more about "Video: Secretary Clinton’s Statement …", posted with vodpod
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hillary clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Thursday, June 25, 2009
US and Venezuela move forward on relations
From an exchange between a reporter and Ian Kelly, State Department spokesperson at the State Department's daily news briefing, June 24th:
QUESTION: What about Venezuela? She asked --
MR. KELLY: Oh, Venezuela, yeah, sorry. I think I have something on Venezuela. Yes.
Since Secretary Clinton and President Chavez spoke during the Summit of the Americas, both our governments have worked toward the goal of returning ambassadors to our respective capitals. We are currently taking the necessary measures to accomplish this goal. And we think that exchanging ambassadors is in the best interests of both countries. But I don’t have any names for you right now or dates.
QUESTION: So the decision is taken? It means --
MR. KELLY: The decision has been taken to – there was a – what happened was there was a – Assistant Secretary Shannon spoke to Foreign Minister Maduro, and we agreed to move forward. This was on June 22nd, on Monday.
QUESTION: What about Venezuela? She asked --
MR. KELLY: Oh, Venezuela, yeah, sorry. I think I have something on Venezuela. Yes.
Since Secretary Clinton and President Chavez spoke during the Summit of the Americas, both our governments have worked toward the goal of returning ambassadors to our respective capitals. We are currently taking the necessary measures to accomplish this goal. And we think that exchanging ambassadors is in the best interests of both countries. But I don’t have any names for you right now or dates.
QUESTION: So the decision is taken? It means --
MR. KELLY: The decision has been taken to – there was a – what happened was there was a – Assistant Secretary Shannon spoke to Foreign Minister Maduro, and we agreed to move forward. This was on June 22nd, on Monday.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
If Hillary Clinton was a white man
By Joe Sims
I was sitting with some friends yesterday and discussing the significance of the end of the Democratic primaries. One commented that the general election was going to be really difficult for the presumptive nominee who in his view had failed to get any bounce upon winning the nomination. I was a little surprised by his pessimism and sent him an AP poll in this morning's news that should put aside those fears. The AP news story says in part:
“The Gallup daily tracking poll Tuesday showed Obama with a 7 percentage-point lead nationally over presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Obama's widest lead since Gallup started the general election polling in March.
McCain was leading Obama by 1 percent early last week, but Obama started to tick up in the surveys after he defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.The latest reading from Gallup showed Obama with 48 percent to McCain's 41 percent. The poll was taken June 7-9, of 2,633 registered voters. The margin of error was 2 percentage points.”
My friend hasn't responded so far, however clearly he is influenced by the doubts about Obama's chances among the general electorate because of fears influenced by racism. The reasoning goes: if he can't carry the white working-class male and female vote among Democrats, how can he possibly do well enough to compensate among independents and moderate leaning Republicans in the general election?
The ideological fault line in this method of thinking is in its analysis of the white working-class vote. The problems lies in two areas; first in the very conception of the working class itself and with it a gross misconception of gender and class and the ways in which they worked themselves out in the Democratic primaries.
On the first issue, as Erwin Marquit points out in a recent article in PA, “Overcoming Unscientific Concepts of Working Class,” narrow views of productive labor act as theoretical brakes and lends to faulty analysis and action. Fact is, “middle-class” income brackets that voted for Obama, even if composed of academics and other professionals are largely working-class by today's standards. When this is combined with the “blue collar “vote of Black, Brown and white workers, Obama clearly held his own when compared to Clinton.
The gender issue adds to this in a unique way. The women's vote in general was pro-women's equality. The vote of white women was not anti-Obama in this sense, but rather for seeing a woman become president. In addition, it's a truism that women due to their experience of oppression as women tend to vote “better” than men on most questions and come down on the democratic side of the fence. And did I mention that most of those women are working class?
I asked my friend, “What if Hillary Clinton had been a white man?” He looked at me sort of dumbfounded. But think about it; clearly it would have been a very different primary. Why? Because first, as suggested above, Obama, would likely have won a majority of the women's vote, as the absence of a female candidate would not have drawn away the galvanizing force of the insurgent female ballots. As a result, Obama both because of the his qualities as a candidate and due to the nature of the political moment might well have won a landslide. As Bob Kerrey a Clinton supporter pointed out in a Sunday New York Times op ed, he even may well have won a landslide against Bill Clinton himself and any other Democratic candidate of the last 50 years. He wrote:
"If Barack Obama had been born 10 years earlier and had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1992, neither I nor Bill Clinton would have defeated him...
The hard truth is that from the moment Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007, Mrs. Clinton was facing a candidate with greater skills than any candidate her husband had ever faced in his life."
Kerrey may overemphasize individual skills and suffer from a "great-man-in-history syndrome." Still the qualities of the candidate, along with the nature of the political moment is such that a combination of the working-class vote (which by way is black, brown and white, male and female), the democratic upsurge among women, African Americans and Latinos, the addition of huge numbers of new voters to polls combined with the anti-right-wing sentiment among the broad public will result in a decisive victory in November. Need it be said that white men in general and white working-class men in particular are part of this upsurge? (Lest anyone conclude as some on the left do, that white working class men are somehow the source of the problem. The Virginia primary should have disabused anyone of that notion). Today states that formerly voted Republican are now too in play. The man has met the moment and helped create a new movement: and it's here to stay.
I was sitting with some friends yesterday and discussing the significance of the end of the Democratic primaries. One commented that the general election was going to be really difficult for the presumptive nominee who in his view had failed to get any bounce upon winning the nomination. I was a little surprised by his pessimism and sent him an AP poll in this morning's news that should put aside those fears. The AP news story says in part:
“The Gallup daily tracking poll Tuesday showed Obama with a 7 percentage-point lead nationally over presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Obama's widest lead since Gallup started the general election polling in March.
McCain was leading Obama by 1 percent early last week, but Obama started to tick up in the surveys after he defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.The latest reading from Gallup showed Obama with 48 percent to McCain's 41 percent. The poll was taken June 7-9, of 2,633 registered voters. The margin of error was 2 percentage points.”
My friend hasn't responded so far, however clearly he is influenced by the doubts about Obama's chances among the general electorate because of fears influenced by racism. The reasoning goes: if he can't carry the white working-class male and female vote among Democrats, how can he possibly do well enough to compensate among independents and moderate leaning Republicans in the general election?
The ideological fault line in this method of thinking is in its analysis of the white working-class vote. The problems lies in two areas; first in the very conception of the working class itself and with it a gross misconception of gender and class and the ways in which they worked themselves out in the Democratic primaries.
On the first issue, as Erwin Marquit points out in a recent article in PA, “Overcoming Unscientific Concepts of Working Class,” narrow views of productive labor act as theoretical brakes and lends to faulty analysis and action. Fact is, “middle-class” income brackets that voted for Obama, even if composed of academics and other professionals are largely working-class by today's standards. When this is combined with the “blue collar “vote of Black, Brown and white workers, Obama clearly held his own when compared to Clinton.
The gender issue adds to this in a unique way. The women's vote in general was pro-women's equality. The vote of white women was not anti-Obama in this sense, but rather for seeing a woman become president. In addition, it's a truism that women due to their experience of oppression as women tend to vote “better” than men on most questions and come down on the democratic side of the fence. And did I mention that most of those women are working class?
I asked my friend, “What if Hillary Clinton had been a white man?” He looked at me sort of dumbfounded. But think about it; clearly it would have been a very different primary. Why? Because first, as suggested above, Obama, would likely have won a majority of the women's vote, as the absence of a female candidate would not have drawn away the galvanizing force of the insurgent female ballots. As a result, Obama both because of the his qualities as a candidate and due to the nature of the political moment might well have won a landslide. As Bob Kerrey a Clinton supporter pointed out in a Sunday New York Times op ed, he even may well have won a landslide against Bill Clinton himself and any other Democratic candidate of the last 50 years. He wrote:
"If Barack Obama had been born 10 years earlier and had been a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1992, neither I nor Bill Clinton would have defeated him...
The hard truth is that from the moment Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007, Mrs. Clinton was facing a candidate with greater skills than any candidate her husband had ever faced in his life."
Kerrey may overemphasize individual skills and suffer from a "great-man-in-history syndrome." Still the qualities of the candidate, along with the nature of the political moment is such that a combination of the working-class vote (which by way is black, brown and white, male and female), the democratic upsurge among women, African Americans and Latinos, the addition of huge numbers of new voters to polls combined with the anti-right-wing sentiment among the broad public will result in a decisive victory in November. Need it be said that white men in general and white working-class men in particular are part of this upsurge? (Lest anyone conclude as some on the left do, that white working class men are somehow the source of the problem. The Virginia primary should have disabused anyone of that notion). Today states that formerly voted Republican are now too in play. The man has met the moment and helped create a new movement: and it's here to stay.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The McCain-Clinton Gas Tax Bonanza
By Joel Wendland
So I used the calculator at this site – http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13lkzo –
to figure out how much I'd save with the John McCain - Hillary Clinton gas tax "holiday." My savings for this summer would total $4.14. I estimate that equals about 5 hours of rent for me and my family. Thanks Hill. Thanks John for your extra efforts to really boost the economy.
Please let's get serious.
So I used the calculator at this site – http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13lkzo –
to figure out how much I'd save with the John McCain - Hillary Clinton gas tax "holiday." My savings for this summer would total $4.14. I estimate that equals about 5 hours of rent for me and my family. Thanks Hill. Thanks John for your extra efforts to really boost the economy.
Please let's get serious.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Voter fraud in Pennsylvania – scoop!
by Matt Parker
Hillary supporters were handing out the fake ballots in front of polling places all over Philadelphia.
Hillary supporters were handing out the fake ballots in front of polling places all over Philadelphia.
At the polling place I was at, the guy handing them out was standing right in front of the door as people walked in to go vote. You couldn't get past him without taking one.
He gave me a hard time when I tried to take his picture, but he immediately disappeared after I turned my back on him to call.
The "ballot" itself says "official", and is obviously meant to confuse or hoodwink people into voting for hillary clinton.
I called the board of elections, but all they did was take my name and ask me to mail them pictures and the fake ballot. They weren't interested in sending a cop out to stop voter fraud. I tried to talk to someone higher up, but they said that "Bob Lee", the voter registration Administrator was already gone for the day. GONE - for the day !?!?!?!? It was 7PM, the polls were still open for another hour.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Live in Philly
By Tim Wheeler
PHILADELPHIA— With polls showing the gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama narrowing to single digits, the rival Democratic presidential candidates barnstormed across the state and volunteers went door-to-door to turn out voters in the crucial April 22 primary.
