Politics Free Post 16 Feb. 2008

Workout notes 17 outside 3:47 via: Boredom via Broadway until mile 10, then Forest Hill to Prospect to Glen Oak Park; one lap in upper Glen Oak, out past the playground to the road that runs past Woodruff High School, to Madison (Steamboat) to Hamilton, down to the Gateway building, along Water street/trail up to Kumpf then back to MLK, up to Moss, then to Cooper.

After that, I did 3 on the treadmill in 37 minutes.

The outside part had pretty good footing; the part along Grandview was quicker as I caught up to some slower runners; one was a cute lady in clingy spandex tights.

It was 19 F when I started and above freezing when I finished. I didn’t drink a drop while walking outside but had to use the bathroom twice en route and once prior to getting on the treadmill. The cold air really activates my kidneys!

Boxing: I watched Delvin Rodriguez beat Troy Browning in 10 rounds. Browning is 41 years old and trains after he finishes his route on the garbage truck; I really like this guy. But at 41, he was simply not quick enough to stay with the tall, lean Rodriguez who beat him to the punch all day long. Rodriguez won every round on every judge’s scorecard save one round for one judge. Terry Alas had it 98-92, which I thought was about right.

For the Fight News Report, click here.

I had watched Browning upset an up and coming fighter a few months earlier.

Friday Politics 15-02-08

Workout notes I got up late, and did my workout in an unusual order: 12.5 bike in 43 minutes, 3 mile walk (24:50 for last 2 miles), then 2000 yards of swimming. Once again, the running didn’t work as I cramped up in the same area.

Currently, I am watching Bill Moyers Journal program, and Susan Jacoby is the guest. It sounds like I would want to read her book.

Politics:

What a stark contrast. This is sort of like comparing old, faded, yellow black and white versus high definition technicolor.

Note: Obama has a response to the ad that Clinton aired in Wisconsin.

Nice!

What are the campaigns themselves saying?

This is a Clinton letter:

Dear ollie,
You can make the difference for Hillary

When the bright lights are off and the speeches are over, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up and deliver solutions?

Americans need solutions to the challenges they face every single day, and they are depending on us to deliver them. I’m in this race to make a real difference in people’s lives, but first I need you to help me win.

Critical primaries are approaching, and I need your help now in this neck-and-neck race for the nomination.

Contribute now to help us prepare for the next round of primaries.

The story of this campaign is your story. It’s the story of hundreds of thousands of people who have contributed to this campaign.

It’s the story of how grassroots supporters came through at the exact right moment — when I needed you the most. I can’t tell you what you’ve meant to me.

You’ve made the difference for me all along, and now I need you again. There’s never been a race for the nomination this close, and what you do right now could be the deciding factor in this race.

Contribute today and help me win.

Every day on the campaign trail, I talk with people who know how important the result of this race is for themselves and their families.

I promise you this: I will do everything in my power to wage a strong campaign worthy of you and all those who are rallying to our cause.

Sincerely,

Hillary
Hillary Rodham Clinton

What about Texas? Here is an interesting take on the upcoming Texas primary/caucus; basically 71% of the delegates will be chosen by a regular vote, and 29% by a caucus which meets at 7:15 at the polling places.

The polls vary, but an average of them gives Clinton about a 6% lead over Obama. This diary (by kubla000) gives you a ton of statistics on the Texas race, and notes that Obama leads in Central Texas and in Houston, is statistically tied in Dallas/Fort Worth, and Clinton leads in East, West and South Texas (via the Burnt Orange Report)

Obama is the best candidate for atheists. No, this is not something he’d want to hear. Sorry; I support you anyway; here is one reason why:

Of course, non-religious people are a sizable percentage of the population (though we do not vote as a bloc). And, yes, it would be wonderful if candidates made more mention of non-religious Americans. But what is more important: Having a candidate share our values or having a candidate make a special outreach to atheist voters? I really don’t care about the latter if the former is taking place.

Johnson says she wants a candidate who will defend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Just for the record, here’s Barack Obama:

For one, [conservative leaders] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Johnson says she wants a candidate who will appoint judges and justices who will also defend the First Amendment.

Here’s Obama’s smackdown of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Read that and then tell me he doesn’t want to appoint judges who respect the First Amendment.

Johnson says she wants a candidate who will support the teaching of Evolution in public schools.

Obama said in an interview that “Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.”

Johnson goes on to talk about a president who won’t participate in prayers breakfasts or take the Oath on a Bible… good luck with those. The candidates are religious and they will still be religious when elected. As long as they represent everybody, and are not involved in the government favoring one faith over another or faith over no faith, I’ll live.

