Mere Words

Yesterday, I brought you a snippet from an interview with Dick Cheney regarding the Iraq war. Here’s a refresher:

“Q Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So?”

Today, the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was questioned by Helen Thomas over Cheney’s blatant disregard for the opinion of the public.

“Q Let’s set aside the meaning of the word “so” for a second, and get to something the Vice President then said… is the Vice President saying it really doesn’t matter what the American public thinks about the war?

MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying… what he went on to say is that President should not make decisions based on polls. And we fully recognize that people across America are unhappy with the war; possibly they didn’t agree with the decision in the first place…

But what the President has said is that while people might not like the decisions that he makes, he has to do what he thinks is right for the country, and he cannot try to chase an opinion poll and try to make things better that way. “

The president can’t make decisions based on what people want done in Washington! His opinion is all that matters!

Q …There is the impression that the Vice President doesn’t care about what the American people think in policy like that. Is that a wrong impression? And does the President share that impression?

MS. PERINO: I think that is the wrong impression. I think that the Vice President and the President both, together, all of us across the administration, would like for people to support the President’s decisions. We realize that that’s unrealistic, especially in a time of war — and in particular this war. And while we’re not able to change public opinion, we also have to follow a principle and stand on principle. And you have to ask yourself, what kind of a person do you want in the Oval Office?

So we believe that the President stood on his principle. He hasn’t chased public opinion polls. He’s aware of them, but he hasn’t made decisions because of them….”

President Bush wishes people would agree with him, but since they don’t he thinks its best just to ignore them.

“Q The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you’re saying they have no say in this war?

MS. PERINO: I didn’t say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected –

Q Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.

MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.”

What Ms. Perino has said is that Americans get their voices heard once every 4 years, and a dictatorship the rest. That sounds like a democracy, doesn’t it?

“MS. PERINO: And we listen to different points of view. The President, in fact, had many meetings with members of Congress leading up to his decision about the surge.

Q Isn’t this supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people?

MS. PERINO: I would submit to you that people across America, if asked what type of a President do you want: one that stands on principle or that one that chases polls? And I think that they would want one who stands on principle.

I would submit to Ms. Perino that people across America, if asked, would want a President that listens to what they want and crafts his policy accordingly. Americans would want the true reason behind a war, and to not be misled with false accusations of WMD’s.

Americans want a president who cares more about fixing problems today, than how historians will view him years from now. They want one who is worried about providing a leg up for the poor and disenfranchised, not giving tax cuts to the top 1%. We want a president who listens voice of the populace, not one hitting the mute button.

Helen Thomas asks one last question before Dana brushes her off and moves on. I think its a question a lot of Americans are starting to ask. When they go to the polls in November, they will demand an answer…

“Q What’s the principle of going to war against the people who did nothing to us?”

Today is the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war.

Earlier today on Good Morning America, the Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed regarding economic policies, the upcoming election, and finally the war in Iraq. Throughout the interview Cheney showed once again why only 31% of Americans think George W. Bush is doing a good job. He spewed the same tired lines and showed his total disregard for anyone who disagrees with him. I would like to share just one exchange when he and Martha Raddatz were discussing the Iraq war:

Q Two-thirds of Americans say it was not worth fighting.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: They ought to go spend time, like you and I have, Martha. You know what’s been happening in Iraq. You’ve been there as much as anybody. There has, in fact, been fundamental change and transformation, and improvement for the better. I think even you would admit that.

Q Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So?

Q So — you don’t care what the American people think?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. And that’s victory in Iraq, that’s the establishment of a democracy where there’s never been a democracy, it’s the establishment of a regime that respects the rights and liberties of their people, as an ally for the United States in the war against terror, and as a positive force for change in the Middle East. That’s a huge accomplishment.

Martha: So, Dick, two thirds of Americans think we shouldn’t be wasting our soldiers lives.
Cheney: Who cares? They don’t matter…

The vice president said that the majority opinion of Americans does not matter. Nearly two years of majority dissent is a “polling fluctuation”. The Iraq War is comparable to the Civil War. The Bush presidency is comparable to the Lincoln presidency. How much more ludicrous can you get?

Thank god we have only a few months until they are gone…

Lately, I have been hearing a lot about the importance of experience when choosing a president. Lets have a mock election, shall we?

In one corner, we have the experienced Democratic nominee. Weighing in with over 20 years in Washington politics, he knows how the game is played. He has spent 10 years in the House, 10 years in the Senate, and 4 years as the Secretary of State, just to name a few of his credentials. Watch out for his mighty right hook of political expertise.

And in the other corner, we have our green Republican nominee. With only 8 years in the Illinois state legislature, two years in the House, and a few years as an attorney, this candidate is an experiential lightweight.