Obama fired up 38,000 supporters during an April 18 rally at Independence Mall in downtown Philadelphia. Thousands in the crowd wore the purple T shirts of the Service Employees International Union or waved “Teamsters for Obama” signs. “This election is our chance to declare our independence from the broken politics of Washington,” Obama told the cheering crowd. “No matter who we are supporting in this primary campaign, the one thing we know for sure is that the change the country needs will not come from a third George W. Bush term. And that is exactly what John McCain is offering…four more years of a war with no exit strategy, no end in sight, that’s sending our troops on their third, fourth, and fifth tours of duty….four more years of tax cuts for CEOs and corporations...”
So far this year, he added, 8,300 Pennsylvanians and 232,000 others have lost their jobs, millions are losing their homes in foreclosure and millions more are without health insurance or pensions. “I don’t think we can afford four more years of George Bush and John McCain’s ideas of economic progress. Its time to turn the page.”
Clinton is a politician who openly boasts that she can wheel and deal with the corporate lobbyists in Washington, Obama said. “I’m not running to be the president who plays the same old Washington games,” he thundered. “I’m running to end the game playing in Washington…I don’t believe we can take on the lobbyists if we keep taking their money….It will take a movement like we’ve built in this campaign…to change this country.”
Hundreds of Obama volunteers worked from a network of regional offices across the state. Connecticut volunteers worked the mostly Polish-American neighborhood of Port Richmond in Philadelphia. “We ran into a group of Hillary Clinton’s volunteers, members of the Communications Workers of America,” one New Haven volunteer told the PWW. “We had a wonderful talk with them. We refused to argue with each other and put our focus on the need to defeat McCain in November,” she said.
This reporter tagged along with a bus load of volunteers from Baltimore who fanned out east and west of Broad Street near Temple University. “You are in Obama territory,” said Gabe Gonzales. He urged those fluent in Spanish to step forward to work in Latino neighborhoods. “Philadelphia is fired up. This is a movement not just an election campaign.”
Gonzales decried Clinton’s attempt to exploit Obama’s use of the word “bitter,” to describe the anger of workers hit by plant closings. “I’m from Gary, I’ve lived through the plant shutdowns. I saw what it did to workers in my town. Bitter doesn’t begin to express how we feel. I’m pissed.”
At the other end of the state, Obama and Clinton spoke separately to an April 14 meeting of 2,000 steelworkers in Pittsburgh jointly sponsored by the United Steelworkers and a number of steel corporations. Obama got a standing ovation when he announced that if elected he will sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) making it easier for workers to join unions. He stressed the role of organized labor in providing higher wages and benefits in helping pull the nation out of recession.
While she did not mention it in her speech, Clinton, too, has endorsed the EFCA. She focused on “green jobs” to restore manufacturing. But when she dredged up Obama’s “bitter” comment the crowd booed. One woman worker shouted, “Your damn right. They took everything.”
Carl Davidson who lives near Aliquippa, PA. among the hardest hit by the shutdown of steel mills in Western PA. is active in Progressives For Obama, an offshoot of Progressive Democrats of America. “Obama has a very good shot at defeating McCain in November,” Davidson told the World in a phone interview. “If we can get a large number of voters under the age of forty to the polls, that will be critical to his victory.” He blasted Bill and Hillary Clinton for “playing the race card” and negative campaigning. “The racebaiting and redbaiting is really vicious. Hillary is really getting down to the bottom of the barrel.”
The negative campaigning has not produced any swing to her among Democratic superdelegates. Even with a narrow win here, Obama still holds an insurmountable lead in delegates.
Democratic Party National Chairman, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are calling on superdelegates to announce their preferance by the end of June. Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate told the Wall Street Journal, “There’s a group around (Sen. Clinton) that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the Party. It scares me and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.”
PHILADELPHIA— With polls showing the gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama narrowing to single digits, the rival Democratic presidential candidates barnstormed across the state and volunteers went door-to-door to turn out voters in the crucial April 22 primary.
Obama fired up 38,000 supporters during an April 18 rally at Independence Mall in downtown Philadelphia. Thousands in the crowd wore the purple T shirts of the Service Employees International Union or waved “Teamsters for Obama” signs. “This election is our chance to declare our independence from the broken politics of Washington,” Obama told the cheering crowd. “No matter who we are supporting in this primary campaign, the one thing we know for sure is that the change the country needs will not come from a third George W. Bush term. And that is exactly what John McCain is offering…four more years of a war with no exit strategy, no end in sight, that’s sending our troops on their third, fourth, and fifth tours of duty….four more years of tax cuts for CEOs and corporations...”
So far this year, he added, 8,300 Pennsylvanians and 232,000 others have lost their jobs, millions are losing their homes in foreclosure and millions more are without health insurance or pensions. “I don’t think we can afford four more years of George Bush and John McCain’s ideas of economic progress. Its time to turn the page.”
Clinton is a politician who openly boasts that she can wheel and deal with the corporate lobbyists in Washington, Obama said. “I’m not running to be the president who plays the same old Washington games,” he thundered. “I’m running to end the game playing in Washington…I don’t believe we can take on the lobbyists if we keep taking their money….It will take a movement like we’ve built in this campaign…to change this country.”
Hundreds of Obama volunteers worked from a network of regional offices across the state. Connecticut volunteers worked the mostly Polish-American neighborhood of Port Richmond in Philadelphia. “We ran into a group of Hillary Clinton’s volunteers, members of the Communications Workers of America,” one New Haven volunteer told the PWW. “We had a wonderful talk with them. We refused to argue with each other and put our focus on the need to defeat McCain in November,” she said.
This reporter tagged along with a bus load of volunteers from Baltimore who fanned out east and west of Broad Street near Temple University. “You are in Obama territory,” said Gabe Gonzales. He urged those fluent in Spanish to step forward to work in Latino neighborhoods. “Philadelphia is fired up. This is a movement not just an election campaign.”
Gonzales decried Clinton’s attempt to exploit Obama’s use of the word “bitter,” to describe the anger of workers hit by plant closings. “I’m from Gary, I’ve lived through the plant shutdowns. I saw what it did to workers in my town. Bitter doesn’t begin to express how we feel. I’m pissed.”
At the other end of the state, Obama and Clinton spoke separately to an April 14 meeting of 2,000 steelworkers in Pittsburgh jointly sponsored by the United Steelworkers and a number of steel corporations. Obama got a standing ovation when he announced that if elected he will sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) making it easier for workers to join unions. He stressed the role of organized labor in providing higher wages and benefits in helping pull the nation out of recession.
While she did not mention it in her speech, Clinton, too, has endorsed the EFCA. She focused on “green jobs” to restore manufacturing. But when she dredged up Obama’s “bitter” comment the crowd booed. One woman worker shouted, “Your damn right. They took everything.”
Carl Davidson who lives near Aliquippa, PA. among the hardest hit by the shutdown of steel mills in Western PA. is active in Progressives For Obama, an offshoot of Progressive Democrats of America. “Obama has a very good shot at defeating McCain in November,” Davidson told the World in a phone interview. “If we can get a large number of voters under the age of forty to the polls, that will be critical to his victory.” He blasted Bill and Hillary Clinton for “playing the race card” and negative campaigning. “The racebaiting and redbaiting is really vicious. Hillary is really getting down to the bottom of the barrel.”
The negative campaigning has not produced any swing to her among Democratic superdelegates. Even with a narrow win here, Obama still holds an insurmountable lead in delegates.
Democratic Party National Chairman, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are calling on superdelegates to announce their preferance by the end of June. Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate told the Wall Street Journal, “There’s a group around (Sen. Clinton) that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the Party. It scares me and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.”
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Geraldine Ferraro and the Clinton Campaign's "Race" Narrative
By Joel Wendland
When Geraldine Ferraro made comments about Barack Obama's race just days before the Mississippi primary, it was no slip of the tongue.
Ferraro told a reporter late last week that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Taking offense, many people read Ferraro as restating the oft-repeated right-wing claim that leading African American figures are undeserving and rose unfairly through the ranks only through affirmative action.
No expression of Obama's well-organized, inspiring, and substantive campaign. No assertions that perhaps Obama is winning the popular vote among Democratic voters because people across gender, race, and region see him as electable and as an honest, trustworthy leader who will bring real change after 8 years in the Bush desert. Only his race.
Ferraro practically confirmed that she meant to hint at the affirmative action issue when she responded to criticism of her comments by saying that during the nomination process "in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
But she couldn't let it rest with this offensive sentiment and lashed out at those who sought an apology: "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" In other words, Black people who didn't like my offensive comment are racist toward me for saying so.
She appeared to project the calculating nature of her comment, its timing and intended purpose onto the motives of the Obama campaign for responding to her remarks. She accused Obama of playing the "race card." "He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race."
Through it all, the Clinton campaign refused to fire Ferraro, to denounce or reject her comments, only expressing "disagreement."
This type of "wink-wink" response, of course, is no accident either.
The original purpose of the comments was to get a Clinton surrogate to inject race – without substantive discussion about racism and inequality – into the campaign in order to ensure that it was being talked about on March 11th, the day of the Mississippi primary, a state where approximately half of the Democratic voters are African American. (Note that Ferraro's comments were first reported on Mar. 7, one day before the nearly all-white Wyoming caucus, but little discussion took place in the media when Obama claimed an 18-point victory there.)
The point was to give the media the talking points to dismiss the 24-point landslide outcome in Obama's favor in Mississippi without having to have Hillary or Bill Clinton explicitly raise the racist card themselves as they mistakenly did in South Carolina.
This time Ferraro played the role Hillary and Bill Clinton played last time. But as Ferraro expressed in her angry retort about how sexist her detractors are, she thought she would have the added cover of not being Bill.
The remark fits into what increasingly appears to be the long-term campaign narrative of the Clinton folk: Barack Obama is Black and therefore not qualified or electable.
This notion was overtly expressed by Clinton backer Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell in early February, the day after the Super Tuesday losses for the Clinton campaign. He said that he thought Barack Obama would not win in Pennsylvania because he is Black, and voters in his state are racist and won't go for that.
While Rendell and his surrogates described his view as "realistic," when taken with the Clintons' comments in South Carolina and Geraldine Ferraro's statements before Mississippi (in addition to a host of other comments by lesser lights in the Clinton campaign) the racist theme is not just a slip of the tongue by exuberant supporters.