No need to sit out the election, though. Obama’s a fine candidate for atheists and theists alike. I haven’t heard him making special accommodations for the Religious Right. I don’t expect to see him changing tradition just to appease us. So long as he makes decisions with everyone in mind and continues to act in a progressive manner like he’s done in the Senate, we’ll be ok.

Amen! (yes, I see the irony).

Bill Clinton: caucus goers don’t need a President.

Of his wife’s recent travails, he said, “the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.”

(An interesting description of caucus voters, and upper-income voters, to say the least.)

Kos gets it right:

Of course, it’s simply not true, but regardless, what is it with the Clintons and their efforts to insult any state or person who didn’t support Hillary?

I sort of expect that sort of thing from any campaign’s most rabid supporters, but this stuff is coming from the candidate herself, from her husband, the former president of the United States, and the campaign’s top leadership. How much more insulting can they get?

p.s. upper-income voters need a president too. Some of them, you know, even care about their country.

p.p.s. Even in many primary states, low income voters still supported Obama over Clinton, like Virginia (62-36, Louisiana (58-36), and Missouri (51-46) to name just three.

I wish they’d stop it and simply admit the real reason for their caucus problem — they didn’t organize and run a national campaign so they’re having trouble winning states without strong Democratic machines to do the heavy lifting for them.

As a consequence, some of the Clinton superdelegates are changing their minds, perhaps as payback for past grievances:

For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.
Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won’t hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.

“If (Barack) Obama continues to win …. the whole raison d’etre for her campaign falls apart and we’ll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship,” said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.

The rats started looking for clear waters when Obama won Iowa, narrowly lost New Hampshire and trounced Clinton in South Carolina before holding his own in last week’s Super Tuesday contests. He won primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia on Tuesday to extend his consecutive win streak to eight.

Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed “superdelegates.”

And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.

Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.

Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.

Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.

Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.

Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.

Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.

Some are donors who paid for the Clintons’ campaigns and his presidential library.

Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? “What,” Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, “isn’t two Cabinet posts enough?”

And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them.

Never count the Clintons out. They are brilliant politicians who defied conventional wisdom countless times in Arkansas and Washington. But time is running out.

Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They’re grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can’t see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.

Clinton strategists are famous for poor-mouthing their own campaign in order to lower expectations, but these advisers have never played such games. They’re legitimate, and legitimately worried.

The fear inside the Clinton camp is that Obama will win Hawaii and Wisconsin next week and head into the March 4 contests for Ohio and Texas with a 10-race winning streak. Her poll numbers will drop in Texas and Ohio, Clinton aides fear, and party leaders will start hankering for an end to the fight. [...]

Wow!

Comic Relief: The Republicans are getting desperate; they have resorted to sending fake bills to people.

Today I received a FINAL NOTICE in the mail from the Republican National Committee. Yes, it looks just like a bill and has a postage paid return envelope. I find this really sad and scary in a number of ways. It’s sad because I’m a Democrat, a delegate to the Maine State Convention for Barack Obama no less. It’s scary because this tactic is reprehensible because it looks like a bill and scares old people and those who are not as savvy to these kinds of tricks into just paying the thing.

Here’s part of the tear off form at the top and the full text of the letter:

FINAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL

2008 SUSTAINING MEMBERSHIP DUES $ ____
ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY DONATION $ ____
TOTAL DONATION ENCLOSED $ ____

Dear Mr. Murphy,

If you have not already done so, it is critical that you
accept your Republican National Committee (RNC) membership
today by rushing in your 2008 Sustaining Membership Dues of
$25.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s fundraising juggernaut is
growing as we speak. She raised more than $100 million in
2007 and is set to raise even more in the coming months before
the election.

But, that’s not all. The Democrats have taken in $100
million more than the Republicans so far. And this doesn’t
even count the $500 million Big Labor, Hollywood elites and
liberal groups like MoveOn.org are planning to spend to defeat
Republicans in 2008.

If we don’t close the fundraising gap with the Democrats,
we will not be able to defend our candidates from their vicious
attacks and outright distortions and get our message past the
liberal media filter directly to the voters.

Your support of our party has never been more important.

Mr. Murphy, the 2008 elections are closing fast, and our
opponents are prepared in every state. The support of good
Republicans like you is vital to victory.

If we are to regain our majorities and continue to control
the White House, we need your support. Quite frankly, we
cannot do that unless you and many others join our RNC team.
That’s why it is crucial that you accept your RNC membership
today.

With your help, Mr. Murphy, we can and will regain our
majorities, retain the White House, and continue to advance our
strong, compassionate, conservative agenda.

Sincerely,

Robert M. “Mike” Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. Won’t you please take a moment and send in your RNC
Sustaining Membership Dues of $25? We need your help
today!