Who did you choose? If you chose the Democratic nominee with all the experience, congratulations! You have chosen James Buchanan, who most historians rank as the second worst president, losing only to Warren G. Harding.

If you picked the Republican nominee with very little experience in the realm of American government, kudos! You have chosen Abraham Lincoln, who most historians rate as the greatest president ever.

Other presidents with little experience in government ranked in the Top 10 Presidents include: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Obviously, experience is not always needed to make a great President. Experience doesn’t guarantee a great President. Sometimes, the more important qualities are vision, rhetorical skill, and the ability to bring people together from both sides of the aisle. These were all qualities Lincoln possessed.

A common concern with Barack Obama is that he does not have the experience required to be President. I think that he has a lot of common with our greatest president. Both practiced as a private attorney, served in the Illinois legislature, and had only one term in Congress under his belt when he ran for president. Both rose to national prominence after a powerful speech at his parties nominating convention.

Do not be so quick to dismiss Senator Obama since he has not been in politics as long as his competitors. Focus instead on his dreams for this nation, how he plans to achieve true change for our country. Look at his ability as a speaker to make people believe in themselves and their country. Look at his character as a man and record as a citizen. You will not be disappointed.

As of Tuesday March 18, 2008 the race for the Democratic presidential race is as follows*:

Senator Barack Obama: 1613 total delegates, 1404 Pledged, 209 super delegates. Popular votes: 13,230,638

Senator Hillary Clinton: 1493 total delegates, 1249 Pledged, 244 super delegates. Popular votes: 12,518, 824

Pledged delegates are those elected in primaries or caucuses pledged to vote for a candidate. Super delegates are party leaders who are free to chose whichever candidate they want to.

The magic number to win the nomination is 2,024 delegates

There are 907 delegates outstanding, 566 pledged delegates, and 341 super delegates.

What does all this mean?

Well, Obama is the clear front-runner leading Hillary by 120 total delegates. His path to the nomination will be much easier than Hillary’s. To secure the nomination, Barack only needs to win 412 of the total remaining delegates, or 45%. Hillary would need to win by a margin of 56% or greater.

Total delegates do not really tell the whole story. Many party leaders, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, say that the super delegates should and will follow the will of the voters. This means whichever candidate has a majority of the pledged delegates going into the Democratic convention will be the candidate the super delegates throw their support behind.

In that case, what does Clinton have to do to take the lead in pledged delegates?

As of 3/18 Barack will have a 155 pledged delegate lead going into the Pennsylvania primary. With only 566 pledged delegates to be assigned in the 9 remaining primaries and caucuses, Senator Clinton has an uphill battle if she plans to take the lead. To take a majority, Hillary would need to win each state by a 64% margin. Hillary has only won one state with a 60% margin or better, Arkansas, which she won 70-30. She has only won 6 primaries by a margin of 55% or better**. Clearly, without a major shift Hillary will not be able to end the primary season with more pledged delegates than Obama.

Thus, the only likely way Hillary Clinton could win the nomination would be by the super delegates going against the will of the people. Barack Obama will have won more states, more popular votes, and more pledged delegates.

So, what effect will Senator Clinton’s remaining in the race have on the general election in November against John McCain?

There are two potential scenarios. Either Hillary secures the nomination via a coup by the super delegates, or Hillary remains in the race until the convention but Obama still wins.

In the first scenario, the super delegates will have snubbed the millions of voters who supported Obama. Many of his core supporters have said they would not vote or would vote for John McCain in the general election if Obama lost the nomination due to super delegates.

The feeling many primary voters would have would be extremely similar to that of Gore supporters in 2000 when he won the popular vote but lost the general election. They would feel disenfranchised and disgusted with the entire system. Many of Obama’s supporters are first time voters who are drawn to the polls by his call for change.

In the second scenario, Obama will still win the nomination after the weeks of campaigning leading up the Democratic National Convention in August. Instead of focusing on Senator John McCain and winning the general election, Obama will have to combat attacks from Hillary. Instead of allowing Obama the time to solidify support within his party, as McCain is doing now, Clinton will continue to divide the party between both candidates. Come November, Obama will be a weaker candidate due to being sniped at from all sides. With the last couple elections being won by a slim majority of votes in swing states like Florida, the longer the the race drags on, the harder for a Democratic win in December.

No matter which way you look at it, Hillary remaining in the race will be bad for the Democratic Party. If she truly wanted a Democrat in office next January, she would recognize the writing on the wall and drop out of the race. If she truly desired an opportunity to change our health care system, find an exit strategy for Iraq, and fix our ailing economy, she would return to the Senate as a powerful leader and force for change.

*All the math does not include Florida or Michigan since currently there is no plan in place to have their delegates count.

** Those primaries are: Massachusets (56%), New York (57%), Oklahoma (55%), Rhode Island (58%), and American Samoa (57%).