This is what campaign PR people call a "narrative." It gives legitimacy and credence to the right-wing's planned racist attacks on Barack Obama. And it deserves to be exposed and shunned. It has no place in democratic (small "d") politics. And if the Democratic Party doesn't watch out, racist divisiveness will cost them, and the American people, the fall campaign. But then again, one is beginning to wonder if Hillary Clinton really cares about the success of any Democratic campaign in the fall without her.
When Geraldine Ferraro made comments about Barack Obama's race just days before the Mississippi primary, it was no slip of the tongue.
Ferraro told a reporter late last week that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Taking offense, many people read Ferraro as restating the oft-repeated right-wing claim that leading African American figures are undeserving and rose unfairly through the ranks only through affirmative action.
No expression of Obama's well-organized, inspiring, and substantive campaign. No assertions that perhaps Obama is winning the popular vote among Democratic voters because people across gender, race, and region see him as electable and as an honest, trustworthy leader who will bring real change after 8 years in the Bush desert. Only his race.
Ferraro practically confirmed that she meant to hint at the affirmative action issue when she responded to criticism of her comments by saying that during the nomination process "in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate."
But she couldn't let it rest with this offensive sentiment and lashed out at those who sought an apology: "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" In other words, Black people who didn't like my offensive comment are racist toward me for saying so.
She appeared to project the calculating nature of her comment, its timing and intended purpose onto the motives of the Obama campaign for responding to her remarks. She accused Obama of playing the "race card." "He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race."
Through it all, the Clinton campaign refused to fire Ferraro, to denounce or reject her comments, only expressing "disagreement."
This type of "wink-wink" response, of course, is no accident either.
The original purpose of the comments was to get a Clinton surrogate to inject race – without substantive discussion about racism and inequality – into the campaign in order to ensure that it was being talked about on March 11th, the day of the Mississippi primary, a state where approximately half of the Democratic voters are African American. (Note that Ferraro's comments were first reported on Mar. 7, one day before the nearly all-white Wyoming caucus, but little discussion took place in the media when Obama claimed an 18-point victory there.)
The point was to give the media the talking points to dismiss the 24-point landslide outcome in Obama's favor in Mississippi without having to have Hillary or Bill Clinton explicitly raise the racist card themselves as they mistakenly did in South Carolina.
This time Ferraro played the role Hillary and Bill Clinton played last time. But as Ferraro expressed in her angry retort about how sexist her detractors are, she thought she would have the added cover of not being Bill.
The remark fits into what increasingly appears to be the long-term campaign narrative of the Clinton folk: Barack Obama is Black and therefore not qualified or electable.
This notion was overtly expressed by Clinton backer Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell in early February, the day after the Super Tuesday losses for the Clinton campaign. He said that he thought Barack Obama would not win in Pennsylvania because he is Black, and voters in his state are racist and won't go for that.
While Rendell and his surrogates described his view as "realistic," when taken with the Clintons' comments in South Carolina and Geraldine Ferraro's statements before Mississippi (in addition to a host of other comments by lesser lights in the Clinton campaign) the racist theme is not just a slip of the tongue by exuberant supporters.
This is what campaign PR people call a "narrative." It gives legitimacy and credence to the right-wing's planned racist attacks on Barack Obama. And it deserves to be exposed and shunned. It has no place in democratic (small "d") politics. And if the Democratic Party doesn't watch out, racist divisiveness will cost them, and the American people, the fall campaign. But then again, one is beginning to wonder if Hillary Clinton really cares about the success of any Democratic campaign in the fall without her.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mississippi Magic
By Joel Wendland
"Beat her," said Clinton campaign adviser and Democratic firebrand James Carville on CNN's Larry King Live Monday night (March 10) in regard to criticisms of Clinton's divisive campaign tactics. "If you want her out just beat her."
Carville's comments must infuriate Barack Obama supporters who are saying, "How many times do we have to win?"
After tonight's impressive victory in Mississippi, Barack Obama has won 28 contests of 42.
According to exit polling data, a majority of Democratic voters said Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief. Most appeared not to believe Clinton campaign claims to the contrary, preferring Obama over Clinton. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (Clinton campaign chair in his state) appeared to break with the campaign's narrative about Obama's qualifications with a comment yesterday that an Obama-Clinton ticket, with Obama as Pres., would work for him.
"We need to come together," he said. Perhaps his feelings are shared by a growing number of voters who support the Democratic Party worried about the possibility that internecine strife could harm the needed unity to win in November.
More than two-in-three Mississippi Democratic voters described Obama as inspiring, while less than half ascribed this characteristic to Clinton.
Seven-in-ten voters see Obama as honest and trustworthy, while only half said the same of Clinton.
By almost 2-to-1, Mississippi Dems said Obama was more likely to defeat McCain in the November election.
On CNN's live TV coverage, Carville predictably downplayed the Mississippi primary results by saying Obama was expected to win, so it doesn't change things. Carville's logic begs the question of why Clinton's expected victories in each of the states she has won – she led in the polls in each of the states she won since she stepped into the race – makes a case for her being a stronger candidate?
Supporters of Barack Obama argue that any Democrat would win states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, but the battlegrounds will be in states that Obama carried: Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, Iowa, and Colorado.
Carville did make a strong point that the diversity of people who vote for Democrats sharply contrasts with the lily whiteness of the Republican Party's leading figures.
In their coverage, CNN reporters and pundits discussed the racial identity of voters quite a bit. CNN anchor Soledad O'Brian said, "Race will be the dominate theme in this race," referring to Mississippi. But the entire subtext of media coverage was that Mississippi matters little in the race for the nomination because more than half of its Democratic voters are Black.
This easy dismissal just doesn't explain his landslide victory in Wyoming last Saturday, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Virginia, etc.
Only Donna Brazile seemed to challenge this narrative by arguing that it is a good thing that Black voters are turning out to the polls in huge numbers and are excited by the possibility of selecting not just an African American but someone who can beat John McCain in November and bring real change to the country. That is good for the Democratic Party, she opined.
It is a great thing.
"Beat her," said Clinton campaign adviser and Democratic firebrand James Carville on CNN's Larry King Live Monday night (March 10) in regard to criticisms of Clinton's divisive campaign tactics. "If you want her out just beat her."
Carville's comments must infuriate Barack Obama supporters who are saying, "How many times do we have to win?"
After tonight's impressive victory in Mississippi, Barack Obama has won 28 contests of 42.
According to exit polling data, a majority of Democratic voters said Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief. Most appeared not to believe Clinton campaign claims to the contrary, preferring Obama over Clinton. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (Clinton campaign chair in his state) appeared to break with the campaign's narrative about Obama's qualifications with a comment yesterday that an Obama-Clinton ticket, with Obama as Pres., would work for him.
"We need to come together," he said. Perhaps his feelings are shared by a growing number of voters who support the Democratic Party worried about the possibility that internecine strife could harm the needed unity to win in November.
More than two-in-three Mississippi Democratic voters described Obama as inspiring, while less than half ascribed this characteristic to Clinton.
Seven-in-ten voters see Obama as honest and trustworthy, while only half said the same of Clinton.
By almost 2-to-1, Mississippi Dems said Obama was more likely to defeat McCain in the November election.
On CNN's live TV coverage, Carville predictably downplayed the Mississippi primary results by saying Obama was expected to win, so it doesn't change things. Carville's logic begs the question of why Clinton's expected victories in each of the states she has won – she led in the polls in each of the states she won since she stepped into the race – makes a case for her being a stronger candidate?
Supporters of Barack Obama argue that any Democrat would win states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, but the battlegrounds will be in states that Obama carried: Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, Iowa, and Colorado.
Carville did make a strong point that the diversity of people who vote for Democrats sharply contrasts with the lily whiteness of the Republican Party's leading figures.
In their coverage, CNN reporters and pundits discussed the racial identity of voters quite a bit. CNN anchor Soledad O'Brian said, "Race will be the dominate theme in this race," referring to Mississippi. But the entire subtext of media coverage was that Mississippi matters little in the race for the nomination because more than half of its Democratic voters are Black.
This easy dismissal just doesn't explain his landslide victory in Wyoming last Saturday, or Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Virginia, etc.
Only Donna Brazile seemed to challenge this narrative by arguing that it is a good thing that Black voters are turning out to the polls in huge numbers and are excited by the possibility of selecting not just an African American but someone who can beat John McCain in November and bring real change to the country. That is good for the Democratic Party, she opined.
It is a great thing.
John McCain Creates Jobs...in France
By Joel Wendland
The Associated Press is reporting that three of John McCain's top campaign advisers lobbied for European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), which recently won a lucrative Pentagon contract to replace Air Force tankers.
While two of those aides are said to have dropped lobbying activities during the campaign, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for EADS while working for McCain, according to the AP story.
The contract, which went to EADS (Airbus) and its partner Northrop Grumman instead of Boeing, angered many after its announcement. Critics described it as outsourcing national security and a dismal failure at addressing the growing unemployment problem in a time of economic recession.
Thousands of Boeing workers are members of the Machinist union (International Association of Machinists – IAM) and stand to lose work due to the outcome of the contract. According to the union, if the contract had been awarded to Boeing, it would have supported 44,000 jobs for Boeing and 300 contractors in 40 states.
IAM General Vice President Rich Michalski blasted the Bush administration, saying, “President Bush and his administration have denied real economic stimulus to the American people and chosen instead to create jobs in Toulouse, France.”
The decision to outsource this project also flies in the face of President Bush's recent denial of harsh economic realities. "I think actually spending in the war might help with jobs," he told NBC News just days before a government report showed a net loss of 63,000 jobs from the economy.
In 2005, John McCain held Senate hearings that investigated Boeing and used his influence to block the Pentagon from considering EU subsidies EADS/Airbus receives to lower its prices. Both actions likely played a strong role in hindering the awarding of this contract to Boeing.
In addition to his close relationships with current and former EADS/Airbus lobbyists, John McCain took thousands in campaign contributions from EADS employees. A recent report by the Seattle PI suggests, however, that Hillary Clinton has taken the most of the three remaining presidential candidates from executives at EADS's partner Northrop Grumman.
There are troubling signs of a conflict of interest and influence peddling by John McCain deserving a serious Senate Ethics Committee investigation.
The Associated Press is reporting that three of John McCain's top campaign advisers lobbied for European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), which recently won a lucrative Pentagon contract to replace Air Force tankers.
While two of those aides are said to have dropped lobbying activities during the campaign, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for EADS while working for McCain, according to the AP story.
