spitzer shouldn't resign because Larry Craig and David Vitter "didn't have to resign". I guess they never got the memo that resigning is a personal choice, and not imposed. Technically if Spitzer had decided not to resign would it be considered eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth? According to that logic two wrongs would then make a right.

When reading various opinions on the Spitzer scandal I was stunned that Democrats thought he should stay on the job as Governor after breaking laws that he prosecuted as New York State Attorney General. Would it be in the best interest of New York State to have a Governor who will most likely get indicted on violating the Mann Act, and bank structuring? Am I the only sane Democrat that thinks this would have had a negative impact on his job performance with this hanging over his head? Would it be in the best interest of the New York State Democratic Party to have a scandal ridden Governor in office while being 1 State Senator away from taking the majority in the New York State Senate? These are the questions that most Spitzer defenders have not fully thought out.

The Democratic double standard is something that I believe has plagued the party for a while, and it doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon.

The Democratic Party is Screwed in November

Up until this point I thought if Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee he would beat John McCain in a landslide in November, and if Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee(which I think will happen) McCain wins in a landslide. Now with Hillary back in the race because of winning Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island her supporters are no longer demoralized. I expect Hillary to make a huge push to the Democratic nomination with the power of her many now fully fueled "Hillbots". As many have stated the longer this epic battle goes on the easier the battle will be for John McCain in November. I now think it's reached the point where the Democrats are officially screwed for November even if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Here are the reasons why I think this:

1. The Democratic primary process will have gone on long enough to give McCain the advantage in campaigning. Not to mention the fact that the Republican party is united now, and the Democratic party isn't.
2. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have given McCain the "cheat sheet" to run against them. What do I mean? If Obama is the nominee McCain can say, "Look, even half of your own party agrees Obama is inexperienced, or not tough on national security." If Hillary is the nominee McCain can say, "Look, even half of your own party has agreed you have bad judgment".
   
3. If Obama can't counter a national security ad by Hillary then how can we expect him to defend against what the Republicans could potentially throw at him in November?
4. Hillary will lose because she's Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Rodham.
   
5. Hillary is now saying on the campaign trail that she and McCain are "experienced", but Obama isn't. (Another McCain talking point. Add that to #2?)

I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the primary reasons I can think of.

So when the Democrats fall in November who will be blamed for the choke job? Nader? Obama? Hillary? the DNC? Congress? Let's remember that the reason for the Democratic Leadership not putting up certain pieces legislation(impeachment for example) was to make sure the Democrats won in 2008. I will not forget that, and if what I think will happen turns out to happen it will be a November to misremember.

The Democratic Party will have failed us, and it will be time to clean house starting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The "Test" for Barack Obama on March 4th

On March 4th there may be a special test for Barack Obama that will not come in the form of a paper test, but it will come in the form of election integrity. While I'm the first one to say that African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because of his race it will be no surprise that many African-American Ohioans will cast their votes for Obama this Tuesday. As much as we may want to forget what happened in Ohio in 2004 the sad reality is that it's bound to happen again. Ohio still has electronic voting machines, and they are still proven to be hackable.

So what is this "test" I speak of?

Democrats should realize by now that Hillary Clinton is willing to use any means possible to win the Presidency, and Ohio will be right in the thick of things again. Many people have stated that Hillary Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio this Tuesday to continue her quest for the nomination(I don't), and on Tuesday don't be shocked if we read reports of shenanigans at Ohio polling places. If there is indeed cold evidence that voters were disenfranchised then Barack Obama HAS to challenge the results. He has to fight it out because most likely it will be in precincts with strong African-American support.

This time around Barack Obama can't count on Congressman Dennis Kucinich to challenge the results like Kucinich did in the New Hampshire primary which exposed voting disparities. On Tuesday Barack Obama will have to step up to the plate in the name of democracy. If he fails to do so you can bet that there will be new question marks about whether Barack Obama's relationship with the African-American community is really authentic. Let's hope this does not happen.