The contract, which went to EADS (Airbus) and its partner Northrop Grumman instead of Boeing, angered many after its announcement. Critics described it as outsourcing national security and a dismal failure at addressing the growing unemployment problem in a time of economic recession.
Thousands of Boeing workers are members of the Machinist union (International Association of Machinists – IAM) and stand to lose work due to the outcome of the contract. According to the union, if the contract had been awarded to Boeing, it would have supported 44,000 jobs for Boeing and 300 contractors in 40 states.
IAM General Vice President Rich Michalski blasted the Bush administration, saying, “President Bush and his administration have denied real economic stimulus to the American people and chosen instead to create jobs in Toulouse, France.”
The decision to outsource this project also flies in the face of President Bush's recent denial of harsh economic realities. "I think actually spending in the war might help with jobs," he told NBC News just days before a government report showed a net loss of 63,000 jobs from the economy.
In 2005, John McCain held Senate hearings that investigated Boeing and used his influence to block the Pentagon from considering EU subsidies EADS/Airbus receives to lower its prices. Both actions likely played a strong role in hindering the awarding of this contract to Boeing.
In addition to his close relationships with current and former EADS/Airbus lobbyists, John McCain took thousands in campaign contributions from EADS employees. A recent report by the Seattle PI suggests, however, that Hillary Clinton has taken the most of the three remaining presidential candidates from executives at EADS's partner Northrop Grumman.
There are troubling signs of a conflict of interest and influence peddling by John McCain deserving a serious Senate Ethics Committee investigation.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Republicans Hint at Racist Tenor of Fall Campaign: will Dems Buy In?
By Joel Wendland
Launching a blatantly racist and xenophobic attack, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a radio station this:
What does "the optics of Barack Obama" mean? It means Barack Obama looks Black and his middle name is "Muslim," therefore, he is not really American. Because of Obama's optics, how he looks, he will pursue policies that hurt America and benefit terrorists, King insisted.
King is well known for his extreme views on racism and hatred for immigrants and so forth. So many will dismiss him as such. But some of these ideas have crept into the Democratic side and are being used in the race for the nomination as well.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told reporters in February that he thought Barack Obama would not win in Pennsylvania because he is Black. While Rendell and his surrogates described his view as "realistic," it is a view that feeds into King's comments. Essentially, Rendell, who is an endorser of Sen. Clinton, is saying, "I refuse to support an African American because some of the people in my state are racists."
In a similar vein, when asked on CBS if she thought Barack Obama is a Muslim, Sen. Hillary Clinton remarked, "There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
While not an overtly anti-Muslim comment, Clinton's comment warns, "Fear."
It, too, feeds into and gives subtle legitimacy to Steve King's blatantly racist and xenophobic comments.
This is the politics of division based on fear and hate. If we are to move forward, to change, people like Clinton and Rendell need to stand up to the politics of division and fear and bigotry. They need to claim leadership in the democratic movement and fight the racists and bigots like King, rather than legitimize his hateful remarks.
Launching a blatantly racist and xenophobic attack, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told a radio station this:
"I'll just say this that when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States -- and I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?
What does "the optics of Barack Obama" mean? It means Barack Obama looks Black and his middle name is "Muslim," therefore, he is not really American. Because of Obama's optics, how he looks, he will pursue policies that hurt America and benefit terrorists, King insisted.
King is well known for his extreme views on racism and hatred for immigrants and so forth. So many will dismiss him as such. But some of these ideas have crept into the Democratic side and are being used in the race for the nomination as well.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told reporters in February that he thought Barack Obama would not win in Pennsylvania because he is Black. While Rendell and his surrogates described his view as "realistic," it is a view that feeds into King's comments. Essentially, Rendell, who is an endorser of Sen. Clinton, is saying, "I refuse to support an African American because some of the people in my state are racists."
In a similar vein, when asked on CBS if she thought Barack Obama is a Muslim, Sen. Hillary Clinton remarked, "There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
While not an overtly anti-Muslim comment, Clinton's comment warns, "Fear."
It, too, feeds into and gives subtle legitimacy to Steve King's blatantly racist and xenophobic comments.
This is the politics of division based on fear and hate. If we are to move forward, to change, people like Clinton and Rendell need to stand up to the politics of division and fear and bigotry. They need to claim leadership in the democratic movement and fight the racists and bigots like King, rather than legitimize his hateful remarks.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Ultra right defeated in Houston
By Paul Hill
HOUSTON – Any way you look at it, the ultra-right suffered a resounding defeat in Harris County in the 2008 Texas primaries. In spite of Rush Limbaugh’s admonitions to his constituency to cross over and vote for Sen. Clinton, she was defeated 56.15% to 43.30% in Harris County according to the Texas Office of the Secretary of State website. The victor, Sen. Obama, received 227,886 votes as compared with 87,426 votes for Sen. McCain in the Republican primary. In other words, there were 2.6 times as many votes for Obama as McCain in Harris County in the primary election. If you add Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. Obama’s votes there were a total of 403,610 votes or 4.6 times as many votes for the two Democratic candidates as for McCain. Radical libertarian Ron Paul received 9,138 votes for his anti-war stance among Republicans. This means that the vote for anti-war candidates was 4.8 times as many as for McCain in Harris County which has been portrayed by the mainstream media as a stronghold for Bush supporters.
It is instructive to take a look at 2004 when Bush was riding high in Harris County. At that time, the total vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary was 73,747 and in the Republican primary the vote was 78,898. This means that in the 2008 Texas primaries, 5.1 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as did Republicans in the 2004 primary in Harris County.
Labor endorsed candidates fared well in Harris County with some exceptions. Rick Noriega, a labor endorsed candidate, won in Harris County with 56.53% of the vote and will face anti-labor Sen. John Cornyn in November. Labor backed Carol Alvarado won 69.3% of the vote for State Representative, District 145. All of the labor backed candidates for Texas Supreme Court won as did candidates for the Courts of Criminal Appeals. Labor backed Rep. Kevin Bailey was resoundingly defeated by Armando Walle 57.4% to 42.6%. Bailey was seen as an ally to ultra-right iron-fisted Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. Labor backed candidate David Mincberg for County Judge won easily as did Labor endorsed C.O. Bradford for District Attorney.
Democrats are very positive about the candidates selected in the primary. They are hoping to emulate the sweep of Judicial seats seen in Dallas county in 2006. Many people are outraged by the heavy handed tactics of the Bush picked right wing judges in Harris county and are looking forward to more fairness in the courts and criminal justice system after the election.
HOUSTON – Any way you look at it, the ultra-right suffered a resounding defeat in Harris County in the 2008 Texas primaries. In spite of Rush Limbaugh’s admonitions to his constituency to cross over and vote for Sen. Clinton, she was defeated 56.15% to 43.30% in Harris County according to the Texas Office of the Secretary of State website. The victor, Sen. Obama, received 227,886 votes as compared with 87,426 votes for Sen. McCain in the Republican primary. In other words, there were 2.6 times as many votes for Obama as McCain in Harris County in the primary election. If you add Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. Obama’s votes there were a total of 403,610 votes or 4.6 times as many votes for the two Democratic candidates as for McCain. Radical libertarian Ron Paul received 9,138 votes for his anti-war stance among Republicans. This means that the vote for anti-war candidates was 4.8 times as many as for McCain in Harris County which has been portrayed by the mainstream media as a stronghold for Bush supporters.
It is instructive to take a look at 2004 when Bush was riding high in Harris County. At that time, the total vote in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary was 73,747 and in the Republican primary the vote was 78,898. This means that in the 2008 Texas primaries, 5.1 times as many people voted in the Democratic primary as did Republicans in the 2004 primary in Harris County.
Labor endorsed candidates fared well in Harris County with some exceptions. Rick Noriega, a labor endorsed candidate, won in Harris County with 56.53% of the vote and will face anti-labor Sen. John Cornyn in November. Labor backed Carol Alvarado won 69.3% of the vote for State Representative, District 145. All of the labor backed candidates for Texas Supreme Court won as did candidates for the Courts of Criminal Appeals. Labor backed Rep. Kevin Bailey was resoundingly defeated by Armando Walle 57.4% to 42.6%. Bailey was seen as an ally to ultra-right iron-fisted Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick. Labor backed candidate David Mincberg for County Judge won easily as did Labor endorsed C.O. Bradford for District Attorney.
Democrats are very positive about the candidates selected in the primary. They are hoping to emulate the sweep of Judicial seats seen in Dallas county in 2006. Many people are outraged by the heavy handed tactics of the Bush picked right wing judges in Harris county and are looking forward to more fairness in the courts and criminal justice system after the election.
NAFTA-gate – Some clarification please!
By Joel Wendland
A Canadian news report this week revealed that Hillary Clinton's campaign called Canadian diplomats to warn them that her own campaign posturing about NAFTA was to be "taken with a grain of salt."
In the days before the March 4th primary, Hillary Clinton scored some points with Ohio voters, who understand that NAFTA has decimated their manufacturing economy, when an illegally leaked Canadian government memo appeared to indicate that Barack Obama's pledge to revisit NAFTA was not sincere.
What didn't make it into Clinton campaign memos or much of the media punditry that swiftly followed was that memo also described Obama's commitment to renegotiating the trade agreement on the issue of jobs and the environment and making them "core principles" of the agreement, something labor and environmental activists failed to win under the Clinton administration in the 1990s.
A report in the Washington Post, Mar. 4, quoted the Canadian memo as saying, that Obama is "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."
Yesterday, Mar. 5, the Canadian-based Globe and Mail, reporting on the Canadian government's internal investigation of the illegal leak of the memo, revealed that, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, the Clinton campaign called Canadian diplomats to ease their worries about their own denunciations of NAFTA:
Quoting The Globe and Mail:
In other words, while ranting and raving about perceived misstatements by an Obama campaign adviser, the Clinton campaign had done the very thing she had denounced.
So let's get some clarification. On one of the most crucial issues facing working families – how trade affects jobs – we are getting a muddy picture. We need clear outlines on how job growth will be promoted, what kinds of policies will rebuild the manufacturing sector with good unions jobs?
The question of jobs and the economy are so important, now is not the time to play games. NAFTA is no joke, and working families are coming to understand that because the agreement failed to include real protections for jobs and the environment back when the Clinton administration pushed so strongly for its passage, it helped move jobs out of the country by making exports to the US cheap.
We know that the John McCain alternative is to accept job losses and to push more corporate loopholes and tax breaks that will move more jobs out of the economy. McCain told Ohio voters during a campaign stop there that they are just going to have to get used to it. "Have people lost jobs?" he said. "Yes, they have, and they're gonna lose jobs."
So to the Democratic candidates: no more games.
A Canadian news report this week revealed that Hillary Clinton's campaign called Canadian diplomats to warn them that her own campaign posturing about NAFTA was to be "taken with a grain of salt."
In the days before the March 4th primary, Hillary Clinton scored some points with Ohio voters, who understand that NAFTA has decimated their manufacturing economy, when an illegally leaked Canadian government memo appeared to indicate that Barack Obama's pledge to revisit NAFTA was not sincere.
What didn't make it into Clinton campaign memos or much of the media punditry that swiftly followed was that memo also described Obama's commitment to renegotiating the trade agreement on the issue of jobs and the environment and making them "core principles" of the agreement, something labor and environmental activists failed to win under the Clinton administration in the 1990s.
A report in the Washington Post, Mar. 4, quoted the Canadian memo as saying, that Obama is "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."
Yesterday, Mar. 5, the Canadian-based Globe and Mail, reporting on the Canadian government's internal investigation of the illegal leak of the memo, revealed that, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, the Clinton campaign called Canadian diplomats to ease their worries about their own denunciations of NAFTA:
Quoting The Globe and Mail:
Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.
The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
In other words, while ranting and raving about perceived misstatements by an Obama campaign adviser, the Clinton campaign had done the very thing she had denounced.
So let's get some clarification. On one of the most crucial issues facing working families – how trade affects jobs – we are getting a muddy picture. We need clear outlines on how job growth will be promoted, what kinds of policies will rebuild the manufacturing sector with good unions jobs?
The question of jobs and the economy are so important, now is not the time to play games. NAFTA is no joke, and working families are coming to understand that because the agreement failed to include real protections for jobs and the environment back when the Clinton administration pushed so strongly for its passage, it helped move jobs out of the country by making exports to the US cheap.
We know that the John McCain alternative is to accept job losses and to push more corporate loopholes and tax breaks that will move more jobs out of the economy. McCain told Ohio voters during a campaign stop there that they are just going to have to get used to it. "Have people lost jobs?" he said. "Yes, they have, and they're gonna lose jobs."
So to the Democratic candidates: no more games.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Obama Retains Lead, Clinton Makes Case for Going On
by Joel Wendland
While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) managed to stake a claim for staying in the race for the Democratic nomination with a split victory on "crucial Tuesday," Mar. 4, she failed to overcome numerical odds against her capturing the nomination of that party.
Barack Obama held on to a roughly 100 delegate lead, by most media estimates. But with a mere 600 pledged delegates remaining and both candidates more than 700 away from clinching the majority needed to win, it is increasingly likely that the Democratic nomination will be decided late into the spring and quite possibly by the much maligned superdelegate voting process.
The night began with Obama's 12th straight victory in Vermont, but quickly unraveled from there. Clinton opened an early commanding lead in Ohio that narrowed to a 10-point victory after the votes had been counted.
A ballot shortage in Cleveland-area precincts, an Obama stronghold, sparked some controversy. Though Obama campaign lawyers convinced a judge to keep the polls open an extra hour and a half, no outside estimates exist on how many votes may have been lost in the process.
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who oversees Ohio's controversial elections process and who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, denied that ballot shortages in Cleveland caused lost votes.
Obama's campaign efforts in Ohio included a massive virtual phonebanking effort that claimed to reach more than 1 million voters in Ohio and Texas. Activists from Michigan, West Virginia, and Illinois poured across the border to canvass and turn out the vote.
Hundreds of Obama supporters in Columbus, Ohio staged a march to the polls to participate in the early voting process last weekend.
In the end, however, these efforts may not have been enough to overcome sharply negative campaigning from the Clinton camp. According to exit polling, a majority of Ohioans thought that Clinton had lobbed unfair attack ads, but in the end, a majority of them sided with her at the polls.
Notably, the Clinton campaign circulated a TV ad known as the "3 am" ad, copied from a 1984 Walter Mondale commercial, which claimed that Obama would not be ready in an international crisis. Obama responded by stating that the 3 am crisis had already come in Iraq in 2003, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain made the wrong choice to go to war.
Voters from union households in Ohio numbered approximately 34 percent and backed Clinton by margins roughly proportional to the statewide totals. Union voters played a huge role in bringing economic issues to the foreground in that state's primary.
Voters who cited the Iraq war as their top concern backed Obama.
One major issue was the role of NAFTA and other free trade deals in decimating Ohio's manufacturing economy. While both candidates pledged to revisit the unpopular trade deal and find ways to prevent it from causing job losses, Obama could not overcome Clinton's claim that members of his campaign told Canadian officials that Obama's views on NAFTA were mere campaign rhetoric.
A report in the Washington Post, Mar. 4, showed that the Feb. 8 meeting between Obama campaign representative Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian consul-general for Chicago actually included a discussion of Obama's goal to revamp NAFTA in favor of the labor and environmental concerns of US workers.
According to the memo released by the Canadian government Goolsbee told the Canadians that they sought to remake the trade deal "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."
Labor and environmental advocates accuse the Clinton administration of sidelining workers' rights and environmental concerns in the original NAFTA negotiations back in the 1990s in order to win Republican backing for the agreement in Congress.
Obama's point that Clinton had long been a supporter of NAFTA until her recent campaigning in Ohio failed to overcome Clinton's spin on the affair as one in which Obama had two views on the subject.
The day before the primaries, Sen. Clinton delivered what many commentators saw as her most controversial argument. On Monday, critics of the Clinton campaign argued that Clinton appeared to endorse John McCain over Obama when she stated, "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House."
Media reports also suggest that when pointedly asked, Clinton failed to denounce strongly false rumors about Obama's religious views, hinting that he might be a closet Muslim.
Negative campaigning in Ohio and Texas helped sway last minute, undecided voters in Clinton's favor, polls showed.
In Texas, Clinton and Obama appeared to split the state's "prima-caucus" system, with a razor-thin victory for Clinton in the primary and a similar advantage for Obama in the caucus, though final tallies in the caucus were not turned in at the time of writing. Vermont fell to Obama by large margins, while in Rhode Island, Clinton held off a last-minute Obama rally.
In her victory speech, Mar. 4, Clinton made an argument for staying in the race despite failing to win by large enough margins to overcome Obama's lead. "We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way. Millions of Americans haven't spoken yet and they want their turn," she told a small but exuberant crowd in Columbus, Ohio.
The Obama campaign downplayed the results. According to it, March 4th saw Clinton's huge February leads in the polls in those four states crumble. Obama supporters claimed a continuing lead in the popular vote for all 41 primaries and caucuses to date, a more than 100-point delegate lead, and victories in 28 states to Clinton's 13.
"Time is running out," said Obama campaign spokesperson David Axelrod. "And at some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee is going to be Barack Obama."
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) managed to stake a claim for staying in the race for the Democratic nomination with a split victory on "crucial Tuesday," Mar. 4, she failed to overcome numerical odds against her capturing the nomination of that party.
Barack Obama held on to a roughly 100 delegate lead, by most media estimates. But with a mere 600 pledged delegates remaining and both candidates more than 700 away from clinching the majority needed to win, it is increasingly likely that the Democratic nomination will be decided late into the spring and quite possibly by the much maligned superdelegate voting process.
The night began with Obama's 12th straight victory in Vermont, but quickly unraveled from there. Clinton opened an early commanding lead in Ohio that narrowed to a 10-point victory after the votes had been counted.
A ballot shortage in Cleveland-area precincts, an Obama stronghold, sparked some controversy. Though Obama campaign lawyers convinced a judge to keep the polls open an extra hour and a half, no outside estimates exist on how many votes may have been lost in the process.
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who oversees Ohio's controversial elections process and who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, denied that ballot shortages in Cleveland caused lost votes.
Obama's campaign efforts in Ohio included a massive virtual phonebanking effort that claimed to reach more than 1 million voters in Ohio and Texas. Activists from Michigan, West Virginia, and Illinois poured across the border to canvass and turn out the vote.
Hundreds of Obama supporters in Columbus, Ohio staged a march to the polls to participate in the early voting process last weekend.
In the end, however, these efforts may not have been enough to overcome sharply negative campaigning from the Clinton camp. According to exit polling, a majority of Ohioans thought that Clinton had lobbed unfair attack ads, but in the end, a majority of them sided with her at the polls.
Notably, the Clinton campaign circulated a TV ad known as the "3 am" ad, copied from a 1984 Walter Mondale commercial, which claimed that Obama would not be ready in an international crisis. Obama responded by stating that the 3 am crisis had already come in Iraq in 2003, and both Hillary Clinton and John McCain made the wrong choice to go to war.
Voters from union households in Ohio numbered approximately 34 percent and backed Clinton by margins roughly proportional to the statewide totals. Union voters played a huge role in bringing economic issues to the foreground in that state's primary.
Voters who cited the Iraq war as their top concern backed Obama.
One major issue was the role of NAFTA and other free trade deals in decimating Ohio's manufacturing economy. While both candidates pledged to revisit the unpopular trade deal and find ways to prevent it from causing job losses, Obama could not overcome Clinton's claim that members of his campaign told Canadian officials that Obama's views on NAFTA were mere campaign rhetoric.
A report in the Washington Post, Mar. 4, showed that the Feb. 8 meeting between Obama campaign representative Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian consul-general for Chicago actually included a discussion of Obama's goal to revamp NAFTA in favor of the labor and environmental concerns of US workers.
According to the memo released by the Canadian government Goolsbee told the Canadians that they sought to remake the trade deal "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."
Labor and environmental advocates accuse the Clinton administration of sidelining workers' rights and environmental concerns in the original NAFTA negotiations back in the 1990s in order to win Republican backing for the agreement in Congress.
Obama's point that Clinton had long been a supporter of NAFTA until her recent campaigning in Ohio failed to overcome Clinton's spin on the affair as one in which Obama had two views on the subject.
The day before the primaries, Sen. Clinton delivered what many commentators saw as her most controversial argument. On Monday, critics of the Clinton campaign argued that Clinton appeared to endorse John McCain over Obama when she stated, "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House."
Media reports also suggest that when pointedly asked, Clinton failed to denounce strongly false rumors about Obama's religious views, hinting that he might be a closet Muslim.
Negative campaigning in Ohio and Texas helped sway last minute, undecided voters in Clinton's favor, polls showed.
In Texas, Clinton and Obama appeared to split the state's "prima-caucus" system, with a razor-thin victory for Clinton in the primary and a similar advantage for Obama in the caucus, though final tallies in the caucus were not turned in at the time of writing. Vermont fell to Obama by large margins, while in Rhode Island, Clinton held off a last-minute Obama rally.
In her victory speech, Mar. 4, Clinton made an argument for staying in the race despite failing to win by large enough margins to overcome Obama's lead. "We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way. Millions of Americans haven't spoken yet and they want their turn," she told a small but exuberant crowd in Columbus, Ohio.
The Obama campaign downplayed the results. According to it, March 4th saw Clinton's huge February leads in the polls in those four states crumble. Obama supporters claimed a continuing lead in the popular vote for all 41 primaries and caucuses to date, a more than 100-point delegate lead, and victories in 28 states to Clinton's 13.
"Time is running out," said Obama campaign spokesperson David Axelrod. "And at some point, the party is going to coalesce around the nominee, and the nominee is going to be Barack Obama."
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Clinton, Obama: Who Wins, Who Loses?
By Joe Sims
This has been such an incredible election, a delightfully rich laboratory of the dialectics of real life. It has caused everyone, politicians, pundits, pollsters, political pros, (and not a few pompous prudes) to look again and again at everything in a new light. Once you think you figured it out, something goes boom! And it’s changed again causing consternation in some, palpitations in others, and among many much delight.
Well folks, it’s changed again. A few weeks ago, the spin on the Democratic campaign was that even if Senator Obama of Illinois wins, he loses. This, due to the mainstream press’s attempt to paint him as the "Black" candidate. Near universal African American support, it was argued (and hoped) would narrow his support, warding off the growing coalescence of a multi-class, multi-racial anti-right wing coalition. Obama’s winning of the South Carolina campaign in particular, would precipitate his losing elsewhere. Well, the opposite happened. Due to the ugly hard ball politics and the injection of hate into the campaign beginning in New Hampshire, voter disgust with such tactics turned everything on its head and groundswell of support buoyed the hopes of the Illinois freshman with 11 straight victories.
Now on the morning of the March 4th primaries, things have changed so much that the Obama campaign is able to argue that even if he loses, he still wins. A campaign memo issued yesterday, suggested that Senator Obama’s lead in delegates is so great that his New York rival, Senator Clinton unless she wins a landslide victory in Texas and Ohio, cannot possibly catch up. The Obama camp is now contending there is no credible path for the Clinton campaign to clinch the nomination.
The Clinton’s however, may not be interested in a "credible path" given the renewed negative tactics utilized by their camp in the last two weeks. Judging by the headlines in this morning’s papers, the ruling class mass media, may not be interested in credible path either. A week ago the conventional wisdom was that Mrs. Clinton needed big victories in Ohio and Texas to sustain her campaign. However, in the small hours, something shifted. Now, a number of papers are arguing that a victory, even a small one, in either Ohio or Texas will "lift " her campaign to new heights. Momentum, according to other headlines is now hers.
Can you imagine such a scenario occurring if Obama has lost 11 straight times by margins of 20 percent or more?
No matter. Today’s election is in the hands of the working class and people of Ohio, Texas, New Hampshire and Vermont. By the way, they are Black, Brown, Asian and white (All that "blue collar white voter" nonsense in the press is driving me crazy. In all of these states, high turnouts bode well for a continuation of the recent weeks trends.
ps
In Ohio, from where I stopped for a few days over the weekend, the election began last week with huge crowds voting early. In Youngstown, campaign committees from both the peace movement and Obama campaigns knocked twice on the door to insure that early voting occurred. Senator Clinton effort consisted in one robo-call that prevented one from hanging up until the message was finished. The Youngstown Vindicator’s (a conservative rag) Sunday front page headline rang: "Working C lass will Determine Victory." The Vindicator? Things sure are changing in America.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
This has been such an incredible election, a delightfully rich laboratory of the dialectics of real life. It has caused everyone, politicians, pundits, pollsters, political pros, (and not a few pompous prudes) to look again and again at everything in a new light. Once you think you figured it out, something goes boom! And it’s changed again causing consternation in some, palpitations in others, and among many much delight.
Well folks, it’s changed again. A few weeks ago, the spin on the Democratic campaign was that even if Senator Obama of Illinois wins, he loses. This, due to the mainstream press’s attempt to paint him as the "Black" candidate. Near universal African American support, it was argued (and hoped) would narrow his support, warding off the growing coalescence of a multi-class, multi-racial anti-right wing coalition. Obama’s winning of the South Carolina campaign in particular, would precipitate his losing elsewhere. Well, the opposite happened. Due to the ugly hard ball politics and the injection of hate into the campaign beginning in New Hampshire, voter disgust with such tactics turned everything on its head and groundswell of support buoyed the hopes of the Illinois freshman with 11 straight victories.
Now on the morning of the March 4th primaries, things have changed so much that the Obama campaign is able to argue that even if he loses, he still wins. A campaign memo issued yesterday, suggested that Senator Obama’s lead in delegates is so great that his New York rival, Senator Clinton unless she wins a landslide victory in Texas and Ohio, cannot possibly catch up. The Obama camp is now contending there is no credible path for the Clinton campaign to clinch the nomination.
The Clinton’s however, may not be interested in a "credible path" given the renewed negative tactics utilized by their camp in the last two weeks. Judging by the headlines in this morning’s papers, the ruling class mass media, may not be interested in credible path either. A week ago the conventional wisdom was that Mrs. Clinton needed big victories in Ohio and Texas to sustain her campaign. However, in the small hours, something shifted. Now, a number of papers are arguing that a victory, even a small one, in either Ohio or Texas will "lift " her campaign to new heights. Momentum, according to other headlines is now hers.
Can you imagine such a scenario occurring if Obama has lost 11 straight times by margins of 20 percent or more?
No matter. Today’s election is in the hands of the working class and people of Ohio, Texas, New Hampshire and Vermont. By the way, they are Black, Brown, Asian and white (All that "blue collar white voter" nonsense in the press is driving me crazy. In all of these states, high turnouts bode well for a continuation of the recent weeks trends.
ps
In Ohio, from where I stopped for a few days over the weekend, the election began last week with huge crowds voting early. In Youngstown, campaign committees from both the peace movement and Obama campaigns knocked twice on the door to insure that early voting occurred. Senator Clinton effort consisted in one robo-call that prevented one from hanging up until the message was finished. The Youngstown Vindicator’s (a conservative rag) Sunday front page headline rang: "Working C lass will Determine Victory." The Vindicator? Things sure are changing in America.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Rhode Island's Role
By Sue Webb
Residents here in the tiny state of Rhode Island are somewhat surprised that they could help determine the Democratic presidential nominee, with 21 delegates at stake here on Tuesday. Turnout is expected to be extremely heavy. It's been considered a Clinton stronghold as she has long-standing political connections here and has the backing of most, though not all, of the state's Democratic officialdom in this very Democratic, heavily blue collar, somewhat insular state - seems like lots of people you meet have lived here all their life, and not ventured too far away. She is still ahead in the polls by 8-10 points, but the race has been tightening. One Latino leader said last week the state's Latino communities (about 6 percent of eligible voters) are divided. Clinton and her family have campaigned heavily here, which indicates she is concerned about the race. Hillary was here last week, drawing a crowd of about 2,000, substantial for this little state, similar to the numbers drawn by Michelle Obama a couple weeks ago. This week Bill was here, and then Chelsea. But today Obama drew at least 10,000 to a rally organized in just a couple of days, with at least 5,000 jammed inside and another 5,000 outside under umbrellas in the rain. One blog commenter said it tied for the largest rally ever in RI (don't know what the largest was...). On the evening news, a local NBC reporter said he'd "never seen anything like it before.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Residents here in the tiny state of Rhode Island are somewhat surprised that they could help determine the Democratic presidential nominee, with 21 delegates at stake here on Tuesday. Turnout is expected to be extremely heavy. It's been considered a Clinton stronghold as she has long-standing political connections here and has the backing of most, though not all, of the state's Democratic officialdom in this very Democratic, heavily blue collar, somewhat insular state - seems like lots of people you meet have lived here all their life, and not ventured too far away. She is still ahead in the polls by 8-10 points, but the race has been tightening. One Latino leader said last week the state's Latino communities (about 6 percent of eligible voters) are divided. Clinton and her family have campaigned heavily here, which indicates she is concerned about the race. Hillary was here last week, drawing a crowd of about 2,000, substantial for this little state, similar to the numbers drawn by Michelle Obama a couple weeks ago. This week Bill was here, and then Chelsea. But today Obama drew at least 10,000 to a rally organized in just a couple of days, with at least 5,000 jammed inside and another 5,000 outside under umbrellas in the rain. One blog commenter said it tied for the largest rally ever in RI (don't know what the largest was...). On the evening news, a local NBC reporter said he'd "never seen anything like it before.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Definitive Blog on Primary Election
by John Wojcik
This post considers only the narrow issue of who is going to get the Democratic nomination. It does not pretend to be balanced. It is, however, absolutely certain, scientific, factual and free of any wishful or subjective thinking whatsoever!
Wisconsin was Hillary Clinton’s Waterloo, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Barack Obama is the frontrunner, unequivocally.
He is only ONE MORE VICTORY AWAY from clinching the deal.
A victory in EITHER Ohio or Texas will more likely than not force Clinton out of the race.
A victory in both will absolutely force her out.
These conclusions are supported by the following facts:
Obama is on an incredible winning streak, as we know – ten to nothing since Super Tuesday. All of the victories were huge blow outs.
The Wisconsin victory by 17 points was actually his poorest showing since Super Tuesday. With poor showings like that, who needs strong ones?
He’s gone from a narrow pledged delegate lead and overall delegate deficit on Feb. 6 to what is unarguably an insurmountable 150 plus pledged delegate lead.
If you factor in the superdelegates, he’s still ahead by 80.
All signs point to the superdelegate gap closing perhaps as early as the end of next week. By March 4 he is likely to gain 25 or more superdelegates. (This is a reasonable, conservative estimate.)
We can expect that Clinton will pick up almost no super delegates between now and March 4 and that some of the ones she now has may also switch to Obama.
The only thing that could propel Clinton to the nomination is if Obama makes a bunch of mistakes or some huge mistake that makes him unelectable. While this is theoretically possible it is scientifically unlikely.
A sustained negative campaign by Clinton is a possibility but will not amount to a winning strategy for Clinton. Clinton cannot damage Obama to the extent that she would have to without damaging herself politically, in the Senate and for the future. She is not suicidal.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
This post considers only the narrow issue of who is going to get the Democratic nomination. It does not pretend to be balanced. It is, however, absolutely certain, scientific, factual and free of any wishful or subjective thinking whatsoever!
Wisconsin was Hillary Clinton’s Waterloo, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Barack Obama is the frontrunner, unequivocally.
He is only ONE MORE VICTORY AWAY from clinching the deal.
A victory in EITHER Ohio or Texas will more likely than not force Clinton out of the race.
A victory in both will absolutely force her out.
These conclusions are supported by the following facts:
Obama is on an incredible winning streak, as we know – ten to nothing since Super Tuesday. All of the victories were huge blow outs.
The Wisconsin victory by 17 points was actually his poorest showing since Super Tuesday. With poor showings like that, who needs strong ones?
He’s gone from a narrow pledged delegate lead and overall delegate deficit on Feb. 6 to what is unarguably an insurmountable 150 plus pledged delegate lead.
If you factor in the superdelegates, he’s still ahead by 80.
All signs point to the superdelegate gap closing perhaps as early as the end of next week. By March 4 he is likely to gain 25 or more superdelegates. (This is a reasonable, conservative estimate.)
We can expect that Clinton will pick up almost no super delegates between now and March 4 and that some of the ones she now has may also switch to Obama.
The only thing that could propel Clinton to the nomination is if Obama makes a bunch of mistakes or some huge mistake that makes him unelectable. While this is theoretically possible it is scientifically unlikely.
A sustained negative campaign by Clinton is a possibility but will not amount to a winning strategy for Clinton. Clinton cannot damage Obama to the extent that she would have to without damaging herself politically, in the Senate and for the future. She is not suicidal.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Texans do ‘two-step’ on March 4
HOUSTON — Early voting started in Texas last week for the March 4 primary, and votes in the Democratic primaries here in Harris County have already surpassed the total during the early voting period in 2004, according to Beverly Kaufman, Harris County clerk.
Harris County is the third largest county in the country. Houston is the adopted home of former President George H.W. Bush and has been considered a Republican stronghold.
Yet, by Feb. 23, some 38,200 people had voted in the Democratic primary, topping the total 35,381 who voted early in 2004, including Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, fewer than 13,000 Republicans have voted early so far this year.
Texas two-step
Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pushing early voting. Texas has both a primary and a caucus. In the primary, voters elect two-thirds of the state’s 228 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The caucus, held after the primary polls close, selects the remaining one-third. It’s called the Texas Two-Step. Campaigns are hoping voters will go to the primary polls early, cast their ballots — and then focus on going to the caucus.
Obama has closed Clinton’s lead in the polls here. All polls now show them virtually tied. Despite Clinton’s relationships with the Latino communities in Texas, Obama has made significant inroads among Mexican American and Latino voters, who make up close to 40 percent of the state’s population.
In addition, Obama’s campaign has proved skilled at turning out its voters for caucuses, something the Clinton camp reportedly worries about.
Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont all go to the polls on March 4. Clinton has to win both Texas and Ohio to remain viable, commentators say.
But that may prove to be too great a feat. Obama came into Texas from a huge victory in Wisconsin, part of a streak of 11 primary/caucus wins in a row. (Americans abroad gave him his eleventh victory.)
Workers issues
Economic issues, immigration, health care and foreign policy, including the Iraq war, are dominating the debate in Texas.
Voters here may have corporate greed on their minds as they consider their primary choices. Last week the Houston Chronicle ran a story on the British Petroleum refinery in Texas City, which has killed more workers than any other in the nation.
Following the catastrophic disaster that killed 15 workers in March 2005 at the Texas City refinery, five more have been killed in BP refineries around the country. Three of those were at the Texas City facility.
Brent Coon, a Beaumont attorney who has represented dozens of families of killed and injured refinery workers, told the Chronicle, “None of these plants are re-investing like they should — production is at an all-time high. They’re pushing the operating envelope at all of these plants, and that makes all of them to some degree time bombs.”
While oil companies put profits before people’s lives, working people and their families are outraged by these unnecessary deaths. That feeling may be spurring the huge voter turnout, analysts say.
Struggle continues on voting rights
Also last week some 2,000 people marched more than seven miles from historically Black Prairie View A&M University to the Waller County Courthouse to demand the right to vote.
Members of the university community were outraged that officials planned for only one polling place in Waller County for early voting. Originally the county planned to have six polling places. Protesters saw it as a blatant attempt to suppress the vote of students who make up a significant portion of the eligible voters in the county. They complained that students at Prairie View A&M have had their voting rights suppressed for decades by Waller County.
Waller County officials were forced under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to add three polling places.
Prairie View Mayor Frank Johnson said, “These are wonderful kids. They are making a statement. Until they spoke up there was only one early voting place in the entire county. They spoke up but everyone is benefiting from what they are doing.”
The county has been notorious for African American voter suppression and has faced numerous lawsuits over the past decades.
A Supreme Court decision as a result of a Prairie View protest more than 30 years ago allows college students to register and vote in communities where they attend school.
November
Texans are looking forward to the November battle as well, where the country will have a chance to deliver a final blow to the far-right Bush administration and clones.
At a recent Obama speech, Texans in the crowd erupted with cheers and laughter when he said, “No matter what, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. I love Texas, but I want y’all to take him back.”
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Harris County is the third largest county in the country. Houston is the adopted home of former President George H.W. Bush and has been considered a Republican stronghold.
Yet, by Feb. 23, some 38,200 people had voted in the Democratic primary, topping the total 35,381 who voted early in 2004, including Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, fewer than 13,000 Republicans have voted early so far this year.
Texas two-step
Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pushing early voting. Texas has both a primary and a caucus. In the primary, voters elect two-thirds of the state’s 228 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The caucus, held after the primary polls close, selects the remaining one-third. It’s called the Texas Two-Step. Campaigns are hoping voters will go to the primary polls early, cast their ballots — and then focus on going to the caucus.
Obama has closed Clinton’s lead in the polls here. All polls now show them virtually tied. Despite Clinton’s relationships with the Latino communities in Texas, Obama has made significant inroads among Mexican American and Latino voters, who make up close to 40 percent of the state’s population.
In addition, Obama’s campaign has proved skilled at turning out its voters for caucuses, something the Clinton camp reportedly worries about.
Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont all go to the polls on March 4. Clinton has to win both Texas and Ohio to remain viable, commentators say.
But that may prove to be too great a feat. Obama came into Texas from a huge victory in Wisconsin, part of a streak of 11 primary/caucus wins in a row. (Americans abroad gave him his eleventh victory.)
Workers issues
Economic issues, immigration, health care and foreign policy, including the Iraq war, are dominating the debate in Texas.
Voters here may have corporate greed on their minds as they consider their primary choices. Last week the Houston Chronicle ran a story on the British Petroleum refinery in Texas City, which has killed more workers than any other in the nation.
Following the catastrophic disaster that killed 15 workers in March 2005 at the Texas City refinery, five more have been killed in BP refineries around the country. Three of those were at the Texas City facility.
Brent Coon, a Beaumont attorney who has represented dozens of families of killed and injured refinery workers, told the Chronicle, “None of these plants are re-investing like they should — production is at an all-time high. They’re pushing the operating envelope at all of these plants, and that makes all of them to some degree time bombs.”
While oil companies put profits before people’s lives, working people and their families are outraged by these unnecessary deaths. That feeling may be spurring the huge voter turnout, analysts say.
Struggle continues on voting rights
Also last week some 2,000 people marched more than seven miles from historically Black Prairie View A&M University to the Waller County Courthouse to demand the right to vote.
Members of the university community were outraged that officials planned for only one polling place in Waller County for early voting. Originally the county planned to have six polling places. Protesters saw it as a blatant attempt to suppress the vote of students who make up a significant portion of the eligible voters in the county. They complained that students at Prairie View A&M have had their voting rights suppressed for decades by Waller County.
Waller County officials were forced under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to add three polling places.
Prairie View Mayor Frank Johnson said, “These are wonderful kids. They are making a statement. Until they spoke up there was only one early voting place in the entire county. They spoke up but everyone is benefiting from what they are doing.”
The county has been notorious for African American voter suppression and has faced numerous lawsuits over the past decades.
A Supreme Court decision as a result of a Prairie View protest more than 30 years ago allows college students to register and vote in communities where they attend school.
November
Texans are looking forward to the November battle as well, where the country will have a chance to deliver a final blow to the far-right Bush administration and clones.
At a recent Obama speech, Texans in the crowd erupted with cheers and laughter when he said, “No matter what, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. I love Texas, but I want y’all to take him back.”
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Ohio union members say it's about jobs
By John Wojcik
In Toledo, Ohio, a 100-year-old plant that makes plumbing fixtures is closing. Two hundred men and women who make $19 an hour at the American Standard plant will be out on the streets.
In the same city, Johnson Controls, which made seats for the vehicles at the Jeep plant, lost its contract to a company in India.
The Ford stamping plant in Toledo’s suburbs, where workers make fenders and dash panels, will close soon.
It is much the same throughout Ohio, which has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. “Manufacturing is getting its head handed to us around here,” said Thomas Joseph, business manger of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50, which represents workers all over northwest Ohio.
The two Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have promised a fight to change this and organized labor in unionized Ohio has jumped into the 2008 elections to push for that change.
Some unions support Obama and others back Clinton. Signs are, however, that labor’s unity on issues will pull all unions together behind the eventual Democratic nominee and that many outside of organized labor will join in.
Infrastructure investment supported by the AFL-CIO could create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Many in Ohio see their state, with a huge reserve of skilled workers, as the perfect place to build an economy based on renewable energy technology.
Toledo itself is a historic center for the glass industry, which could benefit from government-backed efforts to increase the use of solar energy.
The 6-million-member Change to Win federation has endorsed Obama because he says he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Unions see NAFTA, with its lack of decent labor and environmental standards, as responsible for the loss of millions of U.S.
jobs.
The 10-million-member AFL-CIO has not made an endorsement. Some AFL-CIO unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers and the Machinists, are backing Clinton.
Unions have jumped into the Obama and Clinton campaigns because each has called for significant infrastructure investment, development of alternative energy and other green collar jobs and strengthening labor standards for both existing and any future trade agreements.
The AFL-CIO has called for repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, extension of tax cuts to working people and tax credits to help working families pay for college.
Obama and Clinton both support these positions and say government has a responsibility to protect workers who are struggling.
All the unions in Ohio are concerned about the mortgage crisis. In the Toledo area home prices average $100,000, yet the city is in the top 20 in the nation in number of foreclosures.
Obama calls for $10 billion in bonds to help workers avoid foreclosure. He would also give a tax credit to struggling homeowners to cover 10 percent of the interest on their mortgages each year. Clinton would temporarily freeze foreclosures and interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages
John Anklam, 39, is a recently laid off autoworker enrolled in a Teamster-endorsed truck driver training program in Toledo.
“His stand against NAFTA and his inspiring style is why I’m for Obama,” he said. “We need a fair shake and we can’t get it if they can dump us for cheaper labor somewhere else.”
Asked what he would do if Clinton becomes the nominee, Anklam said, “McCain would be a disaster. I’ll support her if that happens. She may not be as exciting but she’s got brains and she’d fight for the jobs.”
Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO political department director, said, “Labor will be united for the election of a pro-worker president in November. The unions will be mobilized on the issues that unite most Americans: an economy that works for all, universal health care, support for the Employee Free Choice Act so that everyone can exercise their right to form a union, and an end to the war in Iraq so that money will be available to rebuild our country.”
At its executive council meeting in San Diego, March 4–6, the federation’s leaders are expected to authorize $54 million for grassroots organizing around the elections. Total spending on 528 races, including presidential, senatorial, congressional and state legislative races and ballot initiatives, is expected to reach $200 million, according to Ackerman.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
In Toledo, Ohio, a 100-year-old plant that makes plumbing fixtures is closing. Two hundred men and women who make $19 an hour at the American Standard plant will be out on the streets.
In the same city, Johnson Controls, which made seats for the vehicles at the Jeep plant, lost its contract to a company in India.
The Ford stamping plant in Toledo’s suburbs, where workers make fenders and dash panels, will close soon.
It is much the same throughout Ohio, which has lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. “Manufacturing is getting its head handed to us around here,” said Thomas Joseph, business manger of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50, which represents workers all over northwest Ohio.
The two Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have promised a fight to change this and organized labor in unionized Ohio has jumped into the 2008 elections to push for that change.
Some unions support Obama and others back Clinton. Signs are, however, that labor’s unity on issues will pull all unions together behind the eventual Democratic nominee and that many outside of organized labor will join in.
Infrastructure investment supported by the AFL-CIO could create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Many in Ohio see their state, with a huge reserve of skilled workers, as the perfect place to build an economy based on renewable energy technology.
Toledo itself is a historic center for the glass industry, which could benefit from government-backed efforts to increase the use of solar energy.
The 6-million-member Change to Win federation has endorsed Obama because he says he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Unions see NAFTA, with its lack of decent labor and environmental standards, as responsible for the loss of millions of U.S.
jobs.
The 10-million-member AFL-CIO has not made an endorsement. Some AFL-CIO unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers and the Machinists, are backing Clinton.
Unions have jumped into the Obama and Clinton campaigns because each has called for significant infrastructure investment, development of alternative energy and other green collar jobs and strengthening labor standards for both existing and any future trade agreements.
The AFL-CIO has called for repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, extension of tax cuts to working people and tax credits to help working families pay for college.
Obama and Clinton both support these positions and say government has a responsibility to protect workers who are struggling.
All the unions in Ohio are concerned about the mortgage crisis. In the Toledo area home prices average $100,000, yet the city is in the top 20 in the nation in number of foreclosures.
Obama calls for $10 billion in bonds to help workers avoid foreclosure. He would also give a tax credit to struggling homeowners to cover 10 percent of the interest on their mortgages each year. Clinton would temporarily freeze foreclosures and interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages
John Anklam, 39, is a recently laid off autoworker enrolled in a Teamster-endorsed truck driver training program in Toledo.
“His stand against NAFTA and his inspiring style is why I’m for Obama,” he said. “We need a fair shake and we can’t get it if they can dump us for cheaper labor somewhere else.”
Asked what he would do if Clinton becomes the nominee, Anklam said, “McCain would be a disaster. I’ll support her if that happens. She may not be as exciting but she’s got brains and she’d fight for the jobs.”
Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO political department director, said, “Labor will be united for the election of a pro-worker president in November. The unions will be mobilized on the issues that unite most Americans: an economy that works for all, universal health care, support for the Employee Free Choice Act so that everyone can exercise their right to form a union, and an end to the war in Iraq so that money will be available to rebuild our country.”
At its executive council meeting in San Diego, March 4–6, the federation’s leaders are expected to authorize $54 million for grassroots organizing around the elections. Total spending on 528 races, including presidential, senatorial, congressional and state legislative races and ballot initiatives, is expected to reach $200 million, according to Ackerman.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A Great Day in Connecticut
By Joelle Fishman
Super Duper Tuesday was a great day in Connecticut. The overall Democratic turnout was very large. There were thousands of people who registered for the first time or switched from unaffiliated to Democrat, most of those wanted to vote for Barak Obama.
The Obama campaign was only two weeks long. Obama carried the state although Clinton was 20 points ahead in the polls when the Obama campaign got underway.
Special features include the experience within Connecticut with the Ned Lamont campaign for US Senate in 2006. The main way that vote was organized was utilizing outreach to "family, friends and neighbors," so when the Obama campaign came in with that strategy lots of people were ready to go. The Obama victory depended on New Haven which is the one out of three large cities that has the largest turnout in general elections.
The dominant union in New Haven is UNITE HERE, which endorsed Obama. The three largest unions in Connecticut endorsed Clinton, some campaigned more than others, but all unions have been in accord to come together for November. In New Haven, the UNITE HERE unions have lots of experience in local elections, and it really paid off! The endorsements of Obama by three Congresspersons and the Mayor of New Haven among others were very important to the victory. Also in New Haven, many Yale students became involved, some had volunteered in New Hampshire and were determined that in Connecticut Obama would win.
Another important boost was the giant Obama rally at the Hartford XL Center the night before election day. About 20,000 people turned out and came home committed to do their part to get out the vote! Clinton had also held a large rally a week earlier.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Super Duper Tuesday was a great day in Connecticut. The overall Democratic turnout was very large. There were thousands of people who registered for the first time or switched from unaffiliated to Democrat, most of those wanted to vote for Barak Obama.
The Obama campaign was only two weeks long. Obama carried the state although Clinton was 20 points ahead in the polls when the Obama campaign got underway.
Special features include the experience within Connecticut with the Ned Lamont campaign for US Senate in 2006. The main way that vote was organized was utilizing outreach to "family, friends and neighbors," so when the Obama campaign came in with that strategy lots of people were ready to go. The Obama victory depended on New Haven which is the one out of three large cities that has the largest turnout in general elections.
The dominant union in New Haven is UNITE HERE, which endorsed Obama. The three largest unions in Connecticut endorsed Clinton, some campaigned more than others, but all unions have been in accord to come together for November. In New Haven, the UNITE HERE unions have lots of experience in local elections, and it really paid off! The endorsements of Obama by three Congresspersons and the Mayor of New Haven among others were very important to the victory. Also in New Haven, many Yale students became involved, some had volunteered in New Hampshire and were determined that in Connecticut Obama would win.
Another important boost was the giant Obama rally at the Hartford XL Center the night before election day. About 20,000 people turned out and came home committed to do their part to get out the vote! Clinton had also held a large rally a week earlier.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Missouri: Labor Up Front For Obama
by Tony Pecinovsky
History was made in Missouri (and around the country) yesterday. With a margin of less than 5,000 votes Barack Obama won Missouri's democratic primary.
I hope I'm not over emphasizing the significance if this, but only one candidate in U.S. History has won the presidency without winning MO. So the odds are on Obama's
side.
Currently, Obama has also won Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah.
While Hillary Clinton won large chunks of delegates in New York, Massachusetts and California, Obama was able to garner enough votes in middle America to almost tie Clinton on delegates.
Excitement is in the air here. Students, trade unionists, peace activists, and the African American community are rejoicing. Obama's call for change resonated loud and clear, especially in Missouri's urban centers – St. Louis and Kansas City.
While rural voters predominantly voted for Clinton, it was the African American, working class, urban core that put Obama over the top. With the help of a number of unions and community groups, including the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU), the Service Employees Union (SEIU) and UNITE-HERE, Obama was able to mobilize the core of MO's progressive forces and put a dent in the Clinton election machine.
With more primaries still to come, this race is too close to call.
Missouri voters are also gearing up for another struggle. Right-wing, west-coast millionaire Ward Connerly and his financial backers are attempting put an anti-affirmative action ballot imitative on the MO ballot this November. Deceptively called the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, they need to collect 140,000 valid signatures in eight different congressional districts before May.
Jobs with Justice, ACORN and the WeCan Coalition (Working to Empower Community Action Now), mobilized close to 100 volunteers state-wide and did voter education work at over 200 polling locations yesterday to try to stop this anti-affirmative action initiative from getting on the ballot.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
History was made in Missouri (and around the country) yesterday. With a margin of less than 5,000 votes Barack Obama won Missouri's democratic primary.
I hope I'm not over emphasizing the significance if this, but only one candidate in U.S. History has won the presidency without winning MO. So the odds are on Obama's
side.
Currently, Obama has also won Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah.
While Hillary Clinton won large chunks of delegates in New York, Massachusetts and California, Obama was able to garner enough votes in middle America to almost tie Clinton on delegates.
Excitement is in the air here. Students, trade unionists, peace activists, and the African American community are rejoicing. Obama's call for change resonated loud and clear, especially in Missouri's urban centers – St. Louis and Kansas City.
While rural voters predominantly voted for Clinton, it was the African American, working class, urban core that put Obama over the top. With the help of a number of unions and community groups, including the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU), the Service Employees Union (SEIU) and UNITE-HERE, Obama was able to mobilize the core of MO's progressive forces and put a dent in the Clinton election machine.
With more primaries still to come, this race is too close to call.
Missouri voters are also gearing up for another struggle. Right-wing, west-coast millionaire Ward Connerly and his financial backers are attempting put an anti-affirmative action ballot imitative on the MO ballot this November. Deceptively called the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, they need to collect 140,000 valid signatures in eight different congressional districts before May.
Jobs with Justice, ACORN and the WeCan Coalition (Working to Empower Community Action Now), mobilized close to 100 volunteers state-wide and did voter education work at over 200 polling locations yesterday to try to stop this anti-affirmative action initiative from getting on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)